Democracy

This is a very interesting topic. On first glance Democracy seems to be the ideal choice. Empowering the population, having the government work for the people, it is a perfect idea. And with a thorough check Democracy “is” the best we have. But there are some problems with it, not because the system itself is flawed, but because those participating in the democratic process are flawed. We assume that an educated population makes informed decisions. They know what they are voting for, and they understand the issues and its consequences. However, this is never true. We sit here and talk about how the "uneducated" of Iraq, Pakistan and other countries are unable to vote because they have no idea. Some people believe that "People in Pakistan vote for anything without understanding the core issues". This is something that is regrettable and causes the deterioration of the democratic process. By not understanding the core issues, people may vote based on simple two line descriptions of proposed laws, proposed laws may be so long that it may hide key clauses in the middle, companies may take advantage of the idiocy of the population for their own advantage, the list goes on… But now with all that stated can we say ourselves that the population of the South Africa is uneducated as well' That because our population is uneducated, that our democracy is threatened and even comprised often' I know people who vote for a candidate based on a single issue without realizing the other positions affect them adversely, or they will vote a straight ticket because they assume a party holds the same values, they will vote on a candidate based on "what they heard". Most people don't even concern themselves with the political process except for once every four years where they will pay attention to the news the week before the election. However, it is easily evident that at least some people participate in such a process they way it should be intended. There are informed people on both sides of the spectrum who participate actively, and there are a few people here that would fall into that. I may not agree with some of their positions based on different ideology, but they still understand the issues and why they vote for something. So the question that begs to be asked is thus: does the informed minority counter and overtake the uneducated masses' Personally, I would have to say no and that it erodes the political process, especially that of the United States. Those uneducated masses actually hold back the process; sometimes it might be because they are a single issue voter, other times it maybe the fact that they can’t understand a cryptically written bill.Occasionally you have it work properly, but outside that I feel more and more that the people I elect either lie to me outright or are purchased by promoters. This is why, personally, I am pushing for minimal government possible in order to curb the control it has over us. Anyways, this brings us to another idea: can an imperfect democracy spread democracy to other countries' I think not, because those corrupt aspects of the original democracy will spread along with democracy. The corruption will exist from day one. No need to even worry about it, because it is already there. This can take many forms, from the favoring of a specific candidate from the outset, to the ability of certain organizations trying to get unfair non democratic advantages. A few things I can think of are Iraq which makes a perfect example: companies such as MCI essentially got the rights to the entire airwaves of the country. Capitalism' No, just corporatism. Let us look at some examples: many people immediately scream ' INDIA' As a perfect example. After speaking with various Indians (this is on a college campus; some of these people lived here their lives and their parents immigrated, other are college students who got the chance to come here, etc. etc. Basically I am getting QUITE a narrow point'but the opinion of this specific slice is still interesting). Many believe India is a sham democracy itself. While I don't want to get into anything long, rampant Corruption is the biggest complaint I have heard. That itself invalidates the political process. Other places we mention are Japan. While it is a good example of how far you can get in fifty years, it is peculiar that you find one party dominating for nearly fifty years. Is it because the party truly represents the people's interests, or the fact they have been around so long they have political power as well as the 'name brand'' Other countries themselves have only become 'democratic' recently: Taiwan and South Korea were dictatorships for a VERY long time and only in the past fifteen to twenty years did they develop into democracies because the people themselves desired it. In Taiwan's case you went from the country being controlled by the Mafia, to the Mafia becoming the politicians themselves. As many Taiwanese (interestingly this is from all extremes; from those who vehemently advocate an independent Taiwan to those who want Taiwan united with China) have told me, 'In Japan the Mafia controls the politicians'In Taiwan the Mafia ARE the politicians'. Is that still a democracy' I think if anything, it shows that democracy itself cannot be established immediately. Rather, a forty to fifty year transitional period occurs where the process is undemocratic in all but name. And even when you reach that point where it could be a genuine democracy (which itself is probably open to more debate) you still have many elements of corruption that have intertwined itself so deeply because of the simple fact that it was part of the initial seeds of democracy that were sewn. So to those who say that Iraqis and other groups of people are not 'ready' for democracy'I ask if we ourselves maintain our RIGHT to be called a democracy, or if we are just electing leaders on false premises and watch them get bought out OVER and OVER again. Either way, Iraq will be about fifty years away from democracy. By the way, because I get slaughtered for mentioning companies so often'it isn't because I am against them. Rather, I believe that capitalism DOES work the best. But the problem is when companies take advantage of the people's ship and steer it in a direction favorable to itself only. When companies like ConAgra REPEATEDLY attempt to price fixate, REPEATEDLY attempt to maintain a monopoly, and REPEATEDLY are found guilty of such acts'it is a shame when they are REPEATEDLY let off the hook. Actions such as that, along with gross corporate welfare are what I speak out again and complain of when I mention companies.