hacker

Hmm...expanding the franchise and sharing power with more and more of society....you mean like, what happened in Egypt and Iraq? Iran also has universal suffrage at 18. President and parliament alike are elected by the voters. (There's just a rather large caveat called the "guardian council"...but that's a discussion for another day.)
Universal suffrage doesn't automatically build liberty and contribute to economic growth. Would you say that Egypt has more liberty and economic growth than under "president" Hosni Mubarak?
By the way, would you say that there is a certain "democratic elite" that exists in all democracies? Like, not just the United States? Perhaps in other democracies it's not necessarily corporate donors like here, but there is still an elite in all democracies, isn't there?

I think the liberal democracies that one should model are the original modern democracies. The UK (and many of her former colonies) and the USA .
And if you read Zakkarias book you'll see he builds the case for the creation of liberal institutions and laws first .... followed by a widening of the franchise... (Egypt nor Iraq had these institutions full formed.)
The reason that laws and regulations began to benefit a larger and larger middle class in the US is that those in government had to depend upon a larger and larger enfranchised populace for election. That is they had to respond to the wishes of more than just a small elite group. Therefore laws and programs had to benefit a larger and larger segment of the population. This lead to the creation of a thriving middle class. (In the US, the middle class grew in size and wealth until the 1980's when economic policies and government polices began to reverse themselves and respond only to the needs of the elite... )
In your proposed world, , the enfranchised would be a subset of the populace and governors would only have to respond to their need and wants in order to get elected...

Quite right. Things have to be in place before there can be democracy. I was a complete idiot to forget this in 2003 when I was in support of the war. The prospect of my country finally changing its Cold War policy of military alliances with people exactly like Saddam (and including Saddam himself at one point) I found quite thrilling. As an Australian I met put it, now that the United States no longer has to defend liberty and justice, it can defend liberty and justice.

Alas, a democracy cannot be created out of the ashes of a state the likes of Ba'athist Iraq, nor simply planted in the soil fully grown, as if one had removed a bunch of weeds and replaced them with a rose garden. There might not be the right nutrients in the soil, and then what? The rose bush dies and the weeds take over the garden again.

Thus if you are saying what I think you are saying, then Iraq and Egypt can be said to not be Japan and Germany (where such a strategy actually worked). What however was so different between Iraq and Egypt on the one hand, and Japan and Germany on the other? Probably the soil was better, what political scientists call the "civil society" was not yet in place in Egypt or Iraq.

But does that not at least somewhat vindicate Heinlein's views on democracy? They're pretty fragile aren't they? Why do you suppose that is? Maybe, there are gardens where the roses can never grow.

In your proposed world, , the enfranchised would be a subset of the populace and governors would only have to respond to their need and wants in order to get elected...

Has it ever occurred to you that even democracies have elites? And not just the United States? I think our elite is easier to identify, because it's tied in with money. Just like they said during Watergate "Follow the Money." Pretty easy to do so. Not so easy when the elite isn't tied in with money as much. And there are other kinds of greed and corruption than just those related to money.

hacker

Has it ever occurred to you that even democracies have elites? And not just the United States? I think our elite is easier to identify, because it's tied in with money. Just like they said during Watergate "Follow the Money." Pretty easy to do so. Not so easy when the elite isn't tied in with money as much. And there are other kinds of greed and corruption than just those related to money

Of course. But is the elite one that has earned its status through merit? Not just through membership in the right ethnic group, or party or club or inheritance?
The political system in a democracy needs to be equally responsive to all citizens if it is going to work equally well for all citizens. But when a political system has been corrupted by the influence of money - both by the personal greed of governors using their position and through the requirement for vast amounts of campaign money to earn election - then the system will not be equally responsive.
The notion of one man one vote was intended to promote a government for all. Equally responsive to all. In countries where money for campaigns is less required, or publicly provided, democracy has been less corrupted. And the middle class and working classes are in better shape. Because their political power has been eroded, and therefore the government has t be responsive to their needs and wants.
(Consumer protection laws are a perfect area worth comparing, in this regard.)

hacker

Thus if you are saying what I think you are saying, then Iraq and Egypt can be said to not be Japan and Germany (where such a strategy actually worked)

There are so many complex differences here....
Lets start with three of them being occupied, but Egypt was an internal eruption of democracy....
Egypt also had some, but not a lot of the foundation institutions required for democracy to flourish. Morsi had a chance to make incremental gains and move Egypt along the path towards a modern democracy, but he reached too far, before society in Egypt had adjusted to any change. The army was going to accept some change, in the way monarchies and nobles accepted some changes in England, long before full democracy was ushered in ...

The other nations have their own peculiarities. Germany and Japan were homogeneous societies with many of the necessary foundations (working courts, property laws, etc.) . Iraq has always been a cobbled together nation of tribes. And the institutions that were solid were torn apart by the occupiers... and new ones established.

I thought I made a post in between those two you made, but I guess I must've erased it by accident. Dunno how the hell I could have done that but I guess I did.

Anywho: Quite right on Iraq. As Robert Baer astutely put it, Iraq is not a country, it's an army (or was, he was talking about under Ba'athist rule).

And actually, Morsi did not shrink from constitutional shenanigans himself. That's what prompted the army to arrest him, I do believe.

My point, though, was that a lot of dictatorships do extend universal suffrage offers. But how meaningful are they? It does not just have to do with the society they are governing (the factors you mentioned, the "civil society" so to speak) it has to do with the fact that some country's leaders do not wan to be a democracy, or actually want to extend their power to others. And they keep their power jealously guarded, how? By making it look good to the public, and giving them a share in what Mesquita & Smith call the class of "interchangeables" or "nominal selectorate".

I would think, given your harsh criticism of a monied elite in American society, you would be on my side here. I'm not surprised, really (not because I think you are stupid; I wouldn't bother to argue if I thought that) because you seem to think universal suffrage is totally commensurate with individual liberty. It's not necessarily. In the United States, an act of congress was passed that became quite controversial, and took away some of our liberties we should not have given away, and gave the government some powers it should not have been given. (I'm talking about the Patriot Act).

And the sad thing is that other democracies (particularly in Europe) have passed far more stringent measures years previously. As an interesting aside, the vote in favor of the Patriot Act in Congress was 357 to 66 in the House, and 98 to 1 (!!!!) in the Senate. Pretty f***** lopsided. Then, the 110th Congress (2007 to 2009) cheerfully rammed Bush's wiretapping bills through the House and Senate with little or no objection.

Yet you said our freedoms are guarded by our political rights, did you? I found 535 people who disagree.

hacker

Yet you said our freedoms are guarded by our political rights, did you?

I did not say they were perfectly protected.
When people give up freedom its usually because they have been made fearful and believe that they must surrender some freedom in order to protect themselves. That has been the case in the US a few times. Not just after 9/11.

hacker

My point, though, was that a lot of dictatorships do extend universal suffrage offers. But how meaningful are they? It does not just have to do with the society they are governing (the factors you mentioned, the "civil society" so to speak) it has to do with the fact that some country's leaders do not wan to be a democracy, or actually want to extend their power to others. And they keep their power jealously guarded, how? By making it look good to the public, and giving them a share in what Mesquita & Smith call the class of "interchangeables" or "nominal selectorate".

The journey towards democracy has not generally been a leap. It is a series of incremental gains, and an ever widening virtuous circle that expands to include more and more people, and empowers more and more people.
When nations have democracy "imposed upon them", without the foundational institutions that help protect democracies, its been pretty hit or miss. Libya was a nation that had no real institutions. It had devolved to cult of personality. Trying to move towards democracy there has been painful, as the nation has retreated back to the social structures that preceded and survived Qadaffi. Tribes. And Tribalism.
On the other hand, the Baltic States the Czech republic, Poland and Slovakia and Slovenia have all returned to be functioning democracies after an absence of liberal institution and democracy for a number of decades..
Democracy comes at an apex of human development. Bands to tribes to city states to nation states and then the development of liberal institutions and finally the growth of suffrage from the few to universality.
Your "restricted franchise" is a step back on the evolution..

On the other hand, the Baltic States the Czech republic, Poland and Slovakia and Slovenia have all returned to be functioning democracies after an absence of liberal institution and democracy for a number of decades..

Strictly speaking those countries never had liberal institutions in the first place. I suppose the old Czechoslovakia was briefly a democracy in the interwar years, after having been carved out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but it didn't last very long. Likewise Poland. Slovenia didn't exist until the break-up of Yugoslavia happened and the Baltics were occupied firstly by the German Empire and then by the USSR.

JimHackerMP wrote:Yet you said our freedoms are guarded by our political rights, did you? I found 535 people who disagree.

We also need vigilance as citizens, something sorely lacking in the war-fervour that was generated by 9/11. I don't see how reducing the franchise makes that any easier to do, especially concerning the rights of those excluded from the franchise.

When people give up freedom its usually because they have been made fearful and believe that they must surrender some freedom in order to protect themselves. That has been the case in the US a few times. Not just after 9/11.

Agreed; but sometimes it is because they're bloody-minded about it, or not paying enough attention to it.

On the other hand, the Baltic States the Czech republic, Poland and Slovakia and Slovenia have all returned to be functioning democracies after an absence of liberal institution and democracy for a number of decades..



Strictly speaking those countries never had liberal institutions in the first place. I suppose the old Czechoslovakia was briefly a democracy in the interwar years, after having been carved out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but it didn't last very long. Likewise Poland. Slovenia didn't exist until the break-up of Yugoslavia happened and the Baltics were occupied firstly by the German Empire and then by the USSR.

Actually, that's rather a good point. I learned, in a class on European history since 1914 (to present) that, by the time of the immediate prewar years, the Republic of Czechoslovakia was the only functioning democracy left as such out of all the eastern European nations at the time. We think of Poland as a "free country" with a democratic government before the German takeover when, in reality, it was replacing its own dictatorship with another (the German occupation). (not saying that makes the German invasion an "improvement" by any means!)

We also need vigilance as citizens, something sorely lacking in the war-fervour that was generated by 9/11. I don't see how reducing the franchise makes that any easier to do, especially concerning the rights of those excluded from the franchise.

Who is to be excluded? I do not recall excluding anybody....

I would prefer that democracy survive. But I would prefer this earned-franchise at least to dictatorship. My point is that democracy may not, and this may be the law of the land one day. I just say this because there are alarming trends in this country, and others, that make me wonder if our democracy cannot be fatally wounded and some day have to make a choice between a different form of government, or a return to tyranny under an actual dictatorship (not all dictatorships are "military juntas" by the way....). It has been said that democracy is fragile. It is fragile indeed.

But play devil's advocate with me for a minute, if you please. Try at least to think, since I'm apparently incapable of it, if there are any built-in flaws to democracy that could doom us, if we're not "vigilant"? And also think how likely it will be that the general population will always remain vigilant. I've said it before and I'll say it again, no constitution, no matter how nifty, how craftily written, even if its authors truly "thought of everything", will survive the day when the people no longer believe in it. I am terribly worried that my countrymen aren't that vigilant. And I'm actually hoping we are actually the only ones in the democratic world in this position (but for others to say we are and they are not, smacks of "famous last words" to me).

hacker

Yet you said our freedoms are guarded by our political rights, did you?


I did not say they were perfectly protected

And why do you say that our freedoms are not perfectly protected? Why could that be?

freeman

Strictly speaking those countries never had liberal institutions in the first place

They had some of the things that are required before democracy generally flourishes. An established legal code, independent judiciary, property rights, regulated and protected financial institutions. (I don't remember all the institutions Zakkaria noted, but these are some.)
What liberal institutions is protect some individual rights against arbitrary imposition of will by a the state. Whether that state is an individual (monarchy) or small elite group. (nobility).
Hackers notions of an elite, is really a retreat to a situation where there is a group of nobles who have rights and powers greater than ordinary citizens. It does not protect democracy. It sets if back, in the case of England a couple of hundred years. In the case of the USA about 150.
He posits the strange argument that in order to protect democracy, we must reduce it.

Hackers notions of an elite, is really a retreat to a situation where there is a group of nobles who have rights and powers greater than ordinary citizens. It does not protect democracy. It sets if back, in the case of England a couple of hundred years. In the case of the USA about 150.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH!

No just kidding. But seriously, Hacker does NOT want to turn back the clock. You do not seem to understand the difference between an inaccessible elite, such as the republic aristocracy of the 1790s to 1830s, and a group constantly open to membership of anyone so long as they jump through the hoops; through which no one can be denied to jump, regardless of race, sex, orientation, family background, or any amount of ownership of property [or total lack thereof]. You're all looking (and quite superficially I might add) at the respective numbers of voters.

Even if you don't agree with Heinlein's books---and like I said, I'm not so much a supporter as a realist who thinks this is going to happen whether you and I like it or not---you have to admit, his meritocracy is NOT the same as barring people franchise due to race or previous condition of servitude (XV Amendment) sex (XIX Amendment) failure to pay a poll tax (XXIV) raising it back to age 21 (XXVI Amendment), property ownership (Art. I, S. 2), or religious affiliation (Amendment I) or any such debarment. The only possible reason one can be debarred suffrage is that they didn't jump through the hoops required to have it. And anyone can earn it, regardless of...you get the idea. You can't possibly think it's the same thing.

hacker

a group constantly open to membership of anyone so long as they jump through the hoops; through which no one can be denied to jump, regardless of race, sex, orientation, family background, or any amount of ownership of property [or total lack thereof

].
You mean like joining the Communist Party? Or the National Socialist Party?

JimHackerMP wrote:a group constantly open to membership of anyone so long as they jump through the hoops; through which no one can be denied to jump, regardless of race, sex, orientation, family background, or any amount of ownership of property [or total lack thereof].

What about disability?

You're all looking (and quite superficially I might add) at the respective numbers of voters.

No, I'm also looking at who would be excluded. I asked you about that, and didn't really get much of an answer. Also, it's hard not to look superficially at Heinlein's political ideas, because they are fairly superficial to start with.

Even if you don't agree with Heinlein's books---and like I said, I'm not so much a supporter as a realist who thinks this is going to happen whether you and I like it or not---

On what basis do you think this is a more likely successor to democracy as we know it than, say... dictatorship?

you have to admit, his meritocracy is NOT the same as barring people franchise due to race or previous condition of servitude (XV Amendment) sex (XIX Amendment) failure to pay a poll tax (XXIV) raising it back to age 21 (XXVI Amendment), property ownership (Art. I, S. 2), or religious affiliation (Amendment I) or any such debarment. The only possible reason one can be debarred suffrage is that they didn't jump through the hoops required to have it. And anyone can earn it, regardless of...you get the idea. You can't possibly think it's the same thing.

Not everyone is going to be able to join the military, are they? So what will those who can't do - is it "merit"? Is that "merit" objectively or subjectively measured?

And what is to stop this apparently laudable and inevitable framework from being subverted? You are quick to tell us what the weaknesses of full-suffrage democracy are, but what about this situation? When the power is dependent on the support of a smaller section of society than before, especially a section filled with with people who are encouraged to have been loyal to that power structure (after all, the military is about loyalty to the state, is it not?), doesn't that make it just as likely - if not more so - that sectional interests can capture government?

And why are you citing the Constitution? If there's the massive upheaval you are saying is going to happen in order to presage the Heinleinian system, is it not likely that the USA or the Constitution will have been massively altered as well?

As far I can tell, Hacker, your argument goes like this

(1) democracy is in trouble because of wide-spread voter apathy,
(2) people who have been in the military are superior to the average person in some sense and in particular in civic duty and democracy will be better safe-guarded if sovereignty was left to them;
(3) And since democracy is otherwise going to deteriorate into something worse, this military-dominated democracy is better than the alternatives

I don't see where you have proven any of these claims.
Here is the laundry list of problems:

(1) Either you are creating a superior caste of people that have been in the military and lessening the notion of equality or, given the disadvantages of not being in the military, everyone joins the military and you have defeated the purpose;

(2) Being in the military is not necessarily or tied to skill or any other trait. This is not like China which had an examination system that ensured quality of the bureaucracy that carried out rule. Service in the military would mark someone as being part of a group and groups are necessarily varied in intelligence and other attributes of human beings . Marking someone as being in the military as bring superior merely because of that is identity politics with no real difference between marking someone as being superior based on race or gender. The fact that someone "earns" entry into the group as opposed to being born into it is immaterial here as you have not tied entry to individual accomplishment (and certainly not tied to a showing of individual superiority in civic duty or rule). But you say that on "average" people who have been in the military will be better. Well, I could just as easily argue that Asians or Jews are better academically, this means they would be as a group on average that would do better in ruling than the norm , and therefore they should rule. Is that how we want to do things?;

(3) anyone not having military service would be stigmatized as being of less worth, less "equal". This stigma is bound to affect all aspects of society.

(4) with the military being so glorified why would individual rights be respected. In the military, you do not have the same rights as in civilian life. Individual rights that come into conflict with the greater good...may not be permitted;

(5) Would a military-dominated society pay attention to civil control? Why wouldn't the military take control of the government, particularly in times of crisis?

(6) why would there to be any accountability to those persons not serving in the military since they have no vote?;

(7) What if the military decided that women should not be allowed to join or at least the military took a much higher percentage of men? What if the military discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation? Owen mentioned the disabled, but how about those who have religious or other convictions against serving in the military? Is it fair or even desirable to restrict people with talent from serving or having a voice in government?

(8) The military is a top-down, hierarchical, non-equal organization where one is not free to express one's views without restriction. You think a military-dominated society is going to have a lot of tolerance for diverse viewpoints?

I think it would move the discussion along if you submitted more direct proof of your contentions and perhaps more specific answers to the critiques. Otherewise , it's just talking past one another.