Is 'Democracy' like 'Equality' ?

[studiot]

Is democracy like equality in that it contains the seeds of its own (self) contradiction ?

[Genady]

I understand that democracy is a rule of majority. It is inequality then.

[studiot]

34 minutes ago, Genady said:

I understand that democracy is a rule of majority. It is inequality then.

Yes it hinges upon what you mean by Democracy.

[Phi for All]

I would say equality is an outcome of the democratic process, rather than a process itself. 

Perhaps equity is the better word here. Equity is more of a process, and has elements of fairness and justice to it that equality may not focus on. It's a concept that understands that people and their circumstances are too different for equality to work across the board. Instead, equitable solutions are sought to minimize any contradictions in the system.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I would say equality is an outcome of the democratic process, rather than a process itself. 

Perhaps equity is the better word here. Equity is more of a process, and has elements of fairness and justice to it that equality may not focus on. It's a concept that understands that people and their circumstances are too different for equality to work across the board. Instead, equitable solutions are sought to minimize any contradictions in the system.

Yes equity and its adjective equitable are often better. more balanced, words although what is regarded as equitable may change from culture to culture and time to time.

I do not see a self contradiction within their meaning like I do with democracy and equality.

+1

[iNow]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Yes it hinges upon what you mean by Democracy.

And by equality, too.

The OP isn't defined well enough for me to offer a more thoughtful comment beyond, "Of course there are similarities. The Venn diagrams even for black and white, or negative and positive, or good and evil overlap somewhere... all contingent on the definitions we choose at the start"

[studiot]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

And by equality, too.

The OP isn't defined well enough for me to offer a more thoughtful comment beyond, "Of course there are similarities. The Venn diagrams even for black and white, or negative and positive, or good and evil overlap somewhere... all contingent on the definitions we choose at the start"

So what do you need, given that I am trying not to influence the discussion one way or another ?

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by studiot

[Phi for All]

20 minutes ago, studiot said:

So what do you need, given that I am trying not to influence the discussion one way or another ?

Do you think contradictions between democracy and equality are intrinsic to the system, or can they be minimized or removed? Are the seeds of its own destruction always planted, or can they be rendered harmless?

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Do you think contradictions between democracy and equality are intrinsic to the system, or can they be minimized or removed? Are the seeds of its own destruction always planted, or can they be rendered harmless?

I think that 'equality' contains its own internal contradiction as does democracy.

Equality of what ?

Since everyone is not equally able providing equality of opportunity leads to inequality of outcome.

Since chance operates in our world, this would also be true if we used 'equally lucky' instead of equally able.

 

Following similar logic, the old saw " do turkeys vote for Christmas ?" applies to democracy  as defined by Genady's definition.

If the majority voted for you to chop someone's head or hand off what would you think of democracy ?

There is more to democracy than just voting.

As with equality if you try to apply it to every issue you end up with contradictions.

[Genady]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

There is more to democracy than just voting.

What is it?

 

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Equality of what ?

This what I've learned in school:

socialist society equality - from each one according to their abilities, to each one according to their work

communist society equality - from each one according to their abilities, to each one according to their needs

How the abilities, work, and needs are measured have never been specified.

[CharonY]

I think the democratic process, at least in its ideal form, hinges on equality. I.e. folks are at least theoretically given the same opportunities in participation. As such, it is focused more on process, rather than outcome.

However, equity (i.e. adjustments to balance out systemic imbalances) are and have not been fundamental aspect of democracy. I would argue that only in fairly recent times it has entered the discussion at all. Historically adjustments to the democratic process were focused almost entirely on the equality aspects (e.g. enabling women to vote, or before that allowing men to vote regardless of income). 

 

[Peterkin]

Democracy of the inclusive parliamentary kind, not the Greek model, requires that every eligible citizen have equal opportunity to participate in the selection of its governing bodies. The citizen can vote for a person to represent his or her interests, or a policy platform proposed by a party, or some combination of both; furthermore, every eligible citizen has the right to stand for election to office.

No other kind of equality is entailed or implied.

Which, of course, means that clean democratic process produce governments that move gradually toward equality and equity for all the citizens, simply because the majority, not the privileged elite, decide for the policy that favours their interest.

If an elite wants to retain its privilege, it must corrupt the democratic process.

[MigL]

I think it all hinges on how you qualify 'equality'.
Some want to see equality of outcome, and that is not like democracy at all, for reasons already mentioned like majority rule.
Democracy does, however, give voting people the opportunity to choose their own destiny/governance/laws, and as such, it is equivalent to equality of opportunity.
I have always preferred equality of opportunity over equality of outcome, so I am perfectly happy with democracy.
( the only thing better would be me, being appointed emperor )

[Genady]

17 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

clean democratic process produce governments that move gradually toward equality and equity for all the citizens, simply because the majority, not the privileged elite, decide for the policy that favours their interest

Yes, I see how clean democracy protects majority against a privileged elite. But I don't see how it protects an underprivileged minority.

If it does not, then it's not "for all."

[MigL]

11 minutes ago, Genady said:

But I don't see how it protects an underprivileged minority.

The privileged are always a minority.
Unfortunately, in some types of democracies ( yes, you, America ), that minority uses their disproportionate wealth to buy the governance they want; they've usurped the majority ( underprivileged's ) equality of opportunity.

[studiot]

Glad to see this topic is getting going.

But aren't you all imagining a simplistic one stage utopia ?

 

Perterkin's comment hits the nail on the head but no in the way he intended.

41 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Democracy of the inclusive parliamentary kind, not the Greek model, requires that every eligible citizen have equal opportunity to participate in the selection of its governing bodies.

Because you are not voting for what you want but for someone to tell you what to do and what not to do.

Say your successful candidate orders everyone not to plant onions.

This is fundamentally different from everyone voting to plant or abstain from planting onions.
Then if the noes have it as we say you can't plant onions even if you want to.

Of course once you have the handed down power it can go to further stages so someone (a minister) is given power under the act to make regulations.

She of course can delegate perhaps further, all in the name of democracy.

[Phi for All]

19 minutes ago, Genady said:

Yes, I see how clean democracy protects majority against a privileged elite. But I don't see how it protects an underprivileged minority.

If it does not, then it's not "for all."

Fundamental human rights need to be established so no decisions followed by the majority can affect the rights of the minority. In this, the US has a very poor record, since we've been talking about adding an Equal Rights Amendment to our Constitution for the last 100 years without resolution.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

I think it all hinges on how you qualify 'equality'.
Some want to see equality of outcome, and that is not like democracy at all, for reasons already mentioned like majority rule.
Democracy does, however, give voting people the opportunity to choose their own destiny/governance/laws, and as such, it is equivalent to equality of opportunity.
I have always preferred equality of opportunity over equality of outcome, so I am perfectly happy with democracy.
( the only thing better would be me, being appointed emperor )

There is a bit of a problem with that, though. Equality in a democracy can not only mean equal access to voting (and already here we see discrepancies, depending on the system), but there are also issues in how equal power is distributed (or not). 

Countries without winner-take-all systems, including Canada and USA often struggle with over or under-representation of power, even if everyone is able to vote, for example. But even beyond that, the ability to exert influence over elections is vastly different. Here, you could say that we are all equal, as a billionaire's vote would not count any way differently than anyone else's. However, the ability to influence the outcome (so if we look at equity) it is very much different.

[swansont]

7 hours ago, studiot said:

So what do you need, given that I am trying not to influence the discussion one way or another ?

 

!

Moderator Note

You need to clarify which form of democracy, and what you mean by equality, in order for people to weigh in without having the discussion devolve and fragment

 

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, Genady said:

Yes, I see how clean democracy protects majority against a privileged elite. But I don't see how it protects an underprivileged minority.

It doesn't necessarily protect anybody. Rights, freedoms and protections either have to be written into the constitution and the legal code, or enacted one at a time as the polity requires a law or a custom to be changed. If there is a minority that is despised by the majority, they will never be protected, unless the majority attitude changes through some agency, and that changed attitude is reflected in the democratic process.

However, it seems to me that people who feel physically safe and economically secure grow more tolerant and generous in their attitude. The marginalized minority will find advocates in the comfortable majority. Even when African slavery was the norm, some middle-class white people opposed it on  moral grounds. If the concepts or equality and justice are central to the social philosophy, injustice will always be opposed... as long as the majority feels they can  afford to be tolerant and fair. (The trick to preserving injustice is to sow distrust and fear in the populace: They want to take your jobs. They want to rape your daughters. They'll persecute your religion. They'll have too many babies and outnumber you. They'll adulterate your culture, erode your traditions. They're dirty and spread disease. They're lazy and unproductive and a drain on your resources.)

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Because you are not voting for what you want but for someone to tell you what to do and what not to do.

In choosing the persons who will draft and pass legislation, you are not asking the representative to tell you what to do, you are asking him to serve your best interest - whether that's in the prohibition of certain activities of which you disapprove, or striking down old laws you consider outmoded, or reallocating public funds or providing government services. Direct democracy is not really practicable in large, diverse populations. Even with the technical possibility of the whole population voting by electronic plebiscite on every issue, it's unwieldy, time-consuming, error-prone and vulnerable to tampering.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Say your successful candidate orders everyone not to plant onions.

Or marijuana? Yes, in each round, there are winners and losers. If more people dislike than like having to do without onions, or indoor smoking, for four years, the ruling will be overturned when the pro-onion party takes office. 

 

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Of course once you have the handed down power it can go to further stages so someone (a minister) is given power under the act to make regulations.

She of course can delegate perhaps further, all in the name of democracy.

This is so in every large organization, in the name of efficiency, economy, the king, national security, company policy, God or whatever. It is an unavoidable flaw in organizing on large scale. Someone has to direct each operation; others have to carry out orders; everybody has to live with the results - until something changes. Human interactions are never going to be neat and perfect, in any political system.

53 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Countries without winner-take-all systems, including Canada and USA often struggle with over or under-representation of power, even if everyone is able to vote, for example. But even beyond that, the ability to exert influence over elections is vastly different. Here, you could say that we are all equal, as a billionaire's vote would not count any way differently than anyone else's. However, the ability to influence the outcome (so if we look at equity) it is very much different.

That just means money is the most common means of corruption. Has been for some time, and not only in democracies. Better systems exist, if not perfect ones, and ours could certainly be improved.    

 

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Peterkin

[Chhavi421]

I think democracy is big part of equality because if there is no democracy in a country then it becomes very difficult to establish equality. 

[dimreepr]

21 minutes ago, Chhavi421 said:

I think democracy is big part of equality because if there is no democracy in a country then it becomes very difficult to establish equality. 

Democracy, in my country/culture, is the current excuse to be more equal than you...

A true democracy would give 'everyone a vote'; including the children (that's just my opinion)..

Edited September 6, 2023 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

A true democracy would give 'everyone a vote'; including the children (that's just my opinion)..

I would advocate for lowering the voting age to 14 - certainly no younger - on one condition: a robust civics curriculum through elementary school. Eligibility would then be determined by passing the Grade 6 level civics exam and naming the current holders of major political offices and their policies.

(And absolutely no campaigning in schools!! However, teacher-moderated debates between local candidates would be useful, with parents invited to attend.)

3 hours ago, Chhavi421 said:

I think democracy is big part of equality because if there is no democracy in a country then it becomes very difficult to establish equality.

Yes. The democratic process is nothing more than a means to achieving some kinds of equality - the ones specified by a nation's constitution: political participation, opportunity, legal rights and freedoms.

People often confuse - or deliberately conflate - different kinds of equality and equity. Equality under the law does not imply equality in any other aspect of life or social activity. 

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I would advocate for lowering the voting age to 14 - certainly no younger - on one condition: a robust civics curriculum through elementary school. Eligibility would then be determined by passing the Grade 6 level civics exam and naming the current holders of major political offices and their policies.

Every arbitrary restriction will create, not only, inequality but is also open to the slippery slope of politics.

I think even babies should be given a pen and offered the ballot, sure we'll get more spoiled paper's but we'll also get a lot more people involved in the stats; hive intelligence also work's at the human level.

21 hours ago, Peterkin said:

People often confuse - or deliberately conflate - different kinds of equality and equity. Equality under the law does not imply equality in any other aspect of life or social activity. 

Indeed, equity means we're all given the same opportunity to choose from the same menu, even if we're not capable of eating our choice.

I also think everyone should be compelled to vote, with an option to abstain on the ballot; the punishment for failure is evaluated on the equality of ability.

Edited September 7, 2023 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Every arbitrary restriction will create, not only, inequality but is also open to the slippery slope of politics.

It's not arbitrary. It restricts voting to those capable of understanding what they vote for and against. By your method, we don't need political campaigns at all: everyone who paid entry fee goes on the ballot sheet, which it tacked up on a fence. The voters are given a blindfold and a dart.

Alternatively, we could draw names from a hat. Ideally, every eligible candidate's name would be in that very big hat. I really would prefer candidate eligibility restricted to people who can read and count at Gr 4 level. We've seen governance by a fractious toddler and it wasn't pretty! The slope gets a lot more slippery if the chief executive hasn't been potty-trained. 

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I also think everyone should be compelled to vote, with an option to abstain on the ballot; the punishment for failure is evaluated on the equality of ability.

On the contrary, nobody should be allowed to vote until they comprehend the rules, the process and the the candidates' stand on current issues. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Peterkin