When does the meaning of Democracy from Aristotle's time changed?
When you look at it closely, Democracy on Aristotle and Plato's time is unorganized and unsystematic, and no country for hopes of having a generally good name to its foreign neighbors would adapt the term.
Going back to the present, we can say that Democracy has really changed way back from Democracy in Aristotle's time. Democracy, today is the in-thing and major powers such as America and most of the EU support it and carry it like some sort of sociopolitical banner.
What gives?
Would the countries fall just like the polis fall when Democracy failed?
Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'll have to disagree with you regarding the previous democracy as "unorganized and unsystematic". For one, they do have an organization - the polis. They also have a system - it's called a direct democracy.
ReplyDeleteThere was really no shift in the definition on democracy. It is simply the shift in method, which I think that you are referring to.
Back then, direct democracy worked because the constituency size was relatively small. The change occurred when the constituency size increased. Of course we cannot guarantee the same transition of power like that of the direct democracy. Because of this, the norm became that we elect representatives on a regular time frame to represent our interests. We now call this process as "representative democracy".
So yeah, there was a transition of method but not a transition of definition. Technically, the ordinary man can still rule. There is still a transition in power. It's just that in the representative democracy, we have to aggregate interests for practicability's sake.
Regarding the issue of "What gives?" for US and EU to spread democracy: Here I insert an opinion. For one, they think that it is the right thing to do. Unlike authoritarian forms of government, the use of force is kept at a minimum and that civil liberties are respected. The reasons can go endless. Whatever the reason is, the bottom line is that the US and EU finds democracy in a favorable manner compared to other forms of government and would want to spread the benefits across other states that have obvious problems in government and governance.
Regarding the last question: No, I don't think they would fall. For one, it is important to look at the context of the previous situation of the polis and the current situation of democracies. There isn't an imminent threat present on democracy considering that most of the people who experience it seem to be enjoying it.
I like the topics that you raise in the blog. For one, there's room for argumentation. Another is that the topic you want to explore is clear. These are the two reasons that would make it easy and fun for me, and I presume everyone else, to respond.
My mistake, it is not the democracy that is unorganized and unsystematic but the decision-making process of the polis or the ecclesia.
ReplyDeleteI think unorganized and unsystematic aren't the right terms that describe what I want to portray. Maybe, scattered or fragmented would fit the bill? But you get my point right? Given that the ecclesia is a congregation of "citizens" residing in the polis, and they all have the right to argue and opine on a certain topic, wouldn't the debate be more scattered than what would the present democracy be? There would be quite a number of nuisance and trash ideas for surely most men in Athens though they're considered wise in their times have their own ego so they would want themselves to be heard by the ecclesia. The ego thing is just an inference though.
-
MOST is really an arguable estimation. We can almost see and hear that people are becoming more weary of the cons that an imperfect representative democracy presents to a society especially in our country. If you believe in social surveys I mean. It's just that these people don't have any share on the political power struggle done in our system like the slaves and the women of Ancient Athens except for elections and people power. Elections can be rigged and votes can be bought. These people are also tired of people power because the system never give them the political and social credit the deserve for their role on the ouster and the construction of a new government. So they suffer in silence and without their noise people thought there is contentment though it is really far from the truth.
and no I'm not a communist, I'm just arguing for the sake of wasting time. :D
-
Thanks. I really liked your answer. It explains a lot.
It is somewhat long sorry for that.
Cheers.
Just an opinion. Democracy is supported by most of the countries because it is a good thing. There is freedom. People are given the rights to vote and to be voted upon.Everyone have the chance to rule. It is true that in our country, political power is still concentrated in the hands of a few and our participation is limited in voting in elections. This leads to passivity. But is it solely the system’s fault when crises arise?
ReplyDeleteI think democracy today is more accepted because of the freedom depicted in it. But which of these countries really practices the "true democracy"?
ReplyDeleteDemocracy is usually depicted to be good. But is it? Is the "many" always right? There were many instances in history where the many were actually wrong.
ReplyDeleteYes, I would have to agree with John. Sometimes "many" is not always good. it sometimes causes a lot of conflict. But it depends on the citizens and the officials if they are able to work harmoniously together, then the city or the state would prosper.
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't think it's a matter of "government" that is being attacked here. All these things about abuse, cheating, majority getting it wrong, etc are a problem of "governance". There is a clear difference between the two terms.
ReplyDeleteI'm willing to go as far as to say all forms of government are good as long as good governance comes along with it.
I agree with Miguel. The real problem is "governance". How people in authority would use their power is the important thing. What the leaders and citizens do is what affects the country.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy isn't supported as such because it is good in a sense that it is morally good but it is supported by many because it carries a good name.
ReplyDeleteIn reality, we would distrust a country offering diplomacy if they state themselves as a fascist or a communist. It's like introducing yourself to those who barely know you. You could introduce yourself as an amiable person (a good thing) and they won't persecute you. You introduce yourself as a chronic liar and they will have a bad impression of you. Taking it on a larger stage, Democracy nowadays almost implies a clean and good state (government) whereas any other forms of government is considered to be too much against rights and such.
On my page, I'm not attacking the government or governance per se but rather I'm exploring the current system, the way we do democracy itself.
ReplyDeleteWhereas true democracy is bad or good, I wouldn't take a side, I would say that our perception of democracy has changed from Plato's time where governance is closely linked to democracy as the actions done by the government were decided through a congregation of citizens.
I'll define system as the mechanism of status quo. The way the society acts through times of peace and times of distress.
Government and governance would always be attacked as systems were attacked because if the system let these rulers to have their ways
then there must be something wrong with the system, maybe the laws have loopholes or the institutions weren't functional or has loose bylaws etc. etc.
Whether a type of government is good or bad will depend on the culture and the system (as I defined) embedded on the minds of the people. Theoretically, even if we would have a good dictator, the Filipinos, being a great lover of freedom, wouldn't unanimously say that being dictated is good.
Cheers.
Still, wouldn't you agree that even if you are under a dictator or under a presidential one, it wouldn't matter if he/she can deliver to you an improved quality of life, proper implementation of laws and economic progress?
ReplyDeleteFreedom can only go so far as your capability to exercise it. It wouldn't be that great if you can't exercise your "freedom to eat" if there's no food on the table.
Then you're attacking them on different levels. I'm always holding them the same. Which is slightly unfair
ReplyDeleteWould you be willing to support a democracy, exercise your "freedom to eat" knowing that there is food on the table or obey a dictator, without "freedom" and die due to starvation or malnutrition etc.?
Back to your question, I dunno. My stomach wouldn't mean anything if the majority were enjoying freedom and pleasure would it? Assuming that the majority would be under the same given situation just as I am and are willing to obey a dictator, would me disagreeing to the majority be heard? You're talking me here, the atomistic me against a society. But to answer your question, I would still go against a dictatorship in my simple ways, no matter how illogical I may seem to you or our classmates because a question in my mind would always bug me. If progress could be achieved in a dictatorship why couldn't it be achieved under the rule of a democratic republic?
Ah, I know the answer. I'll just be a cynic then. A dog's life with no worries.
Cheers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWere shifting to another topic eh?
ReplyDeleteAh no. My understanding of the debate is that, I'm defending all forms of government as long as there is good governance and you're defending a realistic government of a democracy. You can correct me on this, though. This explains my comment. I'm simply reaching out to your standards to have some engagement of premises.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, the rhetorical question goes: Would you rather have a full stomach under a dictator or would you rather starve under a democracy? Just pointing it out. The question assumes that there is a tradeoff for one benefit. Which in this case, is not my main stance: it is good governance on all platforms. I just pointed it out. :p
On your response: it should. Just because a government is elected by a majority, it doesn't follow that the minority / individual should be set aside.
On democracy having the same benefit: yes, it could. It's just that the authoritarian regime can deliver it faster while democracy has to be constrained with bureaucracy and lack of a clear continuity of power.
Yeah, the topic shifted but I call it "elevating the debate". :)