¿Si Colombia no es una democracia, entonces qué es?

Desideria (Moderator) says on Dec 5, 2004, 06:08:

santibog I did a bit of google search myself on that issue, since I felt that the question was not answered fully in the thread discussed.
I found similar answers. So, it's pretty much a question of interpretation. A democracy can be even a monarchy, like the one we have in Sweden, since our monarchs have no political power at all, and the government (both local and central) is elected by popular vote.
I believe the terms are used in a fairly similar meaning nowadays, and are not mutually exclusive. The only major difference is that the head of state in a democracy can be other than a president.
Cheers,
Desi

"When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"(First Witch in Macbeth)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Alidad says on Dec 5, 2004, 06:23:

Democracy A democracy need not be a perfect democracy to be one. A working democracy is a democracy, and that, most people seem to agree, is what Colombia is: a working democracy with certain problems that hinder its work but do not negate its generally democratic and pluralist nature. A republic (outside the pages of a dictionary) has to be a democracy, as in the second part of the definition above. The Roman Republic, the first entity called Respublica, is often translated as a "commonwealth" (Res is the "wealth", or literally "thing", Publica is "common"), but the term is closely tied to the idea of a democracy, because in that republic, all citizens, nominally, and pretty much effectively, had a stake in the "Res" or the state. So today, if citizens do not have a stake in public life and state institutions: that state is no republic, whatever it may call itself. Colombia is a republic and a democracy, thought I guess Colombians would have to have the last say in that. Likewise, Denmark, Spain and Norway are republics with crowned heads of state, whereas Syria, Iraq under Saddam or a variety of third world states run by kleptocrats are not "republics" but despotisms or oligarchies, whatever they may call themselves.. (The Soviet Union claimed to have the most democratic constitution in the world. The FARC, like Castro I´m sure, claim to represent the people. Words can be misleading.)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 5, 2004, 23:57:

No single definition of democracy The target article is extremely simplistic, starting by ignoring the multiple definitions of "democracy". One definition, which the author seems to be favor, is based on procedure ("electoral democracy") or, at best, equates "the people" (the "cratos") with public opinion. That's the definition favored mostly by conservative views, and particularly dominant in US politics (where the term "silent majority" makes any sense). In that sense, Colombia fits the definition perfectly.

Another definition is based on results: the effective dependency of government on the interests of the governed, which the electoral process does not guarantee. These interests are rarely represented in the form of public opinion, but rather in the actions of an organized civil society (in the form of unions, consumer advocates, grassroots organizations, etc.) Under this definition, Colombia doesn't pass the test: the only effective participation mechanism in Colombia is the political parties that depend less on affiliation than on the appropriation of central government expenditures.

And I'm sure there are many more, including the one under which North Korea is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (where interests are objective). This is not misleading: nobody owns the "correct" definition of the term "democracy".

P.S. The FARC, as far as I know, had never claimed to represent "the people" (nor has any left-wing guerilla that I have known of). What they claim to be is the "revolutionary army of the people". The distinction, although subtle, is critical. Check their website at www.farcep.org

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Alidad says on Dec 6, 2004, 07:33:

Just to add Yes one agrees in principle, and it is always a danger to define too strictly an entity like democracy, but we members of the general public, whether conservative or socialist, know when we are living in a democracy. So while nobody "owns" a correct definition of democracy, North Korea is not, according to the dictates of common sense, a democracy. Like all communist states, it is neither representative nor accountable. The FARC might say that everything they do is for "the people": their representation is implicit and understood - though obviously ilusory. No revolutionary movement can forego the "democratic" or "popular" mandate, though "the people" are usually seen a mass to be swayed this way and that, for their own good, and with vigorous methods if need be. Castro believes he has a popular mandate, and that elections in liberal democracies are a sham; he says as much in that fascinating film, Commandante.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Dec 7, 2004, 09:57:

The FARC see themselves as the "armed vanguard of the people". In other words, they believe that they're representing the people's interests, if not the people themselves (what the people really think is secondary or tertiary to their revolutionary objectives).

As for the whole "democracy" debate. In truth, the word is far too vague for anyone to pretend to have the last word.

I'd say, however, that despite huge problems and failings, despite the violence and everything else, Colombia is currently much more democratic than it's ever been in the last 50 years. And not far from the relative level of "democracy" that is present in the rest of Latin America (we'd be just as democratic, if not more so, the day that peace is finally resolved).

Which by the standards of uber-purists isn't much, but by Colombia's own standards IS a lot.

There's a HUGE room for improvement, I notice that every day of my life, I'm not kidding myself, but progress is being made, especially in the last ~20 years.

Not as fast as everyone would want, and certainly we're not going to become a Scandinavian style "democracy" anytime soon, but I'm much more optimistic than pessimistic right now.

0 funny, 0 helpful.