What's new

Welcome to Japan Reference (JREF) - the community for all Things Japanese.

Join Today! It is fast, simple, and FREE!

Is Japan really a democracy?

Is Japan really a democracy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 32 41.6%
  • No

    Votes: 45 58.4%

  • Total voters
    77

tigi

後輩
Joined
6 Feb 2007
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
i think democracy doesnt exist at all

well i think that the real democracy still doesnt exist at all...

i dont know how are the laws there. Here in spain we have an idiot "prime minister" and the opposing force are also idiots.

The executive side is not good. They can do everything they wants to cause we voted them. and the judicial side can do all they wants and no other sides can stop them. Btw all the ppl that is a pollitic has immunity and they cant be accused for any crime they did if they are not caught at the moment of doing the crime. (thats fking crazy)

Constitution says everyone is under the law, and at the same time it says that the "king" (i dont know the word to say his position) can not be accused for ANY crime in any moment. thats just fuking lol. the king can do everything he wants. Well an example is that our king killed his brother in an "accident" with a gun, when they were about 16 years. and he is on this position. Where he doesnt need to say "hey, im taking 20 million cause i wanna buy a private jet" he just take them and well. actually he is only a black hole for our money.


Madrid (spanish capital) is aiming constantly Catalonia and Basque country. Basque country cause they want the independence and in catalonia cause we want to keep OUR MONEY to do better structures, better schools, but in madrid they take our money and give us the 20%(when the total ammount of money available in the state, about 40% comes from us). is that fair?.

The constitution says that ppl can do laws, u need about 500.000 signatures of people to present a law. But you cant touch the constitution (omg, ppl touching the constitution?? NO!!!) and if you do a law it has to be under the principles of constitution. If you do under the principles of constitution the high society will say "ooouh, a law presented by the current people, we cant let this happens!!!" and they stop his movement to the "Cortes Generales" (i think it hasnt got translation, it is the organ that assumes the function of making new laws according to the current prime minister and the constitution, and his another function is to check the laws, they can say not if you present a law just saying "it is not usefull for spain").

I wanna make a point.
Spanish constitution is good. The bad thing is that it can have many perspectives on interpreting his content. If we had GOOD PEOPLE at our government spain could be a really peacefull and great place to live in.

Btw, WHAT THE **** IS GOING ON WITH THIS PLACE?? u know the bullfighters? (im taking it out from google translator cause i dont have an extensive vocabulary in english like u can see).
id love if someone like god came here and say BULLFIGHTERS NOT ALLOWED.
They kill the bull after beeing tortured. Its a cruel practice. Well i think its a general oppinion from catalonia. Cause the bullfighters are all from ANDALUCIA( in that place the ppl CLAIMS the bullfighters cause they are great).
andalucia is a great place where u can find lots of cactus and lots of ppl praying to rocio jurado to have a great year and lot of happiness. (in a working day in catalonia =) ).

well i think im gonna end now, cause it could be hard to read it :/
 
Joined
4 Jun 2006
Messages
511
Reaction score
38
How Did This Thread Get Resurrected?

Anyway...

First, I must make a few axiomatic statements, so any and all relativists, please bear with me.

1) The United States of America is not a democracy. It is a republic founded on democratic principles. Local government can be, and often is, democratic, but that depends on the participation of the citizenry in local affairs. But on the state and federal levels, it is most certainly not a democracy, and was never intended to be.

2) Japan is not a democracy either. Firstly, the Japanese population do not have the cultural mindset and historical framework to have a true democracy. Americans do, but that is through our English heritage, in which the likes of Locke and Mill were passed down to us through our Anglo-Saxon ties. (Note: I personally believe that we've lost these democratic connections and attitudes ourselves, regardless of what some political parties might call themselves).

3) Democracy is a Greek word meaning, roughly, rule by the ニ津と津θ津竿津?#962; ("people"). If you'd like to know more about what a real democracy is like, I'd like to point you to Aristotle's "Athenian Constitution" and Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War. Democracy is not the greatest form of government on earth, and it doesn't automatically mean people will be at peace with one-another. The Athenian government was rife with internal dissention and politicking, as well as its own form of political correctness, liberal jockeying, conservative sabre-rattling, and civil-rights struggles (ex. Cleon's promises to the ニ津?津?津柁津?#962; class regarding suffrage).

The point is, no, Japan is absolutely not a democracy. The people do not have a democratic mindset, the mindset that requires people to have their nose deep into politics and government affairs. Neither, though, is the United States, where the citizens are happy enough to listen to whatever political party they believe represents them and then believe whatever Fox News or Michael Moore/Al Franken tells them. It takes much more than universal suffrage to be a democracy.
 
D

dark_secrester

Guest
I don't think any democracy is a true democracy then.
Britain is most definetly a democracy, but you don't vote people, you vote for Partys (Mainly Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems) and the party itself chooses the head of the party. The head of the party becomes Prime Minister if the party is elected.

However, I don't believe Japan is a democracy for most of the good points listed in the previous pages (which would take too long to type again).

No,Japan is not a democracy. It is more socialist. ;)
 

Sukotto

先輩
Joined
9 Jul 2003
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
19
2) Japan is not a democracy either. Firstly, the Japanese population do not have the cultural mindset and historical framework to have a true democracy.



What about the Japanese tradition of concensus? How long has that been around? Thousands or hundreds and hundreds of years?
That could almost seem more democratic, even if legal institutions were laid over it.



In earlier times, "Truman had been able to govern the country with the cooperation of a relatively small number of Wall Street lawyers and bankers," so the American rapporteur, Samuel Huntington of Harvard University, reflected. In that period there was no crisis of democracy, but in the 1960s, the crisis developed and reached serious proportions. The study therefore urged more "moderation in democracy" to mitigate the excess of democracy and overcome the crisis.4

Putting it in plain terms, the general public must be reduced to its traditional apathy and obedience, and driven from the arena of political debate and action, if democracy is to survive.

....."the national interest," tacitly assumed to be represented by the one sector notably omitted from the list of special interests: corporations, financial institutions, and other business elites.
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c01-s01.html

a "crisis of democracy".
Well, those that traditionally hold power in the industrialized nations don't like it.
 
Joined
4 Jun 2006
Messages
511
Reaction score
38
What about the Japanese tradition of concensus? How long has that been around? Thousands or hundreds and hundreds of years?

Hundreds. And no, concensus is most definitely not democratic, especially when compared to the original Greek model. Consensus is my primary evidence in denying the Japanese have a democratic system. Democracies operate when all citizens have a voice and exercise it. The Japanese will openly agree with something that they are internally opposed to in order to maintain 窶堙ュ (wa--harmony). That is patently antithetical to the very fundamental principles that democracy rests upon.

That could almost seem more democratic, even if legal institutions were laid over it.
Political correctness enforced by a "thought police" then, is what you are advocating? Doesn't sound democratic to me. Sounds more like something out of 1984.

On the surface, consensus seems like a very good idea--until you talk to the Japanese students that are coming to America in order to live and work here. Many do not wish to return because of the stifling effect consensus has on individuality. Even in the American conformist society, they tell me how liberated they feel.

It is about the outward projection over the true feelings and ideas on the inside. To Japanese society, only barbarians allow their inner passions escape the facade.

a "crisis of democracy".
Well, those that traditionally hold power in the industrialized nations don't like it.

You are quoting Chomsky at me? Sorry, buddy. I'm a student of Foucault if anything. I reject Chomskyism wholecloth, and I've read my fair share of his works. The man is just the sort of mealy-mouthed double-speaker George Orwell warned us about. But that is just my personal opinion, and there are hordes of people that I like and respect who love the man's work. But I think he's absolutely wrong, and that democracy needs a healthy level of dissention (not polarization, mind you) and debate in order to thrive. Too much dissention and you get that nasty polarization effect like we have in the U.S. right now, where the moderates are numerous but silent and often forced to select the lesser of two evils.

dark_secrester said:
Britain is most definetly a democracy, but you don't vote people, you vote for Partys (Mainly Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems) and the party itself chooses the head of the party. The head of the party becomes Prime Minister if the party is elected.
If that is the case, then they are even less of a democracy than the United States is. Not even the Athenians voted along party lines, but for individuals. Britain effectively hamstrings the demagoguery and parcels government rulership between select "clubs" and "factions" rather than groups of individuals. I'm not even sure what to call this sort of thing, but it is most certainly not democratic. Whenever I lament the fact that Americans vote for parties rather than candidates, I think of the United Kingdom and breathe a sigh of relief.
 

Sukotto

先輩
Joined
9 Jul 2003
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
19
Everyone agreeing on something isn't necessarily beating down
someone's opinion to accept a concensus.
And besides, what about the democracy model with 50.000001% getting
the win, what about those other 49.99999% ?
Certainly that is a potentially far greater percentage that has to go along with decisions they do not want than the last 1 or 2 percent of a concensus who's acceptance might be drastically peer pressured into accepting the majority.

The ideal of concensus isn't to beat everyone into accepting idea X, although I'm sure no ideal is perfect and no doubt that happens, but to come to something that is acceptable to all. and surely US or "western" democracy is not perfect either.

There are good and bad points in both. With concensus, the winner could be the one who can sit out all the others until the rest give in. A defacto one person veto.

With US "democracy", it is still a small minority who wind up making the decisions. Whether it is the 500 some national legislative body, or the wealthy few who choose their candidates at their parties.

Concensus at least has some semblance of getting everybody involved.
Something which 51% of actual voters makes no case of even pretending to want to.

Also Ancient Athenia or wherever had "democracy", for the few.
Same as it is today in the most "democratic" (registered trademark, btw) of all democratic of nations.

51% rules all vs getting everybody to agree.
Which seems more democratic?
of, by, and for the people. Consent of the governed.
 

Sukotto

先輩
Joined
9 Jul 2003
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
19
It seems you pretty much agree with Chomsky on the democracy thing anyway.
In your number one above. Locally things being more democratic and what, not.
That aside.

That the US's 1/4 of the population or less at the time setting up a Republic and not a democracy is true, that's why they kept it to their small minority of the population of white male property holders.
But to prevent an evolution to a more democratic system by force or using the tools of state to violate existing laws and the constitution is wrong, and sort of totalitarian-esque as well. Witness such historic garbage as cointelpro and its predecessors and whatever came after it.

....continued later.
 
Last edited:

Ewok85

先輩
Joined
14 Nov 2003
Messages
2,294
Reaction score
44
1) The United States of America is not a democracy.

I believe the correct term is "constitutional republic" where people are voted into being representatives of the people and are bound by law, not majority.

A true/pure/direct democracy is best shown by Switzerland, where the people themselves vote via referendum for new laws and initiatives.
 

Sukotto

先輩
Joined
9 Jul 2003
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
19
A true/pure/direct democracy is best shown by Switzerland, where the people themselves vote via referendum for new laws and initiatives.


Maybe the US should do this?
It is too big, right?
Maybe we should break down into local bio-regions
so we can be in control of our local air quality and not have
some shmuck in a glass tower on wall street decide how much
he can afford to pay in speeding tickets..., I mean pollution fines
as a business expense. Or we could just revoke the corporate charter
of said corporation even in our constitutional republic.

Japan with Kyushu, Shikoku, Hokkaido, as sovereign nation-states?
And Honshu into a number of bio-regional states?
Just a hypothetical. Not suggesting it should be done. 🙇‍♂️
 
Joined
4 Jun 2006
Messages
511
Reaction score
38
Not to resurrect a thread that's been sleeping for twenty days, but I feel I should say one or two things.

Everyone agreeing on something isn't necessarily beating down
someone's opinion to accept a concensus.

It is when non-conformism leads to ostracism and accusations of delinquency. Believe me, I've talked to many Japanese students, both those who agree with, and those who disagree with, the Japanese concept of harmony, and it has convinced me that in a forum where one's true ideas and feelings must be repressed for the sake of maintaining social peace and harmony, then there can be no democratic discourse.

Democracy requires dissention. Realize that this does not imply that there should be polarization (like in the United States), but contradictory and alternative ideas must exist that either run in directions that mainstream thought does not.

And besides, what about the democracy model with 50.000001% getting the win, what about those other 49.99999% ?
Certainly that is a potentially far greater percentage that has to go along with decisions they do not want than the last 1 or 2 percent of a concensus who's acceptance might be drastically peer pressured into accepting the majority.

That's the polarization I was talking about. Nothing is so clear-cut as "the majority always wins". In reality, only those with a true stake in the well-being of the democracy usually participate that deeply in political affairs, at least today, and there is plenty of evidence they did in ancient democracies as well. That 50-50 split, or near-50-50 split, will stagnate the government, because the minority does carry weight. They are so numerous, the majority cannot simply force its will upon them.

Finally, you frighten the hell out of me, because you seem to like the idea of everybody just magically getting along, and that concensus is a good thing, but you cannot seem to grasp that concensus cancels democratic dynamism. There is only one way to make everyone agree, and that is to punish those that don't go with the mainstream. As much as liberals love to accuse the conservatives of doing so, things like political correctness and speech-codes do the exact same thing--quell dissent. And dissent is vital to democratic politics. John Adams was villified for the Alien & Sedition Acts, and rightly so, because you cannot maintain democracy while squashing the opinions you don't agree with.

Democracy is not about everyone getting along. Yes, in a democracy the majority rules, but that doesn't mean that it is tyrrannical. Minorities in the United States have utilized their voices and their numbers to effect massive change in the American social and political arena over the past 40 years, triggering a massive cultural revolution that we are still in the midst of. It didn't happen overnight, but it still happened.

some shmuck in a glass tower on wall street decide how much
he can afford to pay in speeding tickets..., I mean pollution fines
as a business expense. Or we could just revoke the corporate charter
of said corporation even in our constitutional republic.

I keep telling people to "stop bitching and start a revolution". Change how you vote. Educate yourself. Don't just be a dupe that believes whatever some liberal demagogue spouts at you, or what some conservative pundit preaches at you. Get rid of your SUV. Stop buying products from corporations whose practices you disagree with. Get active, and make a difference.

Of course, most people won't agree with you. They'd just rather complain over their $4.00 lattes, or their Miller Lites, and not actually get involved and change anything, because it'd be too much work. That's why the United States is not a democracy.

Democracy isn't just a form of government, it is a mentality. Go read Victor Davis Hanson's The Soul of Battle for an example of this mentality I'm talking about.

Ewok85 said:
I believe the correct term is "constitutional republic" where people are voted into being representatives of the people and are bound by law, not majority.

True. This is what happens when principles are surrendered to legalism. The nation was originally founded along democratic principles, even though it was not a democracy.

I'm loath to even consider Switzerland a democracy. I honestly do not believe a true democracy can exist beyond the ニ津屡津哉津家津?#962; (Greek polis) like ニ陳ーニ津槌津照陳ソニ津鞍津?#8166;ニ津脆陳ソニ津 or Ἀニ津?#8134;ニ津業陳ソニ津 ("Syracuse" or "Athens"). I guess I betray my classical beliefs and training, but nevertheless, that's what I feel.
 

Thunderthief

Kouhai
Joined
19 Mar 2006
Messages
93
Reaction score
2
A democracy means equality and freedom for all, Japan is a rather poorly designed one as racism is still highly tolerated amoung its homogeneous population.

Alot of negative stigma from previous less civilized era's is still prevalent in the minds of most Japanese and influences there culture.

Dont't ask for an explination, if you can't figure it out I feel sorry for you.
 

CatalanNation

後輩
Joined
26 Jun 2006
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
well i think that the real democracy still doesnt exist at all...
i dont know how are the laws there. Here in spain we have an idiot "prime minister" and the opposing force are also idiots.
The executive side is not good. They can do everything they wants to cause we voted them. and the judicial side can do all they wants and no other sides can stop them. Btw all the ppl that is a pollitic has immunity and they cant be accused for any crime they did if they are not caught at the moment of doing the crime. (thats fking crazy)
Constitution says everyone is under the law, and at the same time it says that the "king" (i dont know the word to say his position) can not be accused for ANY crime in any moment. thats just fuking lol. the king can do everything he wants. Well an example is that our king killed his brother in an "accident" with a gun, when they were about 16 years. and he is on this position. Where he doesnt need to say "hey, im taking 20 million cause i wanna buy a private jet" he just take them and well. actually he is only a black hole for our money.
Madrid (spanish capital) is aiming constantly Catalonia and Basque country. Basque country cause they want the independence and in catalonia cause we want to keep OUR MONEY to do better structures, better schools, but in madrid they take our money and give us the 20%(when the total ammount of money available in the state, about 40% comes from us). is that fair?.
The constitution says that ppl can do laws, u need about 500.000 signatures of people to present a law. But you cant touch the constitution (omg, ppl touching the constitution?? NO!!!) and if you do a law it has to be under the principles of constitution. If you do under the principles of constitution the high society will say "ooouh, a law presented by the current people, we cant let this happens!!!" and they stop his movement to the "Cortes Generales" (i think it hasnt got translation, it is the organ that assumes the function of making new laws according to the current prime minister and the constitution, and his another function is to check the laws, they can say not if you present a law just saying "it is not usefull for spain").
I wanna make a point.
Spanish constitution is good. The bad thing is that it can have many perspectives on interpreting his content. If we had GOOD PEOPLE at our government spain could be a really peacefull and great place to live in.
Btw, WHAT THE **** IS GOING ON WITH THIS PLACE?? u know the bullfighters? (im taking it out from google translator cause i dont have an extensive vocabulary in english like u can see).
id love if someone like god came here and say BULLFIGHTERS NOT ALLOWED.
They kill the bull after beeing tortured. Its a cruel practice. Well i think its a general oppinion from catalonia. Cause the bullfighters are all from ANDALUCIA( in that place the ppl CLAIMS the bullfighters cause they are great).
andalucia is a great place where u can find lots of cactus and lots of ppl praying to rocio jurado to have a great year and lot of happiness. (in a working day in catalonia =) ).
well i think im gonna end now, cause it could be hard to read it :/
Geez... tigi, I'm sure you listened to the COPE radio station before writing it all! :) By the way, it's good to find some Catalan people around here.
 
Joined
4 Jun 2006
Messages
511
Reaction score
38
A democracy means equality and freedom for all, Japan is a rather poorly designed one as racism is still highly tolerated amoung its homogeneous population.

Nobody said a democracy had to extend rights and privileges to aliens. Pericles pushed to have no children born whose parents were not both Attic given citizenship of Athens. (Yes, he rescinded it when his son was born to an Ionian courtesan, but what is a government without it's scandals?).

It all comes down to how you define "citizen". It also comes down to those who can stand up against hypocrisy when they see it. Nevertheless, there is no reason the Japanese shouldn't be allowed to be racist in their own country towards foreigners, aside from the fact that it is bad for both tourism and international relations.

Otherwise, yeah, I actually agree with you for the most part.
 

Ebu Huzeyfe

Noone is perfect!
Joined
11 Apr 2006
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
I don't believe in democracy and I'm actually and basically against it. We all saw what democracy really is in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somali and some other countries. It is just death and wildness.

I am not sure if Japan has democracy, but, what I know is that Japan has honesty. That is enough for me. That feature attracted me well. Others, I never care!

Western politics are mainly focus on their profits not caring others' lives and profits. So, I hate it. I visited many countries but never got interested to visit any western country, while I am very close to them, as 2 hours by bus from Istanbul to Greece.

Regards,
 

Sukotto

先輩
Joined
9 Jul 2003
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
19
Nobody said a democracy had to extend rights and privileges to aliens.
democracy doesn't grant rights,
nobody and no thing grants rights.
governments to do not grant rights.
rights are inalienable. governments are supposed to be protectors of them and the constitutions we create to allow them to exist also are supposed to have the list of rights that government is not supposed to interfere with, lest government doing so gives up its authority to exist.

rights are inalienable.
they are not privileges granted to citizens
and withheld from non-citizens.
something like being able to obtain a car driver's license might be a privilege.

gov't in the guise of democracy or whatever-ocracy
denying rights while pretending to be the upholders of such....
I agree that dishonesty is not something to be liked.


i would also add that war is rather undemocratic in nature,
since it seeks to impose one's way the world should be onto others.
the use of force or the threat of the use of force for political ends?
hmm, isn't that basically the fbi's definition of terrorism?
 
Joined
4 Jun 2006
Messages
511
Reaction score
38
Ebu Huzeyfe said:
I don't believe in democracy and I'm actually and basically against it. We all saw what democracy really is in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somali and some other countries. It is just death and wildness.

Your polemic is misplaced and poorly informed. What you see in those countries is a grassroots resistance to democracy. People who prefer warlords and extremist theocracies to self-determination. If the people do not want democracy, perhaps it is because they only understand tyranny.

I am not sure if Japan has democracy, but, what I know is that Japan has honesty. That is enough for me. That feature attracted me well. Others, I never care!

Obviously, you've either never been to Japan, or never been there very long. Japan is known around the world as being a place where people rarely say what they mean. That is a blatant contradiction to honesty.

We aren't here to burn the American flag and curse Western imperialists. Do that someplace else please.

Sukotto said:
rights are inalienable.
they are not privileges granted to citizens
and withheld from non-citizens.
Good point, but it is not a government's responsability to recognize the rights of non-citizens, especially if they have their own government.

Interestingly enough, if you examine the Declaration of Independence and compare it to the Constitution of the United States, you'll discover that the Declaration is much more influenced by John Locke, while the Constitution is much more a product of Thomas Hobbes.

Besides, the only rights considered inalienable are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", in that order. It might make me happy if I violated someone else's rights, but I waived my right to the "pursuit of happiness" the moment I violated the rights of another.

Besides, this is a completely modern construction, and was employed by a government that was a republic founded on democratic principles, not a democracy. When democracy was first created, these ideas did not exist.

i would also add that war is rather undemocratic in nature,
since it seeks to impose one's way the world should be onto others.
the use of force or the threat of the use of force for political ends?

Both Athens and Syracuse were true democracies, in the sense that every citizen had a voice in the Assembly and could vote on issues. However, they still went to war with each other, and by popular agreement, too.

American citizens were screaming for war with England in 1811 over the impressment of our sailors, and even before, with Spain, for cancelling our right of deposit in New Orleans right before they handed it to France.

A government has a responsability to its citizens. That is all. This "global community" jazz is a post-modern construction of capitalists that seek to appeal to those with liberal sensitivities.
 

Ebu Huzeyfe

Noone is perfect!
Joined
11 Apr 2006
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
I prefer theocracies to democracies. When there was theocracy in Afghanistan, there was no invasion at all. They ruled their own people with Islamic Shariah (Law). The same with Iran today. The same with Somali, Iraq and Chechenia tomorrow. Even I'm against the way they applied, but, still they never destroyed any country as USA did. They didn't bomb Hiroshima or another city.

The real terorist was always USA and its collaborators as British and Israil. Can someone tell me how many innocent people were killed in Irak, Afghanistan and Somali? What about Bosnia?

Democracy has bombs, nuclear and chemical bombs for others, and freedom for themselves.

The world will go on fighting democracy for ever.

One more thing, I got married in Japan and stayed there somehow. I read a very famous book about there. It was writen by Tatar author and translated into Japanese. It is available in Japan at the moment. I bought one in Japanese even from Japan for my wife.

So, don't ignorant others while you pretent to know everything please. I support Japan because I belive we have the same origine as Turks, Mongolians, Turkish republics, Uygur, Tatar, Koreans and Japan. I believe also that if Japan can succeed to develop in inner field, the real sun will raise from east to fight the whole western colonization.

Regards,
 

Sukotto

先輩
Joined
9 Jul 2003
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
19
Your polemic is misplaced and poorly informed. What you see in those countries is a grassroots resistance to democracy. People who prefer warlords and extremist theocracies to self-determination. If the people do not want democracy, perhaps it is because they only understand tyranny.
Obviously, you've either never been to Japan, or never been there very long. Japan is known around the world as being a place where people rarely say what they mean. That is a blatant contradiction to honesty.
We aren't here to burn the American flag and curse Western imperialists. Do that someplace else please.
Good point, but it is not a government's responsability to recognize the rights of non-citizens, especially if they have their own government.
Interestingly enough, if you examine the Declaration of Independence and compare it to the Constitution of the United States, you'll discover that the Declaration is much more influenced by John Locke, while the Constitution is much more a product of Thomas Hobbes.
Besides, the only rights considered inalienable are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", in that order. It might make me happy if I violated someone else's rights, but I waived my right to the "pursuit of happiness" the moment I violated the rights of another.
Besides, this is a completely modern construction, and was employed by a government that was a republic founded on democratic principles, not a democracy. When democracy was first created, these ideas did not exist.
Which suggests once again, that nothing, as with all those things made by man (mostly man, but would include the probably better things made by women) is perfect and things can always be improved upon.

these "liberties" would include my, your, and every other human being's liberty to speak, liberty to religion of her choice (or not), liberty to make their own press, etc..., regardless of their place of birth. Recent us gov't's attempts to claim so-and-so doesn't have rights are against the constitution which defines its powers.

i don't know so much about which ancient philosopher was the first to recognize and define that aspect of human behavior that we call democracy,
(not that it's not important) i do have the opinion that it is quite lacking in reality in the year 2007 C.E.

Government has no authority to deny inalienable rights of anyone.
At least as far as the philosophy as well as defining documents of the US
are concerned. In certain places rather than "citizen", "people" or "men"(sic) or something is used. This was very conscience, I have read.


What is being imposed on Afghanistan and Iraq are not democracy.
Not only can the Pentagon, or no military for that matter, free the Afghan women Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)
but one cannot impose democracy either.
Was democracy imposed on the population of the eastern seaboard of North America around 1776? No. I've heard that about 25% of the population were "free", that is not women or slaves or servants. That 25% took power and set up a somewhat democratic (adjective) system among themselves. In many ways the system they set up was not unlike the systems which existed when democracy was first named. The few were considered citizens and ruled. In many ways it's not all to different today. It has just become a more sophisticated version of rule by a minority. Democracy it definately is not. Mostly the wealthy few. Like all systems of rule by the few, including Saudi Arabia (which admittedly I am no expert), I hear even they must take into account public opinion to some extent.

What the US gov't is setting up in Afghanistan and Iraq are puppet governments, no doubt. With the word "democracy" added as an adjective to the system of political power in Afghanistan will cause many in the US to forget about it. Maybe even using that word it would convince people in the US to be ok with paying for weapons sent to said government. Things that government does to its population are thus (supposedly) "ok", because afterall, the ruling system has the adjective "democratic" in front of it. One can also note Colombia. Another facade of democracy. Here is truly oligarchic rule that has lived on for practically that past 500 years. The US is clearly taking sides in a civil war that has lasted for the past 40+ years. (I'm not saying the US should take one(1) of the other sides. I would say they shouldn't take sides, and certainly not on the side of an oligarchy.)

Why must there be a centralized system of rule such as in Afghanistan? If the people that live in the Land of Afghans want say, 85 centers of non-connected authority, it should be up to them, alone. Should it not? Isn't that what self-determination is all about? And if they want to act outside of their "country", i.e. areas of authority, maybe they should consider signing onto the group of international laws that the UN generally keeps track of, when its not being undermined by its most powerful members. But can the UN be trusted? When they continue to deny full nation membership the the sovereign First Nations of the Americas? Yup. The territory that compromises the United States of America really is many, many fully legitimate and sovereign "countries" or nations. It's just the usual arrogance and ethno-centrism of the power-elite in the US that opposes the real recognition of their sovereignty.


Ebu Huzeyfe,
hmmm, it does seem that way, doesn't it.
But keep in mind "democracy" is not what the US is. Even the most jingoistic US citizens recognize it is not a democracy. It is like "newspeak" in the novel 1984 by Georg Orwell. A word is used, but the meaning is vacant.
I came across this statement in a book today "atlub al-'ilm hatta fi al-sin".
According to the book it translates to "seek ye knowledge even in China". This would seem to imply that even in lands where non-Muslims live, even secularists, since many consider Buddhism to be a philosophy and not a religion, even in other lands there can be found something worth thinking about.

The US does have a violent disgraceful history of imposing its will on others. Including imposing laws that construct corporations and/or allow for corporations to operate with other people's countries. A country has the right not to make such laws that construct corporations. In the past this has been dennounced as communism, even though the existance or non-existance of corporations, in and of itself has nothing to do with communism. Today it is denounced as "anti-globalization" or "protectionism", even though many that recognize corporations as the law entities for what they are are usually not isolationists and the way the US developed its economy was with lots and lots of tarifs (on top of slave labor[including domestic, household] and stolen land besides).


I honestly believe democracy would not be centralized.
I also do not care very much for people who violently oppose non-violent attempts to develop democracy.

Like the US gov't has traditionally done this.
Read the Church Committee report and the likes from the 70s for
the official (read conservative) acknowledgement of this sort of B.S. undemocratic (to say it nicely) stuff.

Any place that might become more democratic than it, is "evil".
Take for example modern day Venezuela, their president is more legitimate
than Bush, his elections were undisputed, Bush (two stolen elections/disputed one speaks conservatively) yet Bush and Co and supporting pundits attempt to paint a picture of a tyrant. What a joke? Who is repeating all the fascistic stuff of the unconstitutional COINTELPRO era? Who is denying habeas corpus? Who is taking away people's, NOT just citizens, inalienable rights.
What, just because Venezuela's constitutionally elected officials are attempting to put an end to 500 years of rule by oligarchy and they actually treat corporations as the legal entities they are?

And we're all human beings and we all make mistakes and no "one group" is superior to others as Hitler and others delusionally thought so.

end war,
disarm,
feed someone
 
Last edited:

Sukotto

先輩
Joined
9 Jul 2003
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
19
came across this article refering to the Iroquois Confederacy, which
the people who deseigned the US consitution drew influence from.
but of course they left out the matriarchy stuff.
silly white male corporate owners, democracy is for all.




March 24 / 25, 2007 Let the Mothers Do It
The Iroquois Way of Impeachment
By KAZ DZIAMKA

Not only does American democracy rank a miserable 17th on the list of the world's modern democracies (according to the Economist Intelligence Unit's index of democracy); it also doesn't fare well when compared with traditional Native American democracies, in particular, with the Iroquois Confederacy--the Haudenosaunee--"the oldest living participatory democracy on earth."

In "Perceptions of America's Native Democracies," Donald A. Grinde Jr. and Bruce E. Johansen point out that Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, among others, could benefit--and did benefit to some extent--from Native Americans' experience in designing functional democracies. Unfortunately, being racist and sexist as well as mostly contemptuous of direct democracy, our Founding Fathers failed to take full advantage of the political genius of the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy: The Mohawks, the Oneidas, the Onondagas, the Cayugas, the Senecas, and the Tuscaroras. Among the Iroquois provisions absent from the U.S. Constitution is the law that allows Iroquois clan mothers to initiate impeachment against incompetent or criminal political leaders, or "sachems":

The rights, duties, and qualifications of sachems were explicitly outlined, and the clan mothers could remove (or impeach) a sachem who was found guilty of any of a number of abuses of office--from missed meetings to murder.

Had our Founding Fathers been less prejudiced and more inclined to study Native American political philosophy seriously, they would have learned a valuable political lesson from the Iroquois. Today the mothers of U.S. soldiers killed in wars started by the neocon armchair warriors in the White House would have the moral and legal authority to initiate impeachment of these immoral "sachems." In the case of the worst crime of the 21st century--the U.S. war on Iraq--the Iroquois law would give Cindy Sheehan and thousands of American mothers the legal power to force impeachment proceedings in the Supreme Court by bypassing an irresponsible or incompetent Congress.

Once removed from office, Bush and other warlords like Cheney and Rumsfeld would be subject to our criminal laws--no pardon or parole being available to officials thus impeached. (Consider the advantage of this provision if Nixon had been sent to prison, instead of being pardoned by President Gerald Ford, an immoral decision that has had tragic consequences.)

The genius of Iroquois democracy to empower mothers, "the Lifegivers of our Mother Earth," with impeachment authority is that such a law restrains expedient political power with apolitical moral judgment. Iroquois women were not part of the political/military elites and did not feel compelled to compromise moral principles under political pressure. Not our elected representatives in Congress, not our career female politicians like Clinton or Pelosi--but ordinary American citizens, mothers of U.S. soldiers, should ultimately keep executive power in check.

It may be that the Iroquois impeachment law is the only efficient way for modern democracies to balance political expediency with moral responsibility.

Kaz Dziamka is editor of the American Rationalist and teaches English and Native American Studies at the Albuquerque Central New Mexico Community College. Email: [email protected]
http://www.counterpunch.org/dziamka03242007.html
 
Joined
1 Feb 2008
Messages
33
Reaction score
1
Is Japan a democratic country?
I voted "Yes"
But more people votoed "No"
Seriously, I don't know about that.
 
Last edited:

Astroboy

先輩
Joined
5 Dec 2007
Messages
1,264
Reaction score
25
Wasn't sure what was the best place to put this, admin please move this if you can find a better fit.
I will comment after a few people have given their opinions and I will explain why I think it really isn't.

Is USA really a democracy? I don't think so coz that country is quite afftected by religious groups.

Many Americans believe that human being was created by GOD.... 😊
 

Dogen Z

aka YOSUQUE
Joined
23 Apr 2007
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
20
Is Japan a democratic country?
I voted "Yes"
But more people votoed "No"
Seriously, I don't know about that.

Japan has the outward appearance of a democracy but it has been dominated by the Liberal Democratic Party for over half a century. A one-party rule does not make a good democracy. However, I think Japanese like it this way until somebody f**ks up. Then someone else is given a chance.
 

Calchas

先輩
Joined
27 Aug 2007
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Is USA really a democracy? I don't think so coz that country is quite afftected by religious groups.
Many Americans believe that human being was created by GOD.... 😊


The replubican party has been under the control of more religious groups and it is them that try to push their religious ideas on others. Most Americans do not go around thinking man was created from mud by some all powerful god.

However many Americans have many different ideas on what "god" is and how man got here. We respect that here and allow for their free expression of those views.


Not sure how one's thoughts on God or what not make one less democratic if those views are not pushed on others via a goverment mandate??

Perhaps you think they are?
 

Sukotto

先輩
Joined
9 Jul 2003
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
19
Japan has the outward appearance of a democracy but it has been dominated by the Liberal Democratic Party for over half a century. A one-party rule does not make a good democracy. However, I think Japanese like it this way until somebody f**ks up. Then someone else is given a chance.

Plus (and i apologize for always repeating this),
the LDP has received money over the decades
from the US CIA.
So the US helped make Japan a de facto one party state.
 

Astroboy

先輩
Joined
5 Dec 2007
Messages
1,264
Reaction score
25
I think Japanese democracy is very unique in this sense. Probably only Japan in this planet continues its unique system.

In short, Japanese don't like "Change", while Americans, British, French, and Koreans need "Change" sometimes. Even at the Meiji revolution, power transition was accomplished with less blood, and Tokugawa regime remained. Even after WWII, Japan remained unchanged principally with some minor changes only.

From my point of view, I wonder why rest of the world like to change all the time.
 
Top Bottom