> Little Paul wrote:

> For me, russia is no democracy. Its not even partly democratic. Even if the current gov has a lot of support.

Here goes my view upon democracy:
You have as many definitions of a democracy as there are people, but you can devide the lot in 2 big categories.
1.) Its a control system
2.) the "everybody has a voice" ideal
Most definitions have a mix of those 2.

I however, see a democracy as a control system 100%. Even a direct democracy still only reflects the voice of the majority. A despotism the voice of a few. An anarchy, the voice of the strongest. Then why do I advocate a democracy? Because its control system functions. Despite popular believe a good democratic control system actually decreases corruption. And here comes the core of my story, the things you need for a good democratic control system:
*Free ellections:
-Well informed citizens
->free (or objective) media
->educated citizens
-possibility to compete
->no repression of political oponents
->freedom of speech
->honest voting process
-universal suffrage (not going into detail)
->guarantee to vote in safety

*devision of the 3 powers

I'll post the rest tomorow.
_________________________________________
Your 2nd definition '2.) the "everybody has a voice" ideal' can be split into 2 differing views:

1)  when everybody has a voice by being given the option to vote on a leader then that leader has to do what the majority voted him/her in for
OR
2)  when everybody has a voice by being given the option to vote on a leader then that leader can do whatever he/she wants since the majority trust (or at the very least, distrust him/her less than the other voting options) him/her to do what he/she thinks is best for them

"I will fight for your right to be wrong!" << S.G. Tallentyre
"I am a flexible centrist: not stuck on right-wing, not stuck on left-wing, and not stuck on centre...and I don't flip-flop either" <<< me
Fighting for peace is like stopping the raping of a virgin.

"Naw, the Venetian Republic started out with the Doge exercising autocratic power, and then becoming increasingly more Republican as the merchant class dwindled his power in the senate. It was not a democracy like ancient Athens, although the masses had a major council that enabled them to have some representation. Although later it became more oligarchic as the Doge's power further decreased and the council of ten was established."

Democracy didn't exist in Athens either.

"In Florence, the anti-aristocratic movements in the 1300s lead to a merchant elite controlling the city from the get-go. The guilds always controlled the city, with the exception of some autocrats like the Medicis."

Very similar to Ghent, where an oligarchy ruled until in 1305 a revolt started and the guilds started to demand a share in the city's policy.

"In the low countries like Ghent, the same thing was true. They were merchant cities (thanks to its wool industry) that were also controlled by the guilds and its merchant elite. The idea that they were democracies at any time is kind of silly. Why would such powerful merchants share power with pathetic peasants?"

I should have clarified it better. There are 2 sorts of democracies in my posts here. The first is "democracy" as in the Russian case, wich is a plain oligarchy That was my entire point in my first post where I told they weren't democratic, just like Russia isn't democratic either.

In the 2nd post, I actually meant is that proper medieval cities started out in the early medieval times as democracies (even Florance and I'm quite sure Venice too; although it has a different background with being part of the Byzantian Empire for a while).
Cities started at points where excesses of agricultural production were sold, usually by a river and near a place that could provide protection. This was in the 8th and 9th century under the Karolingian dynasties. These places attracted people that were fleeing serfdom or the so called "double-domain"-system. Under the notion of "together, we stand united; divided, we fall" they started out as democracies and when cities boomed in the 11th century, these people were changed into the families that now dominated the politics in and of the city. And hurrah, oligarchy was born; and with that, the so called "little tradition" too..

This process is true for almost every city in Europe (not that I know any specific exceptions).

@ Dragon ???

whaaaaa ?? 
What you stinking up the room with ??

Yell.   Yea, back from a most relaxing vacation.
Thanks for asking.

"Oppression of the majority?
Sheesh, you'll NEVER please EVERYONE all the time.
In fact, rarely ever."
That is my opinion exactly, witch is why it is primarily a control system. A pragmatic system I confess, but one that brings forth both the highest production/progress and ideals of human rights.

People may be interested in http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Democracyindex2.png and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Its an interesting measure of "democratic".

What is more important than 'democratic' is how benign a government is - afterall Sweden's politicos proposed "man taxes" whereby men would pay extra tax to compensate women for rapes and domestic violence. The ranking is also a Judeo-Christian Westernised viewpoint. It would suggest that ranking higher is better. This may be true if a country wishes to be democratic but then pressurises voters (i.e fails on "The security of voters"). However, it the country is a monarchy and does not have votes - it immediately fails on Points 1 and 2. What then matters could be 3+4 ("The influence of foreign powers on government"; "The capability of the civil servants to implement policies") - or it could be that civil obediency and a non-corrupted police, military, and judicial system is far more important.

So all this talk of whether Country A or B is democratic is not important in my opinion. We should probably assess countries along the following basis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Index
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/World_Map_Index_of_perception_of_corruption.png

Again this is not perfect, as let's say a politician is corrupt and pockets $millions or $billions over a period of time. Again, it is possible to be corrupt but to be benign and not to harm one's citizens or to bully other countries' citizens.

A final real consideration is, are the people of Country X happy with the status quo?

"Or on an almost impossible occurence we could have a benevolent and wise and well-organized (but room for flexibility) dictator ruling each country.
Tht would be even more beneficial for the majority of its citizens. "
You mean dictators. The S is important here because no-one rules alone. The biggest problem is not finding a good dictator, the problem is keeping it that way. Next to a whole lot of other problems inherent to a dictatorship.

Anyway, I'm not going into that discussion again. Going to read maces post tommorow.

thx

I second Skoe.

...ly disturbed

lol

Why are you always bringing up examples of the past I wonder?

...that those systems did not work in the past in the circumstances of the time.