Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yahwe
because democracy used to mean so much more?
bless you |
It depends. You're referring to democracy on the broad basis that, no matter how many policies are unknown to a large percentage of the population, no matter how few people vote, no matter how concentrated power is, no matter how big a part propaganda and media manipulation has to play, as long as there is technically an opportunity, no matter how difficult, for the people to speak out and remove people from power then it can be called a democracy. This seems to be an odd definition in my eyes, or at least not very useful. Perhaps it's how some people are fooled into considering the E.U. a democratic institution.
I find it worrying that whilst people either don't care enough to vote or are still buying the propaganda being thrown at them, our leading politicians are still justifying wars by claiming they're 'fighting for democracy'. If that were so then they'd start at home.
I'm not saying I think there has been an example of 'full democracy' but I think that's no reason to accept being marginalized or practically disenfranchised. I think a reasonable aim would be to have a more educated society with greater participation in the decision making process by as many citizens as possible - politicians will not realise this whilst they themselves are causing problems. Should we just shrug and say "that's democracy", or actually voice concerns about British politicians using devious tactics to gain power?