The Interregnum, democracy in chaos...

[Spock]

A small historical debate is in order.

The period of 1649 to 1660 was a chaotic one, Charles I had been beheaded, the great politician John Pym was dead and Oliver Cromwell was on the rise as Lord Protector.

The Interregnum never really saw any stability, it was a time of religious radicalism and political upheaval, it would seem that England was not ready for democracy, or were there other factors at play that prevented a successful democratic state from being formed.

Was this really the case though? Was democracy simply incomprehensible, a victim of the times?

[Icu]

[iron_jones]

Originally Posted by Icu

Oh Yao Ming, you always laughing.

[Icu]

Okay in all seriousness, I don't think you're really going to get people to respond seriously to this with an informed opinion. If you do then great and my bad, but I'd be surprised.

[Pa'li Makto]

I think that democracy was one of those things that came as an afterthought in the contest for the rule of England at the time. The fact that Parliament was dissolved in 1653 said as much. Ultimately I'd say that due to the tense political climate during the period of the transition of one reign to another, arguments between Oliver Cromwell and parliament over the constitution, religion and the armed forces took over more than anything to do with democracy.

[Human No More]

Religion and democracy are entirely opposed.

[Icu]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Religion and democracy are entirely opposed.

How? Say there's a religion which is made up of entirely the fundamental beliefs of democracy with the one exception that it also believes in some God (whose only commands are related to following democracy). I don't see why this wouldn't be a religion and I don't see why this would be democracy.

[Pa'li Makto]

Well it depends..After the harsh medieval christian rule, christianity became more liberal as science grew to question it..Christianity gave the people tenents to live by such as being honest, hardworking and not to commit crimes but no longer had the power to enforce it's rules like they did with the parishes in medieval villages. Christianity did encourage leisure pursuits and togetherness and they also funded many charities that helped people who otherwise would be left in the gutter. Of course not everyone took the religious laws and messages seriously but society encompassed religion up untill the mid 20th cent.

[Human No More]

...Yet there's a reason it hasn't existed. Religion is the conditioning of people to follow an authority.

[Icu]

I think religion is born *far* more out of looking for an explanation for questions that we didn't (or still don't) have answers for than out of some desire to condition others to follow an authority.

And besides, even if it hasn't existed it's theoretical capable of existing so it's not religion and democracy that are opposed it's, in your view, our current application of religion which is opposed to democracy. I know this isn't a big difference and it's probably what you meant anyway :p but it's something

[Pa'li Makto]

Everyone has to follow an authority, religion especially christianity and buddhism are fairly modest when it comes to what you have to do..200 years ago, all you had to do was to go to church each sunday and try not to get into any vices like alcoholism, gambling and whoring. Sounds not too bad to follow. Compare this with laws and rediculous fines for all sorts of things and you can see who was really enslaving the population. At least the population took pride in following their religion, they made it a cultural and family affair.

Even if people have no religion now, they can still complain of being strangled by the laws, government, work and paying bils, society standards and expectations. Heck they can even say that the biological need to eat and rest are an "authority" that reduces personal democracy.

[neytirifanboy]

Looking at the OP, I don't think democracy was ever considered. England was effectively a theocracy at the time.

The parlamentary system at the time was in no way democratic. The normal people had no representation and I doubt that anyone had the intention of giving them any.

So although the Parliment after the English Civil War is regarded as the Mother of the current "democatic" parlimentary system in existence around the world, the system in place at that time was not democratic, even in a loose sense.

I would say that Democracy is still incomprehensible and may become a victim of it's time.

The problem with democracy is that, just like communism, it can't exist in it's pure form. In order to have pure democracy, then all must have equal knowledge, ability and power. In other words, it is impossible for humanity where such things are spread inequally.

One final point. I disagree with HMN that religion and democracy cannot co-exists. That view only applies to very specific religious systems. In reality, it is quite possible for a religion system to actually require democracy.

"Thou shalt have one vote for one person and there shall be no leader, except for the Mother Goddess, who doesn't care what you decide anyway because she has much more important things to do than intervene in species with transient existence."

[Human No More]

True democracy CAN exist, just not on a wide scale (again, much like communism), although in this case and unlike communism, this can be mitigated with better communication and infrastructure.
Democracy also assumes the interest and active participation of all members much like communism assumes nobody will game the system to take advantage of it (such as doing less/lower quality work since it doesn't matter as all needs are met anyway), which it is in human nature to do, since the urge to look out for number one, as well as to a lesser extent for friends and family, is biologically programmed.

Representative democracy isn't so bad at its core, but current implementations of it lack a critical component: A way to recall someone who is not following the wishes of those he/she represents. If it had hat ability, it would be much closer to actual democracy.

[Pa'li Makto]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Democracy also assumes the interest and active participation of all members much like communism assumes nobody will game the system to take advantage of it (such as doing less/lower quality work since it doesn't matter as all needs are met anyway), which it is in human nature to do, since the urge to look out for number one, as well as to a lesser extent for friends and family, is biologically programmed.

Are you sure that the need to look out for number one and putting yourself first instead of family and friends isn't more of a socially conditioned phenomenon rather than just being biologically programmed? I know that we have the will to survive which pits us against each other but that's traditionally in a life or death situation..or in a capitalist world..
People in poorer countries and tribespeople look out for their kin then look after themselves.

[Human No More]

Evolutionary impulses are twofold: to survive (food, shelter, safety, warmth), and to mate. Ensuring the survival of mates, friends, and family are advantageous from both perspectives, but not so much if the individual dies in the process, then only for the group as a whole, while any specific organism will attempt to pass on its own DNA - that is why more desirable traits become more common, because more will survive to do so.