Democracy means all power to the people - above all other issues. It means that society is run by it's citizens, rather than the rich (aristocracy) an individual (despotism) a royal family (monarchy), or a clergy (theocracy).
For survival democracy needs freedom of information and expression, equality between its citizens, and peace. The future for all three of these areas is more bleak than we imagine.
Many people think that nations are either democratic or not - like a light switch that can only be on or off. There are different levels, like a dimmer switch. I call this the STANDARD OF DEMOCRACY.
The demand for democracy is strong, and democracy's enemies (mainly aristocrats - the rich) have survived by compromise, creating governments with a low standard of democracy that give the people as little power as possible without causing a revolt.
Democracy is not given to citizens by the government, it is taken by the citizens from the aristocrats.
In ancient Athens only about 10% of the population could vote - a very low standard of democracy. In "The land of the free and home of the brave" only rich white males could vote at first. In the south only war and occupation gave blacks the vote - which they lost the moment Union soldiers went home. In 1918 British women gained the right to vote - but only if they were over 30 years old! A decade later the voting age for women was lowered to 21.
The more of a threat the people pose to the aristocrats, the more freedom and power they will be able to take. We have been lulled into security - by our pursuit of non-issues like animal rights and abortion, our fear of each other, and our plain hopelessness and apathy. The result is a semi-liberated netherworld where all are created equal until inheritance, where freedom of the press belongs to those who own a press, and where we fight wars for peace.
It is a higher standard of democracy than Athens, but still not good enough. Higher up the standard is direct democracy (rule by the people without representatives) and at the very top is anarchy - a society so democratic that no authority is needed.
Some talk of the social contract, and the consent of the governed. It makes sense that a rich person consents to being rich - if they didn't they'd burn their money - but who consents to being poor?
What's the deal with "economic freedom" and "collectivism"?
The term "economic freedom", refers to the privilege of having and inheriting property. Obviously this is more useful to some people than to others...And those some just happen to be the aristocratic elites - the enemies of democracy.
George Bush, representing those elites, talked about "free markets, free trade, free speech". (Interesting which he put first, and which he put last!) yet property rights were never intended to be sacred in themselves. The founding fathers realized that if a government couldn't oppress people directly, it could still take political dissidents' property from them. This is what happened to Loyalists who fled to Canada after the revolution. In fact, the White House is built on land that was confiscated from a loyalist - so if Bush had really been for "economic freedom" he would have had to give his own house to some Canadian!
Of course, for democratic economic freedom, we would first need economic equality, right?
The 1992 edition of the Software Toolworks Multimedia Encyclopedia says on the subject of equality that "Some theorists would add equality of resources, or at least equality of opportunities, to the ideal characteristics of democracy. Such goals, however, conflict with the ideal of economic freedom and certainly cannot be taken as a defining characteristic of existing democracies". This may be valid, if you can forget that nearly all of the property we are protecting from theft was originally stolen from somebody else! After all, before the White House land was stolen from the Loyalist, it was stolen from the natives.
And it can be argued (as I do) that all things are actually the property of God or nature. My philosophy doesn't involve "collectivist redistribution of wealth", it involves all people realizing that since all things belong to God, that we are meant to share them. "Collectivism" means making property of one person become the property of another person, which I have no interest in.
Check your local standard of democracy:
1. Is every decision to be made discussed and decided by the people by consensus or a vote, or is it in the hands of a few individuals or "representatives"?
2. Do you have freedom of expression in both ends and means - if you expresses yourself will you be either persecuted or ignored?
3. Assuming that bosses and politicians are at the top and the common people are at the bottom, is your country generally run from the top-down or from the bottom-up?
4. Do all people in your community have access to all things, or are things owned by the government or individuals and called "property"?
5. Do the people directly choose their authority - in the workplace do employees choose their boss? Can they decide that a boss is not necessary?
IMO, as of 1999 no country on Earth is free enough to be rightly called a democracy, in fact, many nations don't even pretend to be democratic.
Nationalities, which (except in North America) are based on race, (or in the case of Africa, are based on what European race stole the land) are far to large and unwieldy to be fully democratic - you simply can't hold a meeting with over a billion people, in the case of the "People's Democracy of China".
Some small groups - Native "first nations", communities, and "primitive" tribes are fully democratic - but not all of them.
All Those in favor of democracy:
"Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that
have been tried from time to time."
-- Winston Churchill, speech, House of
Commons, Nov. 1947
"You will never escape the will of the mob, about the
best anyone has ever figured out to do is herd them into voting booths."
--
Barry Shein
"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged,
there government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and
property are his who can take them."
-- Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis
Citizens, 1809
"Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to
truth; and I am sure…… we both value too much the freedom of opinion sanctioned
by our Constitution, not to cherish its exercise even where in opposition to
ourselves."
-- Thomas Jefferson to Mr. Wendover, 1815
And
those opposed...
"The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and
inner organization anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects…… a principle of
majority rule in which the leader is degraded to the level of mere executant of
other people's wills and opinion."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p.
344
"The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion,
but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their
master!"
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 465
"By rejecting
the authority of the individual and replacing it by the numbers of some
momentary mob, the parliamentary principle of majority rule sins against the
basic aristocratic principle of Nature……"
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein
Kampf, p. 81
"For there is one thing we must never forget…… the
majority can never replace the man. And no more than a hundred empty heads make
one wise man will an heroic decision arise from a hundred cowards."
-- Adolf
Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 82
"There must be no majority decisions,
but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its
original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the
decision will be made by one man."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p.
449