The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Democracy

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Democracy

Postby Piratis » Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:20 am

For centuries Cypriots were enslaved, ruled and exploited by others. Independence would mean that Cypriots would finally be able to rule their own island in a democratic way.

Here is the definition of democracy by the USA government (which is a federation by the way):

DEFINING DEMOCRACY

Government of the People
Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships alike have attempted to claim popular support by pinning democratic labels upon themselves. Yet the power of the democratic idea has also evoked some of history's most profound and moving expressions of human will and intellect: from Pericles in ancient Athens to Vaclav Havel in the modern Czech Republic, from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence in 1776 to Andrei Sakharov's last speeches in 1989.

In the dictionary definition, democracy "is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but the two are not synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles about freedom, but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded through a long, often tortuous history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom. For this reason, it is possible to identify the time-tested fundamentals of constitutional government, human rights, and equality before the law that any society must possess to be properly called democratic.

Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions. Such a system is clearly only practical with relatively small numbers of people--in a community organization or tribal council, for example, or the local unit of a labor union, where members can meet in a single room to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Ancient Athens, the world's first democracy, managed to practice direct democracy with an assembly that may have numbered as many as 5,000 to 6,000 persons--perhaps the maximum number that can physically gather in one place and practice direct democracy.

Modern society, with its size and complexity, offers few opportunities for direct democracy. Even in the northeastern United States, where the New England town meeting is a hallowed tradition, most communities have grown too large for all the residents to gather in a single location and vote directly on issues that affect their lives.

Today, the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or nations of 50 million, is representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good. In the name of the people, such officials can deliberate on complex public issues in a thoughtful and systematic manner that requires an investment of time and energy that is often impractical for the vast majority of private citizens.

How such officials are elected can vary enormously. On the national level, for example, legislators can be chosen from districts that each elect a single representative. Alternatively, under a system of proportional representation, each political party is represented in the legislature according to its percentage of the total vote nationwide. Provincial and local elections can mirror these national models, or choose their representatives more informally through group consensus instead of elections. Whatever the method used, public officials in a representative democracy hold office in the name of the people and remain accountable to the people for their actions.

Majority Rule and Minority Rights
All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic: No one, for example, would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities--whether ethnic, religious, or political, or simply the losers in the debate over a piece of controversial legislation. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.

Diane Ravitch, scholar, author, and a former assistant U.S. secretary of education, wrote in a paper for an educational seminar in Poland: "When a representative democracy operates in accordance with a constitution that limits the powers of the government and guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens, this form of government is a constitutional democracy. In such a society, the majority rules, and the rights of minorities are protected by law and through the institutionalization of law."

These elements define the fundamental elements of all modern democracies, no matter how varied in history, culture, and economy. Despite their enormous differences as nations and societies, the essential elements of constitutional government--majority rule coupled with individual and minority rights, and the rule of law--can be found in Canada and Costa Rica, France and Botswana, Japan and India.

Democratic Society
Democracy is more than a set of constitutional rules and procedures that determine how a government functions. In a democracy, government is only one element coexisting in a social fabric of many and varied institutions, political parties, organizations, and associations. This diversity is called pluralism, and it assumes that the many organized groups and institutions in a democratic society do not depend upon government for their existence, legitimacy, or authority.

Thousands of private organizations operate in a democratic society, some local, some national. Many of them serve a mediating role between individuals and the complex social and governmental institutions of which they are a part, filling roles not given to the government and offering individuals opportunities to exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens of a democracy.

These groups represent the interests of their members in a variety of ways--by supporting candidates for public office, debating issues, and trying to influence policy decisions. Through such groups, individuals have an avenue for meaningful participation both in government and in their own communities. The examples are many and varied: charitable organizations and churches, environmental and neighborhood groups, business associations and labor unions.

In an authoritarian society, virtually all such organizations would be controlled, licensed, watched, or otherwise accountable to the government. In a democracy, the powers of the government are, by law, clearly defined and sharply limited. As a result, private organizations are free of government control; on the contrary, many of them lobby the government and seek to hold it accountable for its actions. Other groups, concerned with the arts, the practice of religious faith, scholarly research, or other interests, may choose to have little or no contact with the government at all.

In this busy private realm of democratic society, citizens can explore the possibilities of freedom and the responsibilities of self-government--unpressured by the potentially heavy hand of the state.

THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY

* Sovereignty of the people.
* Government based upon consent of the governed.
* Majority rule.
* Minority rights.
* Guarantee of basic human rights.
* Free and fair elections.
* Equality before the law.
* Due process of law.
* Constitutional limits on government.
* Social, economic, and political pluralism.
* Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.


http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/w ... hatdm2.htm


Will Cypriots ever be allowed to aply democracy in their own country? Or even proposing democracy for Cyprus is a crime?

I want to re-emphasize the following:

These elements define the fundamental elements of all modern democracies, no matter how varied in history, culture, and economy. Despite their enormous differences as nations and societies, the essential elements of constitutional government--majority rule coupled with individual and minority rights, and the rule of law--can be found in Canada and Costa Rica, France and Botswana, Japan and India.
But not Cyprus because Turkey is so cool, and Turkish Cypriots super humans that deserve to gain on the loss of all other Cypriots?

The inequality of the Cypriot people existed always. The rulers (Venetians, Ottomans, British etc) were always a higher class than their slaves, the Greek Cypriots.
However when we are talking about an independent Cyprus, those that got used to the privileges of being the rulers, should realize that the era of colonies and empires is over and they have to accept that all Cypriots should be equal - one man(or woman) on vote.

Democracy, along with freedom and human rights are what people should fight for. Those that don't want to fight for those ideals are people with slave mentality, or those that benefit from illegalities and undemocratic regimes.

We will never stop fighting for freedom and democracy. Others that have also been enslaved for 100s of years, with their insistence they finally managed to gain their independence. We will not give up no matter how much our "former" rulers want to continue to rule us.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby zan » Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:46 am

One part of the Cypriot nation has democratically chosen to go their own way due to circumstances exerted on them by a hostile majority. They are looking forward to Independence and the right to govern them selves. They will never give up the right to do so and are grateful to you for defining democracy but are unsympathetic to your need to sully their name in order for you to get your point across.
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Postby Piratis » Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:05 am

One part of the Cypriot nation has democratically chosen to go their own way


They could go any way they wanted as long as what they did was not illegal against our human rights and the sovergnity of our country.

the essential elements of constitutional government--majority rule coupled with individual and minority rights, and the rule of law
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby Viewpoint » Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:27 am

Democracy and human rights for all is a great idea on paper but the important question is who will administer democracy and human rights in a united Cyprus? You dont seem to understand that the Democracy and human rights standards are not the same for Switzerland as it is for N.Korea and Russia but I would not want choose to live in those countries (Korea/Russia) as there administration would not live up to my expectations and I would not put my future in their hands. The same goes for you GCs, why is that so difficult to understand.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25214
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby G.Man » Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:24 pm

Nice quote from the US piratis, the one country that preaches democracy and doesnt respect it...

Palestine for example...

As for free and fair elections... George Bush, Florida?

British enslaved Cyprus? Wasnt it the British that brought democracy, and then someone here $%&£ed it up by trying to reduce the rights of a minority agreed 3 years earlier?

;)
G.Man
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:22 am
Location: Strovolos

Postby Alexis » Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:19 pm

British enslaved Cyprus? Wasnt it the British that brought democracy, and then someone here $%&£ed it up by trying to reduce the rights of a minority agreed 3 years earlier?


Wasn't it the British leaving that brought democracy? Something that only happened after 5 years of appalling guerilla warfare leaving the country in a state of marshall law as well as hundreds of people dead? :wink:
Alexis
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:36 pm
Location: UK

Postby Alexis » Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:33 pm

One part of the Cypriot nation has democratically chosen to go their own way due to circumstances exerted on them by a hostile majority. They are looking forward to Independence and the right to govern them selves. They will never give up the right to do so and are grateful to you for defining democracy but are unsympathetic to your need to sully their name in order for you to get your point across.


Point well made Zan. The problems begin when in striving for independence this minority denies part of the majority some of their basic human rights. We do not begrudge your right to autonomy but if it means we are marginalised because of this then a middle road must be sought. Remember the majority also democratically chose to take a particular path (Union with Greece) before realising (perhaps too late) that this road might deny the minority some of their basic rights. That path was not taken. I believe the only way forward without marginalising either one community or the other is the middle road. This can be the only way forward in a situation where the two communities ideal desires conflict so much with each other.
Alexis
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:36 pm
Location: UK

Postby Kikapu » Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:09 pm

Can I just interject something here. In a "Majority rule" concept, it is not the number of people of the same ethnicity that makes that ethnic group rule over another one, that happens to be 4 times smaller (TC's), but rather which Political Party has the "Majority" to rule. GC's are 80%, but they may have 5 main political parties, and the TC's who are 20% may have 2 main political parties. Well, if no one party gets majority of the votes over 50%, then it will be a coalition government, which may include Political Parties from both ethnic groups to form a Government. So in essence, both communities will rule together over the Majority and the Minority ethnic groups. The bigger concern is, can the political processes be fair to all of the citizens, rather than favouring one over another. Our problems does come down to "Fear" and "Trust" of the other ethnic group.
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 18050
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Postby Alexis » Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:30 pm

Our problems does come down to "Fear" and "Trust" of the other ethnic group.


Absolutely agree here. We and only we can make this work. It is absolutely about proving to each other that the events of the past are just that, in the past. The future is what matters and this is why I believe it is a cop out to reject unity over events of the past because they set a precedent that we cannot trust each other. This is imo just an excuse to reject reconciliation.
Alexis
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:36 pm
Location: UK

Postby Piratis » Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:31 pm

Democracy and human rights for all is a great idea on paper but the important question is who will administer democracy and human rights in a united Cyprus?


By definition, in a representative democracy, the citizens democratically elect their representatives and those representatives administer the country. If somebody else administers the country (wich human rights being part of this) then that somebody else rules, not the people, and therefore the result is NOT democracy.


You dont seem to understand that the Democracy and human rights standards are not the same for Switzerland as it is for N.Korea and Russia but I would not want choose to live in those countries (Korea/Russia) as there administration would not live up to my expectations and I would not put my future in their hands. The same goes for you GCs, why is that so difficult to understand.


So what are you saying here is that Russians and Koreans are "bad" and therefore they can not administer human rights? Or that the systems in countries like N.Korea is democratic only in theory and not in practice, and that just labeling a system "democratic" does not necessarily mean that it is?

If you mean the first, then you must admit it is a racist approach. If you mean the second, then I totally agree with you. I wouldn't want to live in a Korean "democracy", or in a Turkish "democracy" or in an Annan plan kind of "democracy" either.

I want a true democratic system and the principles are defined in the document I posted above. Only a constitution that will enforce those principles will be democratic, not just taking some racist system based on Apartheid of South Africa and label it "democratic".
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Next

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests