next up previous
Next: Elaboration 29 Up: Elaboration 28 Previous: Elaboration 28


Elaboration 28.1

There is plenty of confusion about what the term 'democracy' is, should be, might be, we translate, they call, etc. Some people think that when you don't get shot immediately you have critic on the government, others that it is the right to strike (unions, contract-violation) might be democracy, others that it is the abandonment of self-say and choosing some 'representatives' as dictators, still others think it is democratic when information is made available to the public, etc., etc. The confusio in terminis is such that most readers and students soon give up altogether and just don't apply any definition any more at all. They just garble on. Let us, for a change, just define it as its very name already defines it. 'The rule or governing of the people, by the people'. This is a sort of continuous plebiscite, an unending referendum, which necessitates a majority rule. Russell in his 'History of Western Philosophy' comes up with the following, strange, statement: "Athenian democracy, though it had the grave limitation of not including slaves or women, was in some respects more democratic than any modern system". This, clearly, is nonsense. Even when the rules and rulings of these Athenians applied SOLELY to the 'chosen group', and NOT to slaves and women, it certainly was not a democracy. Slaves and women just 'had' to live there as well. When an 80% of a people has not a deciding role, it cannot have been much of a democracy. A mathematician like Russell should be more careful with percentages. On the other hand, our proposed humane governmental system here, namely 'Lottocracy', was thought to be democratic by him. His next sentence reads: "Judges and most executive officers were chosen by lot, and served for short periods". I would not call our lottocracy a democracy, but a dictatorship by conscripts, appointed by lot (non-discriminatory). Was Russell's mistake a slip of the printer, it being read as 'aristocracy' instead? No ... ! He repeats it some sentences further on: "Athens was rich and powerful, not much troubled by wars, and possessed of a democratic constitution administered by aristocrats". There is no mistake here. But, ... the Athenians themselves might have called it so? Yes, but Russell wrote in 1947, and should have been fully aware of the fact that those slaves and women were just as human as we are, just as human as that 'chosen group'. Moreover, other classics clearly regarded this democracy as a fit punishment for their enemies. The best thing here, in order to make discussion at all possible, is to stick to democracy as being: the power to rule the people, to the people, i.e. quite inhumane enough.
next up previous
Next: Elaboration 29 Up: Elaboration 28 Previous: Elaboration 28
Ven 2007-09-11