Could democratic societies have a unique susceptibility to tyranny?

NotPhil · 7 months

Plato thought democracy leads to despotism because the majority of voters couldn't be bothered with understanding the issues at hand and could easily be manipulated through sophistry.

Chomsky thinks democracy can be easily controlled by concentrations of private capital, which can set the agenda and frame the public debates for their own interests, at everyone else's expense.

lovist · 7 months

Tyranny of the majority.

Jaded_Knight · 7 months

Well one main criticism of democracy is that it's the tyranny of the majority, so there's that going for it.

I'm not sure that the feeling of control makes us more likely to overlook abuses. Noam Chomsky points out is that in a totalitarian regime it's easy to keep the masses in line with the bludgeon. Whereas, in a democratic society the means of controlling the masses occurs via a sophisticated "media"/propaganda machine.

Chomsky points out that corporate own media has a vested interest in censoring news that might damage the image of another company caught in its corporate family-web. Ultimately these companies have enough capital that they are able to set policy. Ultimately these companies are the tyrants, but they have elaborate mechanisms to keep their doings secret.

But, as OWS shows, once their unacceptable practices come to light the people will respond/revolt.

lifeunistudent · 7 months

isn't democracy controlled tyranny? i'd say, which system is the best breeding ground for tyranny?

allhailzeus · 7 months

Haven't read it but its been recommended to me:

Escape from Freedom by Erich Fromm

conTROLL_yourself · 7 months

It is my belief that democracy is fueled on popular sovereignty. In this sense, overlooking the abuses of power in government is the equivalent of active consent from the majority to legitimize the corruption of those who govern them. The only distinction I find between democracy and any other system is that democracy gives you the freedom to consent in the affairs of the government. Corruption or lack thereof is dependent on participation of the majority. In the lack of participation follows a lack of a powerful democratic government.

_the_sci_ENT_ist_ · 7 months

Yes. If we believe the elected represent our interests, but they serve a higher power (money) - then, we actually are ruled by those who hold the most money. When the elected no longer represent those who elected them - I think, this is a unique type of tyranny.

Another way to think of it - if we all pay taxes, but the money is used only to serve the interests of a few, this is tyranny.

InfiniteWizard · 7 months

It is easiest to control the loudest stupidest half of a population. If major decisions required 75% of the population to agree, then at least a quarter of the above average would statistically have to participate.

Wusch · 7 months

No.

Basically you have dictatorship (including in this instance absolute monarchs) and some kind of people driven appartus (like democracy or a working sowjet state)

In the first case there can not be an abuse, since an abuse would imply a use which was not intended. But personal absolute power is absolute and covers everything so there is no way in which you could abuse it (except of course you are yourself bound by a set of rules like good manners but then you don't have absolute power).

In the second case the people are unlikely to turn a blind eye on abuse of power.

If they elected someone to do something, and he does something they didn't elect him to do, why should that be justified?

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login