i have the feeling that everyone seems to be sure that there is only one kind of democracy. and the biggest problem in my opinion is that we tend to confuse democracy with justice. the two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. democracy is just a decision making mechanism. there are 100s of different ways to interpret it, and to practise it and all have only one thing in common: None of them is just
take the two discussed here
one-person-one-vote. its a majority voting kind of thing. it is unjust simply b/c if 9 out of 10 decide that person no10 should give the rest all his money...well he has to do it. plus it is a democratic decison. (let aside the stupid example, just take the axample of lithuania and the way they treat russian settlers)
one-community-one-vote. well as already said: it can be that 90% of the population votes for a yes, and a 10% can block any decision.
in the second one in the worst case there is no decision
in the first one in the worst case there is one.
but i would like to mention some more democratic examples.
a plurality rule like in england. u can have a p.m. elected with a 38%. and thats from the people who actually bothered to vote.
and when it comes to represenative democracy the current example of the french "non" is just so beautiful. it simply showed that a representative democracy does not represent the people!!!
and in any case the 50%+1 favors small parties . take the current AKEL DIKO EDEK coalition. according to their percentages at the time, they should have divided the ministries: 7-3-1 respectively. is it like that? ofcource not. in such a system the small can simply blackmail the big, and since the big is greedy enough...well he accepts
and thats exactly how a well functioning democracy works. if one insist on principles (or he is too greedy) it leads to no decisions. and thats all that it is to it. a pure bargain (of principles - or greediness it doesnt really matter). take the example of bulgaria. the european train is about to leave them behind and their leaders are not mature enough to elect a pm.
at least when it comes to this, our parties are much better..seperatly. pap-hristofias, talat-denktash seem to smoothly cooperate without really caring of their old principles. and it works!!!
now why it is so difficult for them to divide the pie in a common state, thats a question that i am unfortunately in no position to answer.
and just to give an ever more prettiest view of democracy, just refer to chomsky: " propaganda is for democracy what the stick is to dictatorhips". just look at greece where 2-3 guys who make the big contracts with the goverment control also much of the press. and that is called my friends "democracy"
so lets all be honest. if u r a member of DIKO or EDEK ofcource you believe that your party deserves more ministries from its percentage, but when it comes to tc it is unacceptable. if u r gc u enjoy the EU veto but u can not accept that for tc. if u r a turk a kurdish veto is unacceptable while a tc one is a necessity.
the democracy we support, is the one that supports our immidiate interests. and even worse, the interests of our politicians. and even worse , in the case of an imaginary solution when a deadlock appears, i am quite sure that giorgos will not say to mehmet "look at our politicians, they r not able to find a solution" but most probably "u greedy tcs, its all your fault". and i am sure mehmet will give him a non-surprising answer.
democracy just needs some trust and bargain.
anything would work if we really wanted it to work.
