frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Crisis of Democracy

Debate Information

Crisis of Democracy

The Crisis of Democracy was authored by the Tri-Lateral Commission who were elite liberal intellectual internationals from the US, Europe, and Japan in the early 1970's. In it, they argued that there is an excess of Democracy and need to find ways of pushing back against the new wave of public opinion from the lower formerly disenfranchised classes. In their view (very similar to that of Socrates in The Republic) is that these lower classes are unfit to make rational decisions about society that will effect all of us (not just them) and therefore should be politically/socially disenfranchised because they are bound to make all sorts wrong decisions that any sensible person/society understands that the higher classes are best fit to make all of these decisions. In The Crisis of Democracy, they made an argument that there is becoming a serious problem with over-education amongst the populace that was newly occurring (in the early 1970's onward). Their reasoning was now that more people are getting Undergrad. level degrees, as well as Masters level, ect. that these lower classes that in truth do not possess the same high level intellect/education that the higher classes (i.e. the elite Liberal intellectuals and possibly some elite intellectuals on the right as well but that point is unclear in their writing)) and that the *lower classes* should in no way be given the false impression that they (even though they are becoming notably more educated) are as qualified to make serious decisions (i.e. engage in the political process) that the elites are (i.e. the Elites should be making the rules, so to speak).  Thus, the *"Crisis of Democracy" is that political activism is leading to *too many* people being involved in the political process and this needs to be pushed back against in order to maintain a more stable, healthy, productive system.


I would also highly recommend reading the Crisis of Democracy as well as it is in many ways a softer modern day parallel to the type of thinking seen in Plato's Republic. Here is a link to the Crisis of Democracy: http://trilateral.org/download/doc/crisis ofdemocracy.pdf


What do you think?  Do our modern societies tend to suffer from an "Excess in Democracy" or is there Too Little Democracy?

billpassedpassedbillaarongBryanMullinsTh1WilliamSchulznatbarons
  1. Live Poll

    Do our modern societies tend to suffer from an Excess in Democracy or is there Too Little Democracy

    10 votes
    1. Excess of Democracy
      40.00%
    2. Too Little Democracy
      60.00%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MikeMike 97 Pts   -  

    During the development of the US Constitution, based on the foundation of the US Declaration of Independence, the US founding fathers followed the French political philosopher Charles de Montesquieu resulting in a republic form of government, not a democracy.

     If one was to read the US Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Fifty States’ Constitutions, you will not find the word “democracy” in any of those documents. Why? The answer is found in Federalist Paper #10 where Madison states: 

     “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

    In other words, democracies are mob-rule irrespective of an individual’s “unalienable Rights.”

  • billpassedbillpassed 146 Pts   -  
    Democracy works, but needs to be more strict due to some violent pore tests occurring, etc. which were not good for society.
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -   edited December 2017
    Democracy is a lie. What is best for most people will always be no government and of course they don't want you to realise that.

    I'm not an anarchist because I know that anarchy is unfeasible since no minority doesn't want to look out for itself so 'majority wins' mentality is NEVER EVER going to last in any sense.

    What is true nonetheless is that anarchy ensures most win simply because the only outcome of all having equal chance to harm others is that the truly malicious end up killed off in the long run since most prefer tamed beasts to wild, unpredictable ones and so begins a police force and so begins a system whereby a government forms and then the majority slowly end up sheep to the shepherds et voila, democracy is defeated by itself.
  • passedbillpassedbill 80 Pts   -  
    Democracy works, but can be enhanced. It may be better than many other forms of government such as a dictatorship, etc. Violent protests should be cut down on or stopped while peaceful protests should be allowed, but cut down on.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    Many forms of Gov­ern­ment have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pre­tends that democ­ra­cy is per­fect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democ­ra­cy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those oth­er forms that have been tried from time to time.…

    Winston Churchill (House of Com­mons, 11 Novem­ber 1947)


  • There is not enough democracy in our great nation.  :|
  • MajoMILSdlGMGVMajoMILSdlGMGV 103 Pts   -  
    I just want to share this video, I watched it a while ago and thought it might be informative or helpful in this debate <span>:smile:</span> 


    xMathFanx
  • WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 255 Pts   -  
    While I do think that an excess of people are involved in the political system, that is not a bad thing. I think that it could lead to healthy debate and discussion, that can be done at any level rich or poor. The real source of problem comes from the political party systems which are closed minded to new ideas and have grown too powerful for the good of America. If we were to refine democracy, I would encourage the formation of new political parties so as to widen the political spectrum for the influx of people into the political system.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • natbaronsnatbarons 133 Pts   -  
    Democracy is needed in the US and some other countries to develop civilization and keep peace. It works, but may be able to be improved in some ways.
  • jamesrothsjamesroths 28 Pts   -  
    Democracy?? Do you really think that there is a democracy? I would say that there is only the illusion of democracy. 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    I think there are two convolved problems that contribute to apparent failure of multiple democracies in the modern world.

    The first problem is the lack of proper political education. You see people getting the wackiest ideas about how the world works or how it should work, and if you talk to some of them, you will see that all of their ideas are taken from Youtube and Twitter at best, and from TV shows and mainstream video games at worst. When people are so horribly uninformed, and when the system of Electoral College is so twisted compared to how the Founding Fathers designed it, then you get the exact problem both Socrates and the Founding Fathers warned about: apolitical people electing political leaders. This is a very fertile soil for the growth of populists who exploit people's ignorance and naivety in order to execute a quick power grab and suck the resources out of the nation under various fearmongering pretenses.

    The second problem is the inadequacy of governmental centralization in a modern society. Democracy works when a town of a few thousand people elects a new sheriff, where everyone can talk to each candidate in person and get a first-hand impression of them. When everyone knows every candidate closely, when many of them have had close friendly relations for a long time and know who it is they vote for - and the sheriffs know who it is they serve. 
    Direct democracy does not work well when a nation of 300+ million elects a president. Almost nobody from this nation knows this president in person, and the president definitely does not have the interest of each single individual out of the 300+ million people in mind when doing their job. This leads to increase of political apathy, when people see the elections and the political process in general more as a TV show, than as something directly impacting their lives. And TV shows are not the perfect environment for the rise of talented politicians.

    As such, I think the solution to this problem would necessarily include two aspects:
    1. Reform of school education. People should have a vast political background by the time they graduate from high school, with a lot of questions they have thought through, with a lot of evaluated debates they have participated in. The focus should be on the formation of the individual opinion based on the presented evidence, and not on the indoctrination of the pupils into a specific ideology.
    2. Decentralization of power. As much political power as possible should be transferred from the federal government to the state governments. As much political power as possible should be transferred from the state governments to the municipal governments. As much political power as possible should be transferred from the municipal governments to the "neighborhood governments". Make it so everyone knows who they vote for and why, and what the implications of that vote are.
    There are many more problems to discuss, of course, such as the influence of the Internet on how democracy functions, or the effects globalization has on the politics on the national level. But I think doing those two major reforms would already reverse, at least, a century worth of growing corruption and incompetence - so it would be a great start.
  • Agility_DudeAgility_Dude 62 Pts   -  
    My thoughts went in two ways. One towards @MayCaesar 's first example. The second way it went towards is that democracy is certainly a flawed system, but the problems that Socrates pointed out can be mitigated. Here is the solution to the crisis of democracy:

    Make it a representative democracy. This means that you will elect an individual who will represent the policies you believe in. The people you vote in would most likely be politicians who will know how to go about implementing the policies you believe in and won't have the ridiculous ideas that the uneducated have.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch