The Trouble with Democracy | Dambisa Moyo
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 тра 2018
- What needs to be done to give people more security and a greater say in their political and economic future?
Watch Dambisa Moyo, global economist, in our latest RSA Spotlight - the edits which take you straight to the heart of the event!
SUBSCRIBE to our channel!
Follow the RSA on Twitter: / rsaevents
Like RSA Events on Facebook: / rsaeventsofficial
Listen to RSA podcasts: / the_rsa
See RSA Events behind the scenes: / rsa_events
Were any of these really troubles with Democracy?
They were troubles IN Democratic nations, yes. But they were problems with Judicial systems (non-democratic), Captialism (non-democratic), and such things.
Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία dēmokratía, literally "rule of the people"), in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament.
Democracy is sometimes referred to as "rule of the majority".
Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes.
The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy, which makes all forces struggle repeatedly for the realization of their interests, being the devolution of power from a group of people to a set of rules.
Western democracy, as distinct from that which existed in pre-modern societies, is generally considered to have originated in city states such as Classical Athens and the Roman Republic, where various schemes and degrees of enfranchisement of the free male population were observed, before the form disappeared in the West at the beginning of late antiquity.
The English word dates to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents.
According to political scientist Larry Diamond, democracy consists of four key elements: a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; protection of the human rights of all citizens; a rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.
The term appeared in the 5th century BC, to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens, to mean "rule of the people", in contrast to aristocracy (ἀριστοκρατία, aristokratía), meaning "rule of an elite".
While theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in practice the distinction has been blurred historically.
The political system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic citizenship to free men and excluded slaves and women from political participation.
In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class, until full enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by an individual, as in an absolute monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy.
Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy, are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements.
Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.
Democracy should NOT be conflated with majority rule. Majority rule is ONE of many possible ways of aggregating opinions in a democracy to enact a decision. But it's not the only one, and in fact, since the 1980's mathematicians have shown it's actually anti-democratic.
Majority rule goes against every ideal of democracy. Minorities, by definition, have no say. Any minority opinion is by definition irrelevant, and not-represented.
Only through non-majoritarian decision methods, usually performed by voting, is that you can achieve true democratic principles regarding participation. And there are many non-majoritarian, consent-maximizing voting systems around we could and should be using instead.
Most criticisms of democracy as an ideal in history were actually criticisms of majority rule, specifically. The fact that we conflate the two is the real tragedy here.
People like this speaker need to read up on the Mont Pelerin Society and the long sordid but successful history of the neoliberal thought collective. A good reference is Mirowski's "Never Let a Serious Crises Go to Waste." It will tell, you, among many other things, why you've never experienced democracy, so to fall into the trap of claiming something is wrong with democracy is your only original problem. You have to try true democracy first before you can say what is wrong with it. Models do exist, in small nations and small communities, and in a few global organizations run along democratic principles. Neoliberal think tanks and marketing folks are very adept at making people think they have a democracy when in fact they only have voting for pre-selected candidates, selected not democratically, but by party elites. This is the main reason why there is no democracy world-wide, not just in the USA. To have true democracy one thing you need to do is get rid of all political parties. Belief in the all-knowing power of free markets is another, free markets only work for a few simple commodities. If you love market solutions too much you will always corrupt a democracy. That's because human dignity and justice must stand above market forces and liberal so-called "freedoms" to trade, the freedom from market dictates and the undemocratic tyranny which results is more fundamental than the freedom to buy and sell in the markets. This is why Nestle must be boycotted. Next they will be putting a price on clean air. And think of Uber, they have a market for drivers which is pretty efficient because of elasticity, but the result is impoverished drivers who are living in their cars and near suicidal. If you use Uber you are supporting inhuman work conditions. There is nothing wrong with a bit of inefficiency in the old Taxi industry if it gives drivers a decent living. A democracy values people more than profits. Can you say that ordering of priorities has ever been tried in any modern industrial nation?
Excellent comment. Thank you for taking the time to put these things so clearly. I just wish you had made it in paragraphs.
Bijou Smith Thats the one of the many inherent problems thought. It's too difficult to achieve near perfect democracy hence other poltical systems should be tested instead. If the developed countries like the US struggle to achieve "true" democracy which you state has potential, then how could you possibly expect developing countries to implement "true" democracy?
The diagnosis, while accurate in many ways, is rather pedestrian. It would be more interesting to hear her solution. If it involves, as some reviews of her new book mention, 'weighted voting' then a defence of that idea would've been more interesting to highlight.
I completely agree. From another review:
> "Moyo argues for extending politicians’ terms so as to match better the economic cycles; for increasing minimum qualifications for candidates; for introducing mandatory voting, and for implementing a weighted voting system."
Her proposal for "weighted voting" is actually forcing people to pass a civics test, and having their vote be weighted by its result. People who fail the test don't get to vote.
That is, she believes the solution is to break the core principle of democracy, that everyone's vote is equal.
Do we have to point out how incredibly horrible that is?
People who most desperately need their vote to count are the ones who are less educated and worst-off economically in society. This is only another tool for keeping the political disparity between the poor and the rich, the uneducated and the educated, etc.
I doubt LESS representation for the majority of a population is what we need for fixing democracy. If anything, that's a sign of a democracy that is failing.
Apparently her book offers 10 points, this weighted voting thing is just one of them.
Oh no, I agree, I think it's a bad idea. I just would've found a defence of it, and a more thorough discussion of her solutions, more interesting than a lukewarm recitation of democracy's problems.
Yeah, I know. Sorry if I implied you were defending it. I just had to look it up. I agree with you completely.
Oda, I agree that this problem-focused video does not jive with the header of her slide: 10 ways to fix democracy. How can we address the neo-terrorist ascent of the evil trinity?
1ucasvb I think the most dangerous thing in the world is when human beings become bored. We start looking at things way to critically and think we can fix ourselves, whether you believe in evolution, creation or anything in between. I believe we are flawed creatures and when we try to fix ourselves we only make it worse. I believe the Great American experiment was every single piece of knowledge and wisdom from the old world pooled into one last attempt to make a fair and free Society. All the rest failed the test of time. There is a book written by Mark Twain. A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, it's a very nihilistic but realistic telling of how you can give Humanity every advantage. But we always fail to make the right decision in the end. Over and over history has taught us this, and yet we turned a blind eye to our greatest teacher, Time.
I know this is irrelevant, but her dress is very eye-catching.
so perhaps it was wrong to think of "the ultimate goal" is merely to achieve economic success? hmm... :3
who read this just after the Al Jazeera program now?
Okay, so basically her general view is that Democracy is NOT essential for economic development (check her other videos) and Democracy embraces many problems that hinder econ & social development. Probably it true that democracy is not necessary for economic development. South Korea, Taiwan exemplifies the efficacy of military regime toward econ growth. But Vietnam or the Philippines under Authoritarian regime did not show good econ result during the 1900s.
Literacy rate, women's participation in industry, etc, are some of the important factors for econ development (Cases of S.Korea during the 1960s demonstrate.. Well, other aspects of human dignity were brutally damaged though)
Maybe, maybe... democracy is not necessary for econ development. However, it is necessary for development. We need democracy for development for different pillars of democracy, like ecological, social development.
hmm... it is hard... I am not convinced by myself. Human dignity or right is deeply considered when people are satisfied with basic needs. And the basic needs mostly comes from economic success. And I am saying economic success can come from the non-democratic regime. Then, it is basically directing Authoritarian regime also can facilitate social development.
What the hell is going on?.. hmm
Was she really trying to tie authoritarianism to China's growth at the end of her speech? Surely any global economist would know that the reason China's growth was so much higher than developed countries for the last few decades was almost certainly due to the 'catch-up effect' and nothing at all to do with authoritarianism. Trying to paint it the way she did was completely disingenuous.
in 6 mins from a 1 hour presentation...you were certain in your judgments? ...interesting
Why didn't other developing countires have this catch up effect?
Catching up into first place is pretty damn nice
@@firefly4784
Because the West kept them down and is still keeping them down. China seems to have broken free to a degree of this western neo-colonialism and the neo-imperialist forms of economic, political and military domination that it engenders. Russia likewise.