Democracy: Necessary And Sufficient Attributes

In this article, the term democracy refers to the structure of social relations when self-regulation (self-organization) of a society takes place.

For example, in the field of economic relations - this is the law of supply and demand. It's not the president and the government that see if there are enough salt and matches, their care should be in maintaining conditions when production itself in the event of a deficit is reorganized in a natural way so that both are sufficient. This law works when there is free competition, which is why in developed societies the monopolies are severely restricted. Why does this system work? Because the citizens themselves are interested in this, they are the most beneficial to them! If only because, under free competition, prices are much lower than under the rule of monopolies.

It should be the same in the other spheres of society. If there is a social problem, in a democratic society, there must be mechanisms that would lead to such SELF-ORGANIZATION of the society, that this problem is solved by SELF, when the citizens themselves see the benefits of solving the problem. If the problem is not solved, then there are no such mechanisms. Hence, there is no self-organization of society, no democracy.

Here is a very well known problem - CORRUPTION. Obviously, this evil is deadly dangerous, because, for example, a doctor who entered the medical institute - for a bribe, receiving marks - for bribes, will become a killer of this society. Is it beneficial to society ?? It would seem that any society should protect itself from corruption. But why do people so selflessly indulge in this vice? It is very simple: there are no mechanisms of self-organization in the society, citizens do not benefit from the absence of corruption. Moreover, it is in corruption that some benefit. And the benefit is MATERIAL, not suspecting the benefits of SPIRITUAL. A man who puts other people in conditions when, forcing them to give him a bribe, does not suspect that he loses his face and reputation, that he often brings upon himself hatred for his own self-interest. The person forced to give a bribe does not suspect that he becomes a slave of another's will, and not a free and proud person. Thus, corruption is one of the first signs of the undemocratic nature of society.

Or another problem is the notorious "struggle" with PRIVILITY. Who at us constantly itches about it? Party and government. BUT NOT THE PEOPLE! Then they invent a "dry law", they raise the prices for alcohol, but neither one does not work. There are no mechanisms when a citizen himself would benefit from this "struggle" not only in the material plane, but also in the spiritual.

In order for society to self-organize to solve the problems facing it, it must have the following levers:

1. Openly posing and discussing problems - there must be a free press;
2. To select appropriate people for their decision - there must be free elections.

Consequently, the election of the authorities is an indispensable sign of democracy.

The absence of free elections (as well as the lack of free press) is a reliable, sufficient indication that democracy does not have a place to be.

But further, unfortunately, an elementary logical error is allowed: the existence of a free election mechanism is considered a sufficient sign of democracy. Unfortunately, this is often considered a definition of democracy. But the existence of free elections is not an end in itself, but a means of maintaining self-regulation of public relations. It is this requirement that is primary, and from this follows the need for free elections. From the point of view of logic, if the existence of free election mechanisms is an indispensable sign of democracy, it only means that this society is "suspicious" for the existence of democracy. Further research is required with the help of sufficient features. Moreover, the electoral system corrupts the population without sufficient mechanisms of democracy, since it has no personal interest in solving public problems, dumps this decision on politicians (and then criticizes and re-chooses them with voluptuousness, like in Ukraine), which are often also personally in Solving public problems is not interested, but has a personal gain through politics.

Let's take the topical issue that has plagued the whole world in recent times - the economic crisis. Countries with true democracy should have self-organized and effectively overcome the crisis. However, the problem, if solved, is extremely painful. Why? The answer is simple: to solve the problem ALL SOCIETY must be self-interested in overcoming the crisis. But we see that society in many countries is split. For example, the governments of some countries want to increase the retirement age, and the population, naturally, is against it.

What are the levers of democracy? What factors should work, which would guarantee the problems of society? It is necessary to arrange such mechanisms that people have a personal interest, so that members of society would see for themselves the concrete material and spiritual benefits from solving the problem, that they are not just promised something, but give firm legal guarantees. What are the benefits of the existing attempts to raise the retirement age? None. But you can make it so that the person himself wants to retire as soon as possible, and for this, economically beneficial mechanisms should be created. They somehow do not think about creating them, but you can create incentives as much as you like - for example, discounts on purchases, when making mortgages, insurance, etc. There are only vague hopes that, perhaps, maybe, in this way the crisis can be solved once. People have no personal interest in this, and fighting the crisis is not their personal struggle, the fight against corruption is not their personal struggle, etc.

We will try to apply the formulated provisions to some countries.

Russia. By Western standards, we have democracy, as the elections in the country are functioning, and Western and domestic observers do not make any fundamental claims to their conduct. But there are no sufficient signs of democracy . Citizens do not have any benefits from whether we have elections or not, as they are clearly not enough to solve a huge number of problems: crime, corruption, falling living standards as they were, and remain. In addition, with a formal multi-party system, we actually have a monopoly of one party. It's not even that United Russia, along with ONF, has undermined everyone. The fact is that the other parties have no desire to take responsibility for the country for themselves. The Communist Party, the LDPR and other parties only imitate political activity. They do not expect for themselves any benefits from coming to power, they do not want a headache, it's good for them to be in the image of the infuriated critics. They are well off without government authority, they have their own piece of bread.

USA - they are actively promoting democracy - in their understanding - around the world. But is there any democracy in the US? Formally - yes, there the election system is worked out. But this is only a necessary sign. Is there sufficient evidence? No. For example, the US has a huge public debt. This is a monstrous problem. Ordinary Americans understand this, but they do not have the opportunity to personally participate in solving this problem, they are "neither cold nor hot". There are no mechanisms that would include the personal interest of citizens in reducing the state's debt to society. They simply entrusted this to the authorities, who are trying to solve the problem by committing aggression in foreign countries. I am sure that ordinary Americans are personally interested in a peaceful solution of problems, because their relatives die in battles. Once they actively opposed the war in Vietnam. But even if they start to oppose the current wars, this will speak of the lack of democracy in the US, since demonstrations and rallies are not the methods of true democracy, it is a sign of not having the mechanisms of self-organization, but their absence. Americans must take care of democracy in their own country.