What is democracy anyway?

[Dave2002]

I was sent a link to this - https://blog.ted.com/social-media-is...ks-at-ted2019/

I know there are many on "both sides of ... the argument ..." whatever that is, but time and time again I hear cries of "it's not democratic" - yet that is almost meaningless if we don't know what democracy is. Within the UK one definition is whatever set of rules and procedures we have in place within our pariamentary democracy. Those rules and procedures themselves may not be "democratic" but how could we know? I suspect that when we say that something is "not democratic" some of us mean one or more of the following:

that doesn't correspond to my views

that doesn't reflect my views

I wasn't consulted

it's not fair (either to me, my family or others)

it's not "truly" representative

and then there are other views relating to more materialistic attitudes.

Anyway, I think it's worth watching the TED talk - but you don't have to agree with it.

[Pulcinella]

We currently have a poster up in one of our ground-floor windows.

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
9 Nov 2012
David Davis

[teamsaint]

Sometimes it is easier to say what isn’t rather than what is.

Undemocratic includes a voting system that means that general elections are routinely decided by small groups of swing voters in a modest number of constituencies.

It alao includes undue influence olobbying , and over representation in parliament of particular groups in scociety, the most obvious example being Old Etonians.

[french frank]

that doesn't correspond to my views
that doesn't reflect my views
I wasn't consulted
it's not fair (either to me, my family or others)

It suggests that there are still individuals who think that, out of an electorate (never mind the population) of 46m, government has to act on the views of every individual and in the interests of every individual. They should be kept in and told to write an essay on how that could be done.

it's not "truly" representative

Do they believe that "truly" representative means according to the above cited criteria? Rule by the people for the people ('democracy') worked for small communities in ancient Greece where 'everyone' could participate - except slaves, foreigners and women. And children. Has there ever been a 'perfect' democracy'? And should anyone expect it to be achieved? What is better?

[MrGongGong]

"Democracy" isn't necessarily the best way of making really important decisions
It does seem that it means whatever folks want it to mean and has become rather fetishised these days with the idea that being "anti-democractic" is somehow the most evil thing in the universe.

[Serial_Apologist]

The right to form political parties; for representatives of those parties to stand for electable administrative bodies; and for every individual above an age agreed by law passed by an electable administrative body to vote to admit to, or remove from office, representatives who have the right to campaign in advance for the policies on which they can canvass for election, and to belong to a political party.

I think that just about covers what democracy means, to me at any rate, whether as applied to politicial parties, local authorities, national parliaments, chiefs of police, heads of religious organisations, heads of departments or the boards of company directors.

[Barbirollians]

The right to form political parties; for representatives of those parties to stand for electable administrative bodies; and for every individual above an age agreed by law passed by an electable administrative body to vote to admit to, or remove from office, representatives who have the right to campaign in advance for the policies on which they can canvass for election, and to belong to a political party.

I think that just about covers what democracy means, to me at any rate, whether as applied to politicial parties, local authorities, national parliaments, chiefs of police, heads of religious organisations, heads of departments or the boards of company directors.

It means much more than that to me - as the elective dictatorships of Russia, Turkey etc and I fear increasingly places like Hungary show - no country is a true democracy without full separation of powers - the rule of law , neutral television and radio media and a free press .

I believe that regulation of social media is now also required to ensure democracy.

[Serial_Apologist]

... and a free press.

Hmm - not sure a free press necessarily equates with democracy if it can get away with besmirching people and character defamation without right of reply, which should be as prominently displayed on a newspaper's page as the original, inaccurate assertions - the same principle holding for the supposedly "neutral" broadcasting media in terms of transparency for complainants. I would think it to be possible for a free press to operate under a dictatorship, so long as it was a benevolent, permissive one, as existed under Gorbachev.

[MrGongGong]

I believe that regulation of social media is now also required to ensure democracy.

I remember hearing an outraged MP during the last election campaign railing against the way that "the young" didn't listen to R4 and seemed to get their information elsewhere and NOT from the BBC. The gist was that this really wouldn't do and needs to be stopped.

Having "read" the DM & Express while my tracking was fixed this morning I would say that it's not social media that is the problem.
Maybe we need more media studies rather than regulation ?

[Serial_Apologist]

I remember hearing an outraged MP during the last election campaign railing against the way that "the young" didn't listen to R4 and seemed to get their information elsewhere and NOT from the BBC. The gist was that this really wouldn't do and needs to be stopped.

Listening to Nick "Bug Eyes" Robinson "interviewing" (hectoringly cross-examining, more like) Corbyn-supporting Labour politicians, almost every other edition of Toady on Radio 4 each week, and comparing that with the time of day allowed uninterrupted to pro-Establishment figures - even with the increasingly point-wandering John Humphrys - leads one to doubt any claim as to balance and impartiality in the hands of the Biassed Broadcasting Corporation. Such was the case when the Glasgow Media Organisation began tracking the BBC, back in the 1970s, and found the organisation seriously wanting. It's not that I want those in power with whom I may be strongly in disagreement having the same bullying treatment meted out on them: I want - and we all need - to know what nonsense is being promulgated by those claiming to represent us, so as to be ready and prepared to argue with those credulous souls who seriously believe in the Beeb. And lately it has if anything got even worse, and spread to other of its programmes, such as Question Time, which is now unwatchable for me.

Having "read" the DM & Express while my tracking was fixed this morning I would say that it's not social media that is the problem.
Maybe we need more media studies rather than regulation ?

I think there is however a problem with "hate mail" not being arrested by those who are supposed to oversee Facebook, Twitter and the like, leaving aside the evident addictive properties of these media.

[MrGongGong]

I think there is however a problem with "hate mail" not being arrested by those who are supposed to oversee Facebook, Twitter and the like, leaving aside the evident addictive properties of these media.

Yes indeed
But that's not confined to Social Media
certain "politicians" are able to get away with what amounts to incitement to commit acts of violence

Is Facebook more "addictive" than collecting recordings of a certian piece by Richard Strauss ?

[teamsaint]

Yes indeed
But that's not confined to Social Media
certain "politicians" are able to get away with what amounts to incitement to commit acts of violence

:

And of course many real , actual powerful politicians , with “ mainstream” opinions enable arms sales and acts of violence of a variety of kinds, whilst having a platform in the “ respectable “press, BBC/ ITV etc.

Discontent breeding on social media must be the flip side of that.

[Dave2002]

Having "read" the DM & Express while my tracking was fixed this morning I would say that it's not social media that is the problem.
Maybe we need more media studies rather than regulation ?

At least copies of the various editions of the DM and Express can be obtained and checked. One of the issues raised in the TED talk - if you watch it - is that someone or some organisations paid for targetted adverts/fake news - and it was sent out to individuals. Allegedly FB considers this to be "personal" so requests by authorities and interested organisations trying to monitor what has been distributed are met with refusals. FB does appear to be going rogue - if it was ever otherwise.

[MrGongGong]

FB does appear to be going rogue - if it was ever otherwise.

FB always has been a data mining operation
i'm often surprised at folks who seem to think otherwise (not you !)
Will have a look at the talk...

Some interesting things there. Sadly people in the UK (and elsewhere) seem quite happy to allow dodgy people to stand for parliament regardless of what they have done or said.
We really do need more Media Studies

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Democracy is fluid. Hitler was voted into power democratically, but then went on to suspend democracy. In order to secure democracy, a country needs a well thought out and robust constitution. Ours is relatively weak, relying mostly on precedent. The US constitution is so strong that it’s very difficult to amend and includes things that perhaps shouldn’t be in a constitution, which should be about procedure.

First past the post isn’t representative democracy. That can only be achieved through proportional representation. When was the last time we had a government voted in my a majority of the people? It’s never happened in my lifetime. The 2010 Coalition did, but people didn’t actually vote for a coalition.