Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
“Majority rule” is a label that does not reflect the essence. Modern democracy is a complex system whose task is to distribute power, authority, and decision-making power. The purpose of elections is to ensure consistency between the development vector and the opinion of the population. This scheme is based on the fact that you can not make mistakes in your wishes – if you want X, then you want X. People are given the right to vote and report their wishes. No one can figure out what they want for them. It doesn't matter if they want it because it's a family tradition, because they're convinced by arguments, or because they're sick of everything else. The presence of feedback between the adoption of laws and the desires of society gives stability, inaccessible to other variants of the social structure. At the same time, the intelligence and education of voters does not play any role, it is not important and this is not why everything is being started. You don't have to be educated to know what you want.
But a certain political culture is needed – awareness of one's role in the process, responsibility for one's life, readiness to defend one's rights. But it is not achieved by education and does not come wisely.
Democracy has long been the power of impersonal structures. In this model, it is not the king who rules, but the throne, not specific people, but the machine, the social institution. It is the machine, and not the group, population, or genus, that is entrusted with routine control functions, where a person is only the operator who serves its work. The effectiveness of democratic institutions and the level of enlightenment of the masses are not directly related.
Animals live by their instincts and reflexes, and so do humans. But unlike animals, humans are still able to live and act according to the rules, sometimes even contrary to their instincts. The ability and desire of people to obey the rules, and not the roar of the leader-leader, depends on the level of his development. In ancient times, people needed a leader, a king, a stronger person who organized them, set the rules, and this was normal. But gradually, humanity matured, although in different ways in each country. In England, the first in the 13th century, they began to limit the power of the king, then by the 18th century they built the first stable legal state, i.e. a state in which the law is the highest legal force, and not the will of the king, with the division of power into 3 independent branches – legislative, judicial and executive, in this order of importance. � � � � � � � � Paraphrasing ancient wisdom, we can say that every nation deserves the democracy that it currently has. In other words, the form of government in any country always corresponds to the level of mental development of the majority, and this is very democratic. But unfortunately, we Russians, for the most part, are infantile, remained in some kind of childhood, still need a strong ploughman who will feed, dress and unfasten when necessary, and having reached power with an animal instinct, we row under ourselves, and the power should be EXACTLY ALL (no independent branches there)
PS We also seem to have rules (the Constitution is there, Federal Law), but purely formally, when someone needs to quickly make changes
Why not? A genius, after all, Ilyich believed that power, ideally, is such a primitive occupation that it does not need to devote more intelligence to it than cooking. And there is a good reason for this. What is there in power that requires a high flight of the mind? The first thing that comes to my mind is cheating. But it is not a necessary attribute of power, but rather an undesirable one.
And there is justice in this: no matter what brilliant idea a clever person comes up with, without the work of hundreds of mediocre people, it has no value.
Good day to all, dear visitors.
Is it right to give power to mediocre people? I don't think so. Imagine if the students in the class would manage the lesson themselves? I think it will be an exotic lesson. The school has a teacher. He leads the lesson, and the students are participants in the process.
This is how monarchies have always been. The sovereign ruled, and his subjects helped. Democracy is not new, but conditions are needed for desmocracy to exist. Most often , it is a small unitary state. Further, education and consciousness of citizens. After all, being a citizen is much more difficult than being a subject of the tsar.
For Russia, the president secretly fulfills the position of tsar, because citizens do not study state life. Yes, and they like to be subjects more.
In the West of the country, it is smaller, and their conditions are different. It's partly a democracy that works there. And in Russia – a presidential republic. For such a large state, something else is probably harmful.
Hello, dear Ladies and Gentlemen!
An interesting discussion of an important issue does not leave me indifferent. I am a teacher, not a political scientist or a politician, but nevertheless I would like to focus on another aspect of the problem under discussion.
What guides a person in their actions? A person has a heart to love, a mind to think, a will to be strong, and a conscience to be honest. If we recall Sigmund Freud, then a person has a war between the Super-Ego (conscience) and It (heart), and the Ego (mind and will) decide which side to be on.
What does democracy have to do with it? Despite the fact that our question is about its expediency and reasonableness. For a person, habits are most often important (habit is second nature), the majority (you must be like everyone else, or you are our enemy) and strength (the strong is always right). You can talk a lot about the development of the individual and society, but most often for the majority to think logically, act fairly, observe etiquette and culture-these are the most unbearable things.
Imagine that one of the most influential politicians starts thinking philosophically and acting honestly and fairly. Very quickly, he will quarrel with everyone around him, his power will be boycotted, and then a different politician will come, just like everyone else.
Imagine a person living near you-honest and polite, holding a high culture and thinking about everything logically and philosophically, and not in the way that is customary in your circle. Everyone will quickly get tired of him, and he will be expelled.
We can talk a lot about logic and justice, but most often we are closer to our habits. We keep friends with those who are stronger (and love those who are). We are annoyed by anyone who differs in their views, habits, or goals from others.
That is, strength, conformity and profit are the basis of all actions of most people. Most often, the motive of actions is personal selfishness. This is either a direct benefit, or pleasing the strong for later saving or increasing benefits. If a person is weak, he can be kicked, insulted, forced: no one will stand up for him. And the strong one will move you if you bring them out.
Remember how Kirila Petrovich Troyekurov and Andrey Gavrilovich Dubrovsky came to court. The first man was received with all possible obsequiousness, and the second was not particularly noticed when he entered. Kirila Petrovich was sitting in chairs during the court session, and Andrey Gavrilovich was standing against the wall. It's one thing to be a general-in-chief, and another thing to be a lieutenant.
The fact that now there is equality of all before the law and the court, formally. In fact, everything remains the same. Just in families, just in the yard. Also in the army. Also on the zone. And you yourself, dear readers, will treat people differently depending on the degree of their importance to you.
How does society work? At the top is the elite. Below is the aristocracy. Even lower is the demo. Proletarians below.
The elite enjoys all possible benefits, it creates real-world rules. Aristocrats work for the elite. They need to be paid, because without them it is impossible to manage the people. These are different owners and managers who are happy with the situation. They know that if they submit to the regime, they will get their benefits, but otherwise there will either be repression, or they will gradually move into the category of demos.
How does the demos live? Works to eat and pay for housing. The policy should be such that the average person is busy. So that he doesn't want to go and hold a rally. There are many ways to do this. And high prices, and traffic jams, and all sorts of bureaucratic restrictions that do not allow you to think about the main thing. And proletarians are outcasts of the community, on which the same demos can release steam.
An aristocrat works because it gives him a profit. Worker – to have something to eat. Neither one nor the other should be taken to party meetings, conduct explanatory work, talk about conscience, etc. Everything will happen by itself. This model of society is the most stable.
On the contrary, societies where justice, culture, and logic are at the forefront are short-lived. They constantly need a repressive apparatus, as well as mass propaganda. So it was in the USSR. As soon as the Party's pressure eased, the regime collapsed.
Democracy is a culture. Society lives by the law of force, not culture. You need to represent culture and progress. Let's make a democracy. They seem to have thought of everyone. But if you give power to the majority, the country will be reeling from public whims, like a Brownian particle in water. No one from the elite needs this. So it turns out that there are elections, but there is no power of the people. You choose which hand you will be hit with – right or left. The state should be respected, but it is necessary to be aware of the reality.
In the West, there are more opportunities to make yourself heard. But there are also many patterns and restrictions, without which you are an outcast, and with them you are a slave to this system.
I don't think there will be fair elections in Russia in the foreseeable future. I don't think that even if they were, they would give any result. Most often, any idea that is not compatible with the needs of the elite will remain only an idea. And I don't want to say that someone has taken over the Kremlin and interferes with everyone's life. It's just our mentality. The rulers are different, but the meaning is about the same. You can't choose a cake, you can only choose the box in which it will be brought to you. So much for democracy.
Most people are given the right to solve important, but not critical, problems for a medium-term period of time (such as 4 years).
Operational issues that require quick solutions, as well as strategic planning for decades to come in some areas are solved without a majority. At the same time, both can be of the most important importance not only for the people, but for the whole of humanity.
As an example: most Americans can decide how much taxes they pay in the next four years, but the fact that the world will enter the nuclear age was decided by an elite minority of Americans.
Yes chegozafignya with answers?! I repeat:
Mary Ivanova, a very common mistake (especially among hoplophobes, who like to brandish this quote).
Let me explain: Chekhov spoke about the inadmissibility of extra props on stage. And then according to this logic, it turns out if I have a fire extinguisher on the wall at home = there will definitely be a fire. No! On the stage-yes, otherwise it's not worth hanging it there.
On humanity: the feeling that the mind=const, and the number of people increased => one accounts for a smaller share. I can't prove it, but the feeling is persistent. M. B. the constant violation of personal distance due to insane crowding affects the reasonableness…
And I heard a story many years ago (I haven't Googled it yet): “The Icelandic Parliament adopted by a majority vote a resolution that the minority is always right.”
The existing democratic representative regimes formally ensure the power of the majority, but in reality they are a cover for oligarchic (plutocratic) structures, as Italian elitists wrote about it (G. Mosca, V. Pareto). This is because democracy is impossible as a majority government if people have unequal political and economic resources, if society is socially divided into two unequal parts, some people are owners of the means of production, others are deprived of the means of production, some people are employers, others are employees. Under these conditions, democracy, as it has happened in real history, quickly degenerates into a system in which the political and economic elite forms party leaders from among themselves, nominates candidates for the main elected positions, and the population, consisting of employees (and in modern times also small entrepreneurs, who are actually employees in the service of banks), dutifully votes for certain elite candidates. If a certain political and social movement for equal rights arises within the population itself, then the elite usually buys its leaders, its intellectual forces and turns this movement into a pillar of the ruling regime (for example, it happened with feminism, once it challenged the hegemony of the ruling elites of the West, but now it serves them with great pleasure).
So it is pointless to talk about the power of mediocrity in a formally representative democracy, because it is supposedly “majority power”. In fact, it is precisely a large number of mediocre and conformist people who are beneficial to a formally representative democracy, precisely because it is the power of a well-established and complexly organized minority. The conformist will dutifully believe the media and vote for the” allowed parties “that the elite will give him, and if the conformist rebels, he can be seduced by a “conspiracy theory” and he will walk around with posters against “aliens from Nibiru” or against “evil Jewish masons”, and the authorities will look at this and laugh inwardly (in Russia, even a TV channel specially made for conspiracy theorists, which one-I won't say, you can guess). The main thing that distinguishes a conformist from a nonconformist is not even agreement with the opinion of authorities, but uncritical agreement, intellectual “laziness”. Under the conditions of “democratic reforms” in Russia, politicians have managed to breed a new breed of conformist – the “pathological conformist”, who often does not remember what a particular politician promised him in the past and dutifully votes for the same politician again and again (although he has already been deceived many times in the past). In the West, the ruling elites at least have to “change the signs, scenery and actors”; in Russia, the actors, signs and scenery have been the same since the 90s.
But it's not so bad, the deception isn't endless, and ideological brainwashing isn't eternal. There will always be people who do not believe the “official version”, there will always be intellectual and ethical resistance to the growing power of hereditary elites. Sooner or later, the conflict between the existence of elites and democratic mechanisms (which exists on a global scale) will still be resolved in one direction or another: either the elites will finally crush even formal democracy and move to undisguised dictatorship, or the masses of the population will overthrow the rule of elites. But you and I probably won't see it again.
Majority rule, that's ochlocracy, of course!
Democracy is the power of public institutions controlled both mutually (by each other) and directly by the people. Народом By the people, not by the majority. Knowledge, connections, money, intelligence, energy-everything has weight. The values of personalities are by no means the same. And democracy is only a field, only a legal, civilized framework for the struggle of personal and group interests and ambitions.