Sep 9, 2006 1:05:00 PM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: Democracy as a political process is very important because it theoretically gives people their voice to be able to participate openly through a transparent process that is supposed to empower them. But the political process will only be as good as the people's responsibility to actually utilize it and to be engaged in it. So we have democratic governments where people are allowed to cast their votes, to have their opinions and their choices made known but often do not exercise their right to vote. So there has been growing apathy among the people to be able to exercise their political voice and their political participation as citizens. So we must know that any political process is only going to be good as the people who are engaged in it and with it and see it as their responsibility to be able to support it in ways that will continuously allow the constituents to be engaged and heard and to never divest themselves of their responsibility or abdicate their responsibility to be active participants. So the, what is ultimately democratic processes, political processes, must speak to the empowerment of the people and their continuous ability to never give up and to see that their opportunities are inherently created by themselves.

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 1:05:00 PM cite

Avi Primor: Well "Is there something better than democracy" - I think "Is there a better political system than democracy" is meant - probably not. There is the famous saying by George Julian: "Democracy has all kinds of mistakes and disadvantages, it is a totally bad system." But we have not found anything better yet. In fact it is real. Democracy is not a final term. It is a term still in development. The democrary brought into being by the French Revolution has developed so much since then and now looks totally different than at that time, so that the democracy of these two times are not comparable at all. But even if we compare the democracies developed after the Second World War with our society nowadays, we will see large differences. A lot of terms have changed. People have other values, other criteria. But the principle has stayed: Not one person is able or allowed to decide for others, but the general population takes part at the decisions, politicians know that they have to please the populatian to be successful and this is the principle of democracy that is still developing and does not have anything better than this principle and this starting point.

by Avi Primor

Sep 9, 2006 1:05:00 PM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: Something better than democracy? True democracy, if we were that the core of what a true democracy is we can see that it is just routed and good sound principles and has good intentions. Today’s democracy, modern democracy is very different than true, appropriate -- I say appropriate but true democracy. And what happens is sometimes we latch on to an idea and then we are attached to that idea. We limit the growth by holding on too tight. We’ve change what democracy is today by modifying it around our own interest, our own political interest, the corporate interest. And so democracy today is very different than its core concepts. Now again, as a people, we are part of evolutionary cycle and that the political realm is also evolutionary cycle that can take on new forms and we you need to continue to question the authority of democracy, and question the modalities of politics. And experiment and trying new things, see what works, readjust the design to best fit the times, to best fit the people. We’re preaching democracy and saying all this is in democracy, we want to bring democracy to this country or that country and now really bringing true democracy. Where are we bringing hypocrisy? Kleptocracy? Stealing, the thievery of people and their culture? I don’t know if there is something better. I would really hope so. I think there is something better than democracy especially the democracy that we have today. True democracy is a good concept and maybe we should go back to its core. Explore the core concepts of true democracy and put back in place some of the things that worked that we’re working and things that aren’t working, we should change. -- True democracy, genuine democracy. -- So, Donato is talking about genuine democracy, I was saying true democracy but genuine democracy that’s the one, genuine, the true one.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 1:05:00 PM cite

Benson Venegas: Yes. Some people would insist that it theocracy. But theocracy by its definition exclude all other ways of social reality, unless we decided to create a religiously pluralistic way of life, where equality, liberty, and justice are the same for all. Other people would argue that's socialism. But the greatest challenge today for socialism is how can we promote economical growth independent from personal, individualistic greed, to a more communal motivation of producing the goods, and that there's a fair distribution of the benefits that come from these goods. I guess that my personal conclusion is that the only system that is greater than democracy is a democracy in which its people is greater than the system itself. Is greater - the people is greater than the system itself.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 1:05:00 PM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 1:05:00 PM cite

Bill Joy: Plato thought so. Plato thought that rather than electing politicians to lead us we should train people much like we train a doctor. We wouldn’t hold an election to pick a doctor. And people could learn to be wise rulers. And certainly history has no shortage of examples of bad and incompetent leadership. So should we do this? Should we stress competence over politics and management skills over ideology? Things like the initiative systems that we have in some states in the United States go to this point because rather than be elected officials making the laws we submit more things to a direct vote of the people. And that’s to go back from a representative democracy which is what we have because the number of people now to more of a direct democracy. But I think that democracy is clearly of value and one should participate overall but it’s not the only value. And if we can find a system which emphasizes more competence as opposed to the media show and celebrities becoming the people with the power, and people who are good at manipulating the power becoming the ones with the power and perhaps there is something after democracy as we know it.

by Bill Joy

Sep 9, 2006 1:05:00 PM cite

Bora Cosic: (Smiling)... We shouldn’t need a better solution then the democratic one, weren’t democracy as idea and in the praxis been 100 of time devaluated. Let us only remember how many countries of very suspicious democracy carry this word in there own name. Of course some socially justified society would be even more suitable. However I don’t wish to use the word socialism here, which is also being drawn in the mud by socialist tyrants and dictators. Thus I believe we should stick to the democracy and democratize it as much as possible.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 1:05:00 PM cite

Brian J. Weller: So, that’s my mind map on this section in terms of understanding power. So, is there something better than democracy? Yeah, probably, real democracy. I don’t think we’ve ever had democracy. Democritus, actually, who coined the idea and created the first “democratic society” in Greece. It was basically for men and particularly men of influence and power. So in that respect, nothing has much changed in a way. So yeah, we need real democracy and that means updating it with new values. Basically, the real question I think is, how do we get to live together, really live together. And really putting in real programs around health, what it really means to be healthy; promoting health and housing, hygiene; looking at real human values and practical programs. I mean that’s really how we create real democracy. Spending our money on what’s really important. So, I would say the current form of democracy really has been hijacked by people corrupted by power and influence and privilege. I hope and trust that that is coming to an end. In a way, world consciousness is rising and it’s rising to expose a lot of the imbalances of power. I mean ultimately power means the ability to act. It doesn’t even say you have to use it, but it’s an ability. It’s that sense of power. Eudemonia, I think it’s called – Eudemonia – a Greek word that means the greatest good of human life. Aristotle held that it consisted basically in exercising the true virtues for their own sake. You know, these are the inner virtues. In other words, it’s enough to be and promote goodness in your life. So, something better than democracy? Yeah, the real thing – the real thing. We have fake democracy right now; fake democracy. I think in many ways our democracy is being expressed right now it’s like the theater of the absurd. It’s more of an expression of insanity than it is of anything else, but we’re trying our best. Yeah, the real thing.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 1:05:00 PM cite

Catherine David: I think the question is not to know if there is something better, I think the question is to be a little bit vigilant concerning what one offers us under the name of democracy. Democracy is not a brand, it is not a trade mark, is cannot be distributed like Gucci and Prada and the other brands but unfortunately reality works a little bit like this. In how many countries did we spread, in the worst moments of the recent years, crime and chaos under the name of democracy? So I think that by democracy one cannot understand some arrangements that suit to a certain number of powers and are imposed on this or that country, by force if necessary. Democracy is a process, it is always in the making, there is always something to do, something to improve, it cannot go without a dissent whereas our societies practice more and more the religion of consensus. Thus, for me, it is very important that democracy cannot be established without dissent, without disharmony, even without violence, on condition that the violence remains a verbal or symbolic violence and not a real one. From then on, we can probably begin to talk but it seems as if…, what we are currently seeing today, that means an imposition of more and more force, of violence, of injustice under the name of the integral panacea or the absolute miracle which is called the American version of democracy, an irakisation of the world. This is completely unacceptable.

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 1:05:00 PM cite

China Keitetsi: There isn't and there will never be anything better than democracy, because democracy makes you live with no fear. Democracy makes you decide what you want to do with your life, what you want to do for others. Democracy makes you travel without limit, free movement. Democracy is our mother. Democracy is our father. And I think we should try very hard to pass it on to everybody because like freedom needs everybody. I think democracy needs everybody, too because those who died before they experience the beauty of democracy is a sad story for them. I think we should work hard and encourage every leader to use democracy to rule his people, to rule his country, because with democracy he will rule with truth, with democracy he will rule on fairness and with democracy no leader will use so much energy trying to lie to his people. No leader will have to use so much energy in propaganda, using propaganda. And every leader after democracy, they will rest in their home country and will always be loved and respected because imagine those dictators who rule with no democracy. At the end of their rule, they die in exile. At the end of their rule, they are hated. At the end of their rule, their children suffer. At the end of their rule so many friends of theirs suffer because of them. But if they had ruled with democracy, they would enjoy so much and they will leave a legacy whereby my child or someone's child would envy and like to be like that leader. I have a big respect of those who rule with democracy. Be a leader, don't be a ruler. And with democracy, you'll be a leader.

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 1:05:00 PM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: There is the well-known sentence by Winston Churchill, which is often quoted, that democracy is the worst form of government, but still the best one at the same time. This is undoubtedly correct. It is a fallacy to believe that problems could be solved more easily in the states of Africa and Latin America which had military dictatorships for many decades. It is a fallacy to believe that despots could be given the power to govern to the exclusion of democratic rules in those states, despots who then should provide more political stability or a lasting economic boom. Empiricism show us that the contrary is true. Think of Costa Rica, a comparably democratic state in Latin America, in Central America which is quite prosperous economically, more prosperous than Guatemala, for instance, where dictatorial regimes were in power. Think of Paraguay, where the dictator Stroessner was in power for thirty years, today Paraguay is a very weak state economically, just like Bolivia, where Banzer was the dictator in power for decades, is a very poor state. Brazil which also had a military government has experienced an enormous economic boom in the democratic period under Lula and also under Cardoso, its last social democrat president. We cannot claim that dictatorships are economically more secure, just like in Chile under Pinochet: the economic-political upswing of the past ten years of democracy in Chile is considerable, Chile has become one of the most stable political economies in Latin America. No, I think democracy is the condition, also for the participation of wide circles of the population and we should not give in to the primacy of power, for instance we should not say, in the case of Saddam Hussein, that Hussein had a stabilizing impact on the Middle East because of his dictatorship. This is hypocrisy, this is not a form of political stability that we should strive for, this is not desirable. We should make the attempt to combine democracy and cultural-historical conditions. Moreover we cannot say that democracy is a western privilege. In Japan, six centuries before the Magna Carta in England, there were basic democratic aspirations, just like in the Hindu civilizations in India, or even in Africa. Democracy can be integrated into the entire world, democracy is not just a western privilege.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 1:05:00 PM cite

Cornel West: It depends on what you mean by democracy: there is capitalist democracy, there is white supremacist democracy, there is patriarchal democracy. This has to do with defining citizenship in such a way it is still confined to why supremacist democracy just to white citizens, patriarchal democracy just for men, capitalist democracy primarily for the property holders wielding a disproportionate amount of power in the citizenry and its deployment of power. People’s democracy, deep democracy, radical democracy is, in fact, I believe the best that human beings can do and never will do. And even radical democracy and deep democracy will not create paradise. It won’t create a Utopia, but it will certainly be the best that we can do because it does, in fact, provide the real stuff for satisfying needs and protecting rights and liberties. And, I think the best that any society can do is to ensure that each and every citizen, each and every person lives a life with dignity, is able to make choices in such a way that they can flower and flourish without promoting injurious harm to others. That’s what people’s democracy, that’s what deep and radical democracy is all about. And is there anything better than that? I doubt it. I doubt it.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 1:05:00 PM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 1:05:00 PM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: At the moment democracy is still widely used as better as any other form of government that we have. However, it’s our political leaders who are abusing the concept and the principles behind democracy. That for me gives us an idea as indigenous peoples that there is much more than democracy, and this is the indigenous governance. Why? Because indigenous governments does not promote colonization. It does not promote controlling other people in the name of any certain governance. It rather, it respects the governance of each place, of each country, and that’s indigenous governance. But for us, it’s better in democracy. But in actual when you see the world still comparing to other forms of government experience, democracy seems to be more applicable rationalized that in one way or another promote freedom for the humanity. And, therefore, as I said, there is no other form of governance is much better at the moment of the principles and practice of democracy, except for indigenous governance.

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas

Sep 9, 2006 1:05:00 PM cite

Dritëro Kasapi: Hello, Alex. Is there something better than democracy? Not that I know of. It might not be the most perfect system but I think it is the best one I can imagine there is right now. But democracy is by itself nothing. If we, as citizens, don’t act democratically, which means demand responsibility and be responsible, and exercise our rights and also exercise our duties. Not everyone in the world would agree with me, of course. I’m sure that people feel that other systems are better than democracy. But then, it’s our kind of democratic duty to accept that there are other opinions also. I feel that we as societies are becoming less democratic, but we’re still calling it democracy, and that’s what I feel that we are undermining our own concept of democracy. We say we live in democratic countries while our individual freedoms are being more and more limited because of this global threat of terrorism, which is becoming an excuse to limit freedoms, to control us. That is something where we need to fight against. I think democracies become better by always being critical and that’s what I think, that’s what for me makes democracy good and the best system I know of, because it gives me the opportunity to be critical and gives me the opportunity to fight for my cause in the society I belong to. I don’t know any other system that does that, and I think we should actually see to it that we defend the system but not necessarily impose it to others. Democracy is about freedom and freedom of choices, and if someone wants to be democratic, it has to be his own choice.

by Dritëro Kasapi

Sep 9, 2006 1:05:00 PM cite

Eliane Potiguara: My opinion is that the world and all people think and consider too much this word “better”. They always talk about “what is better for this” or “what is better for that”. First of all, this is a concept that should be over. Because what is better for one is not better for the other. So this question itself is tendentious for me. In second place, we need to consider the micro-populations. For example, the indigenous people. I always talk about the indigenous, because this is my area, the indigenous rights. Even inside the situation of indigenous populations we have the ethnic groups. These are small groups that have their own administrations, their own language, culture, world view and keep united according to established rules. Other governments want to impose them against the ideology of a micro ethnic group, of a small region. This is wrong. Because each group, each ethnic group has his way of living. I don’t want to use this term “better”, but a way of acting, of respecting people’s sovereignty or to the self-administration of these people is respecting each ethnic group, each identity, each culture, each world view, each micro-community. Then this self-governments they should have expression. This is actually about diversity. Finding unity in diversity. Populations, ethnic groups, with their governments, with their own social political and economic administration must be respected and considered by these big governments. And a representative of a micro population should be as important as one of a government, for instance, from Germany. And this is not what we see, we actually see the contrary. So, from my point of view, I don’t know if this system for populations would be a better democracy. But respecting people in their individualities needs to happen now. Because this disrespect with the differences is the reason of the conflicts. People from these micro or bigger groups are unsatisfied and unhappy with this government that imposes so much.

by Eliane Potiguara

Sep 9, 2006 1:05:00 PM cite

Eliot Weinberger: I think there is something better than the current versions of democracy. What has been lacking in many of the so-called democratic states has been the sense of -– that the individual is actually having some part in the larger [whole]. I live in a country where less than 50% of the people bother to vote because they feel that what happens in their government is something that they themselves cannot change or has nothing to do with their lives. So, I think that, if you the sense of a government that is actually doing something to make your life better, and in which you have some sort of a voice on some level, that you have a greater sense of democratic ideals. So, to date, they haven’t really -- one hasn’t conceived of systems better than the Utopian ideal of democracy, but I would say that we are very far from having achieved a truly democratic society on the nation state level.

by Eliot Weinberger

Sep 9, 2006 1:05:00 PM cite

Ervin Laszlo: Just recall Churchill saying, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for its alternatives.” So, democracy is not perfect, but there is nothing better that we would know about at this time.

by Ervin Laszlo