Where is it?

I have an answer, which not all may agree with.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Where is it?

I have an answer, which not all may agree with.

When do we date it from? Representative government, free elections, universal suffrage?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Where is it?

I have an answer, which not all may agree with.

probably dates way back to hunter gatherer times, early humans, small groups

The Rev Dodgson said:

Where is it?

I have an answer, which not all may agree with.

Iceland?

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Where is it?

I have an answer, which not all may agree with.

When do we date it from? Representative government, free elections, universal suffrage?

Up to you :)

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Where is it?

I have an answer, which not all may agree with.

Iceland?

I would have said Iceland before my investigations this morning, but I’ve changed my mind.

I should add “continuous” to the question.

The oldest continuous democracy is generally considered to be the Republic of San Marino. The country has a government that traces its roots back to a system of elected representatives that was established in the year 300 AD.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Where is it?

I have an answer, which not all may agree with.

probably dates way back to hunter gatherer times, early humans, small groups

I suppose you could say that with some strange definition of democracy, but I’m asking about continuing democracies, so only countries that are still democracies are allowed.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Where is it?

I have an answer, which not all may agree with.

Iceland?

I would have said Iceland before my investigations this morning, but I’ve changed my mind.

I should add “continuous” to the question.

does the proposition include other life, or just humans

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Where is it?

I have an answer, which not all may agree with.

probably dates way back to hunter gatherer times, early humans, small groups

I suppose you could say that with some strange definition of democracy, but I’m asking about continuing democracies, so only countries that are still democracies are allowed.

OK

diddly-squat said:

The oldest continuous democracy is generally considered to be the Republic of San Marino. The country has a government that traces its roots back to a system of elected representatives that was established in the year 300 AD.

Being a politician in San Marino must be a cushy number.

Unless you’re the Minister for Postage Stamps

diddly-squat said:

The oldest continuous democracy is generally considered to be the Republic of San Marino. The country has a government that traces its roots back to a system of elected representatives that was established in the year 300 AD.

Could be a contender I suppose.

TATE calls it a country, but doesn’t mention democracy going back to 300 AD.

Has it been continuous?

Got a link?

I’d better go and do some work.

I decided that countries where half the adult citizens are not allowed to vote cannot be considered a proper democracy, so the oldest continuous and continuing democracy in the World is

…

…

New Zealand.

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

The oldest continuous democracy is generally considered to be the Republic of San Marino. The country has a government that traces its roots back to a system of elected representatives that was established in the year 300 AD.

Could be a contender I suppose.

TATE calls it a country, but doesn’t mention democracy going back to 300 AD.

Has it been continuous?

Got a link?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino

The Rev Dodgson said:

Where is it?

I have an answer, which not all may agree with.

Obviously this is necessarily going to be a fuzzy answer and there’s not much point being married to one answer.

Is a country a democracy if women can’t vote? Is it a democracy if only about 3% of the population, consisting mainly of landed gentry, can vote? Or if 96% of the population can vote, but not indigenous people?

I’m going to say New Zealand, on the basis that it was the first to have universal suffrage regardless of sex or ethnicity.

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

The oldest continuous democracy is generally considered to be the Republic of San Marino. The country has a government that traces its roots back to a system of elected representatives that was established in the year 300 AD.

Could be a contender I suppose.

TATE calls it a country, but doesn’t mention democracy going back to 300 AD.

Has it been continuous?

Got a link?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino

That doesn’t say anything about it being a democracy from 300.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Where is it?

I have an answer, which not all may agree with.

Obviously this is necessarily going to be a fuzzy answer and there’s not much point being married to one answer.

Is a country a democracy if women can’t vote? Is it a democracy if only about 3% of the population, consisting mainly of landed gentry, can vote? Or if 96% of the population can vote, but not indigenous people?

I’m going to say New Zealand, on the basis that it was the first to have universal suffrage regardless of sex or ethnicity.

Then we are agreed :)

Indigenous Australian Nations

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Could be a contender I suppose.

TATE calls it a country, but doesn’t mention democracy going back to 300 AD.

Has it been continuous?

Got a link?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino

That doesn’t say anything about it being a democracy from 300.

San Marino lays claim to being the oldest extant sovereign state, as well as the oldest constitutional republic.

ms spock said:

Indigenous Australian Nations

What was their voting system, and where is this still practiced?

The Rev Dodgson said:

ms spock said:

Indigenous Australian Nations

What was their voting system, and where is this still practiced?

It is done by consensus. Women are different but equal and there are complex decision making processes.

ms spock said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ms spock said:

Indigenous Australian Nations

What was their voting system, and where is this still practiced?

It is done by consensus. Women are different but equal and there are complex decision making processes.

Rubbish, domestic violence in aboriginal communities is through the roof.

ms spock said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ms spock said:

Indigenous Australian Nations

What was their voting system, and where is this still practiced?

It is done by consensus. Women are different but equal and there are complex decision making processes.

But I don’t think that makes a democracy, and these groups are no longer countries.

Peak Warming Man said:

ms spock said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What was their voting system, and where is this still practiced?

It is done by consensus. Women are different but equal and there are complex decision making processes.

Rubbish, domestic violence in aboriginal communities is through the roof.

It is true that an Indigenous woman is 34 times more likely to be a victim of domestic violence than an Non Indigenous woman. In non Indigenous women 1 in 3 of them in Australia will live with domestic violence in their lifetimes. So domestic violence is probably through the roof nation wide. I fled from my own father in my teens, 20s, 30s and early 40s. So it is a life long legacy that is for sure.

Aboriginal Australians are not a homogenous set of people. They are over 750 languages and 500 nations with multiple ways of dealing with current day stresses. Not every nation lost a lot of their languages and nations. Being equal and having a say is very different from what non-Indigenous Australians experience. The engagement is not as tokenistic as voting in Australia generally is.

All the media coverage of the worst aspects of the worst communties within Indigenous nation across Australia doesn’t represent all Indigenous nations across Australia. That would be like saying in Europe you only need to learn the French language and culture because all of Europe is like France. There are nuances in how communities work and how they are successful. The media doesn’t follow communities where the decision was made by the communities to be a dry community or any of the other innovations educationally. Even when people from these communities win Australia Day awards it never permeates the MSM. And there is a vested interest in the media because the people invested in the media are also invested in water theft, continuing land theft and opening up for fracking and mining. If the can capitalise on racist attitudes then they can take more resources from Indigenous Australians and they avoid the Climate Change activists. The most negative aspects provided by the media have ideological and capitialistic underpinings. If all you did was read 300 articles about how bad and uncontrollable the French were without any other examples you might indeed form a particular view of the French which might be unfavourable.

I went out with someone on the old forums, and they started to stalk me, put glue in my door lock, threatened to set my car alight, meanced me and threatened me so much one day that I rang the police in fear of my life. They left when the police arrived and came back later that night and set a car alight of one of my neighbours in a carpark outside my apartment. The stalking continued but after the police came and the car was set alight it did eventually die down.

But I was priviledged the police did come to assist me, whereas an Indigenous woman is more likely to be arrested than receive assistance re domestic violence. An Aboriginal woman is more likely to be criminalised for breaching the peace for being upset over being beaten up. I was shaking, sobbing, talking loudly, I was apparently not able to be understood. And I was wanting to run away so if they came back I wouldn’t be there. I was a mess. But I wasn’t seen through a cultivated lense of the construction of an Aboriginal woman, so I was helped, and my distress was seen as reasonable.

I think what is forgotten is that domestic violence is rife throughout Australian culture.

In one community I know if a man hits a woman the other men come to stay until the situation is sorted out. Counselling is arranged. Restorative justice is engaged in. The children get a chance to say how they felt about the situation. Extra folks live in with the family for extra support. That is certainly was never offered to me as a fled from my father on multiple occasions. I took refuge a few times in a few different communities. They are not all like what is portrayed in the media.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ms spock said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What was their voting system, and where is this still practiced?

It is done by consensus. Women are different but equal and there are complex decision making processes.

But I don’t think that makes a democracy, and these groups are no longer countries.

You are right if you see Australia in a particular way but you might have room for extra knowledge if you look at Indigenous nations and how they interact in other ways.

It’s my point of view. No one else has to embrace it. Some communities further way from the major invasion sites weren’t impacted on as much. I have met Indigenous people who ever saw a white person until they were 13 years old or in their 20s. It’s a big country out there, there are many nations to visit just like if you went to Europe. You wouldn’t say you have seen all of Europe and know what it’s all about if you just went to France? If you only read negative articles about France? If you only engaged with certain French people.

And I am happy to be wrong in other people’s eyes this is just based on my experiences since I was on the run from my father when I was 15. Some of these communities sheltered me when the police and the welfare wouldn’t assist me because my father’s training and demeanor scared them.

We all come to looking at Indigenous Nations from very different viewpoints and perspectives, and that is as it should be. Everyone puts out their life experiences, knowledge, reading, engagement with Indigenous communities and whether or not the majority of what they know about Indigenous nations comes from a particular type of history and media representation.

I am a most passionate person, as you know. I don’t mean to disrepect to other people’s points of view. I have only recently realised what a poor communicator that I am. I am working on it. I am definitely a work in progress.

ms spock said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ms spock said:

It is done by consensus. Women are different but equal and there are complex decision making processes.

But I don’t think that makes a democracy, and these groups are no longer countries.

You are right if you see Australia in a particular way but you might have room for extra knowledge if you look at Indigenous nations and how they interact in other ways.

It’s my point of view. No one else has to embrace it. Some communities further way from the major invasion sites weren’t impacted on as much. I have met Indigenous people who ever saw a white person until they were 13 years old or in their 20s. It’s a big country out there, there are many nations to visit just like if you went to Europe. You wouldn’t say you have seen all of Europe and know what it’s all about if you just went to France? If you only read negative articles about France? If you only engaged with certain French people.

And I am happy to be wrong in other people’s eyes this is just based on my experiences since I was on the run from my father when I was 15. Some of these communities sheltered me when the police and the welfare wouldn’t assist me because my father’s training and demeanor scared them.

We all come to looking at Indigenous Nations from very different viewpoints and perspectives, and that is as it should be. Everyone puts out their life experiences, knowledge, reading, engagement with Indigenous communities and whether or not the majority of what they know about Indigenous nations comes from a particular type of history and media representation.

I am a most passionate person, as you know. I don’t mean to disrepect to other people’s points of view. I have only recently realised what a poor communicator that I am. I am working on it. I am definitely a work in progress.

I am not denigrating Australian cultural systems in any way, but their cultural systems are not democracies, and their cultural groups are not countries, and that is what the question was about.

> I’m going to say New Zealand, on the basis that it was the first to have universal suffrage regardless of sex or ethnicity.

What’s that got to do with democracy? Nothing.

First we need to define what democracy is.

The definition of “government by the people” is meaningless, because what else are we going to be governed by, lizards?

How about we define it as “any system of government other than monarchy and military”? That’s about the widest definition.

Then its up to you to decide whether to include or exclude dictatorship and theocracy in with democracy or not. I’m inclined to include theocracy in with democracy.

Or we could use a much narrower definition from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index. In which case the USA doesn’t count as a democracy, but instead as a “flawed democracy”, not the same thing.

Then there’s the issue of “continuous”. Countries change their boundaries all the time. When one country is conquered by another or separates from another can it be taken as continuous if the country is governed by a democracy in both cases? Let’s say it does.

On the other hand, Australia wasn’t a country until federation in 1901. At that time it still wasn’t certain if New Zealand would become part of the country of Australia or not. Or you could count Australia as a country back to 1788, at which time it was ruled by the military under British command.

So let’s try that out on a few countries.
China became a democracy in 1912.
Greece became a democracy for the last time in 1973.
Italy became a democracy for the last time in 1946 – or did it. There is a big difference between an active monarchy and a constitutional monarchy.
Can a constitutional monarchy be called a democracy? Why not? The monarch has very little actual power.

So be could say that Britain last became a democracy in 1688, or that it’s not yet a democracy.

mollwollfumble said:

> I’m going to say New Zealand, on the basis that it was the first to have universal suffrage regardless of sex or ethnicity.

What’s that got to do with democracy? Nothing.

First we need to define what democracy is.

The definition of “government by the people” is meaningless, because what else are we going to be governed by, lizards?

How about we define it as “any system of government other than monarchy and military”? That’s about the widest definition.

Then its up to you to decide whether to include or exclude dictatorship and theocracy in with democracy or not. I’m inclined to include theocracy in with democracy.

Or we could use a much narrower definition from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index. In which case the USA doesn’t count as a democracy, but instead as a “flawed democracy”, not the same thing.

Then there’s the issue of “continuous”. Countries change their boundaries all the time. When one country is conquered by another or separates from another can it be taken as continuous if the country is governed by a democracy in both cases? Let’s say it does.

On the other hand, Australia wasn’t a country until federation in 1901. At that time it still wasn’t certain if New Zealand would become part of the country of Australia or not. Or you could count Australia as a country back to 1788, at which time it was ruled by the military under British command.

So let’s try that out on a few countries.
China became a democracy in 1912.
Greece became a democracy for the last time in 1973.
Italy became a democracy for the last time in 1946 – or did it. There is a big difference between an active monarchy and a constitutional monarchy.
Can a constitutional monarchy be called a democracy? Why not? The monarch has very little actual power.

So be could say that Britain last became a democracy in 1688, or that it’s not yet a democracy.

You can define democracies as you please, but my definition, which fits in with dv’s comments, is that a democracy is a recognised country with a centralised system of government where the representatives of the governing body are selected through regular elections, where all adult citizens are free to vote for any of the standing candidates, and there are no unreasonable restrictions on who can be a candidate.

On that basis New Zealand is the first democracy because it was the first country to not exclude 50% of adult citizens from voting.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ms spock said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But I don’t think that makes a democracy, and these groups are no longer countries.

You are right if you see Australia in a particular way but you might have room for extra knowledge if you look at Indigenous nations and how they interact in other ways.

It’s my point of view. No one else has to embrace it. Some communities further way from the major invasion sites weren’t impacted on as much. I have met Indigenous people who ever saw a white person until they were 13 years old or in their 20s. It’s a big country out there, there are many nations to visit just like if you went to Europe. You wouldn’t say you have seen all of Europe and know what it’s all about if you just went to France? If you only read negative articles about France? If you only engaged with certain French people.

And I am happy to be wrong in other people’s eyes this is just based on my experiences since I was on the run from my father when I was 15. Some of these communities sheltered me when the police and the welfare wouldn’t assist me because my father’s training and demeanor scared them.

We all come to looking at Indigenous Nations from very different viewpoints and perspectives, and that is as it should be. Everyone puts out their life experiences, knowledge, reading, engagement with Indigenous communities and whether or not the majority of what they know about Indigenous nations comes from a particular type of history and media representation.

I am a most passionate person, as you know. I don’t mean to disrepect to other people’s points of view. I have only recently realised what a poor communicator that I am. I am working on it. I am definitely a work in progress.

I am not denigrating Australian cultural systems in any way, but their cultural systems are not democracies, and their cultural groups are not countries, and that is what the question was about.

If you are basing democracy on the rights of women, if they could vote and treated equally, then democracy is a very recent system of government.

Australian Aboriginals have lived a democratic lifestyle for thousands of years where men have rights as do women that were respected by all. They did not have a caste system and basically all were equal, but they did have laws that people were required to follow. This highly effective system was largely destroyed by European Settlement.

Democracy – government by the people for the people, elected, no liars allowed

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ms spock said:

You are right if you see Australia in a particular way but you might have room for extra knowledge if you look at Indigenous nations and how they interact in other ways.

It’s my point of view. No one else has to embrace it. Some communities further way from the major invasion sites weren’t impacted on as much. I have met Indigenous people who ever saw a white person until they were 13 years old or in their 20s. It’s a big country out there, there are many nations to visit just like if you went to Europe. You wouldn’t say you have seen all of Europe and know what it’s all about if you just went to France? If you only read negative articles about France? If you only engaged with certain French people.

And I am happy to be wrong in other people’s eyes this is just based on my experiences since I was on the run from my father when I was 15. Some of these communities sheltered me when the police and the welfare wouldn’t assist me because my father’s training and demeanor scared them.

We all come to looking at Indigenous Nations from very different viewpoints and perspectives, and that is as it should be. Everyone puts out their life experiences, knowledge, reading, engagement with Indigenous communities and whether or not the majority of what they know about Indigenous nations comes from a particular type of history and media representation.

I am a most passionate person, as you know. I don’t mean to disrepect to other people’s points of view. I have only recently realised what a poor communicator that I am. I am working on it. I am definitely a work in progress.

I am not denigrating Australian cultural systems in any way, but their cultural systems are not democracies, and their cultural groups are not countries, and that is what the question was about.

If you are basing democracy on the rights of women, if they could vote and treated equally, then democracy is a very recent system of government.

Australian Aboriginals have lived a democratic lifestyle for thousands of years where men have rights as do women that were respected by all. They did not have a caste system and basically all were equal, but they did have laws that people were required to follow. This highly effective system was largely destroyed by European Settlement.

Democracy formally usually requires formal elections. Aboriginals had a system of laws and society more accurately termed a gerontocracy IMO.

I would exclude any groups of people that are not organised into a “state” in the modern political science meaning of the word.

I am looking only at “states” where the people in power running the show are elected through a formal process. I’m excluding informal processes within smaller groups.

I’m including the necessity of leaders able to be removed from office just as easily through the formal process at the next election as they were chosen previously. So I’m crossing out theocracies or ruling bodies where the person is appointed for life.

The UK is a strange case, as mentioned earlier. The lower house is democratic, the upper house is definitely undemocratic. It is hard to pick. Maybe we could call them a “flawed democracy” too. Indeed any body elected on a FPTP system is a flawed democracy.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I am not denigrating Australian cultural systems in any way, but their cultural systems are not democracies, and their cultural groups are not countries, and that is what the question was about.

If you are basing democracy on the rights of women, if they could vote and treated equally, then democracy is a very recent system of government.

Australian Aboriginals have lived a democratic lifestyle for thousands of years where men have rights as do women that were respected by all. They did not have a caste system and basically all were equal, but they did have laws that people were required to follow. This highly effective system was largely destroyed by European Settlement.

Democracy formally usually requires formal elections. Aboriginals had a system of laws and society more accurately termed a gerontocracy IMO.

Were specific tasks/jobs/roles/etc based on skill or assigned male or female for some reason forgotten.
If a women was highly skilled at a male role was she allowed to do it and vis versa.
Aren’t you missing out if male and females have assigned jobs and can’t do the other

well since they didn’t elect the current NZ leader as the prime minister we guess they uh

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I am not denigrating Australian cultural systems in any way, but their cultural systems are not democracies, and their cultural groups are not countries, and that is what the question was about.

If you are basing democracy on the rights of women, if they could vote and treated equally, then democracy is a very recent system of government.

Australian Aboriginals have lived a democratic lifestyle for thousands of years where men have rights as do women that were respected by all. They did not have a caste system and basically all were equal, but they did have laws that people were required to follow. This highly effective system was largely destroyed by European Settlement.

Democracy formally usually requires formal elections. Aboriginals had a system of laws and society more accurately termed a gerontocracy IMO.

These were regarded as wise men, whereas we regard the self-gratifying younger generations as the smart ones. These Aboriginal elders were the people who had the most life experiences, knew the law and knew how to use it. We on the other hand are either ruled by people born to the position, or elect people we don’t know who the most notable, turn out to be right bastards. IMO we should look to see who has the most fulfilling life based on an accepted method of governance as a democracy, not the system where the rights of a few elites dominate everyone else.

SCIENCE said:

well since they didn’t elect the current NZ leader as the prime minister we guess they uh

I’m pretty sure the current NZ leader was indeed elected to be a government representative.

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

If you are basing democracy on the rights of women, if they could vote and treated equally, then democracy is a very recent system of government.

Australian Aboriginals have lived a democratic lifestyle for thousands of years where men have rights as do women that were respected by all. They did not have a caste system and basically all were equal, but they did have laws that people were required to follow. This highly effective system was largely destroyed by European Settlement.

Democracy formally usually requires formal elections. Aboriginals had a system of laws and society more accurately termed a gerontocracy IMO.

These were regarded as wise men, whereas we regard the self-gratifying younger generations as the smart ones. These Aboriginal elders were the people who had the most life experiences, knew the law and knew how to use it. We on the other hand are either ruled by people born to the position, or elect people we don’t know who the most notable, turn out to be right bastards. IMO we should look to see who has the most fulfilling life based on an accepted method of governance as a democracy, not the system where the rights of a few elites dominate everyone else.

Or perhaps no one person is given a specific position but it’s instead made up of a number of experienced experts in the field

The definition of Democracy is “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.” The definition used here seems to be a very narrow interpretation of the above.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Democracy formally usually requires formal elections. Aboriginals had a system of laws and society more accurately termed a gerontocracy IMO.

These were regarded as wise men, whereas we regard the self-gratifying younger generations as the smart ones. These Aboriginal elders were the people who had the most life experiences, knew the law and knew how to use it. We on the other hand are either ruled by people born to the position, or elect people we don’t know who the most notable, turn out to be right bastards. IMO we should look to see who has the most fulfilling life based on an accepted method of governance as a democracy, not the system where the rights of a few elites dominate everyone else.

Or perhaps no one person is given a specific position but it’s instead made up of a number of experienced experts in the field

In Aboriginal society, no single person ruled or assumed the dominant position.

PermeateFree said:

The definition of Democracy is “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.” The definition used here seems to be a very narrow interpretation of the above.

Not really.

1) A state, and
2) A formal election process

I think a democracy should be defined as any contiguous land mass where the people, the people of any gender, any colour or race they identify with, people of any religion, any sexual identity, anyone over the age of 18 who owns more than 300 acres have the right to vote.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

These were regarded as wise men, whereas we regard the self-gratifying younger generations as the smart ones. These Aboriginal elders were the people who had the most life experiences, knew the law and knew how to use it. We on the other hand are either ruled by people born to the position, or elect people we don’t know who the most notable, turn out to be right bastards. IMO we should look to see who has the most fulfilling life based on an accepted method of governance as a democracy, not the system where the rights of a few elites dominate everyone else.

Or perhaps no one person is given a specific position but it’s instead made up of a number of experienced experts in the field

In Aboriginal society, no single person ruled or assumed the dominant position.

Its somewhat arrogant to assume people would/should

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

The definition of Democracy is “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.” The definition used here seems to be a very narrow interpretation of the above.

Not really.

1) A state, and
2) A formal election process

Neither.

Election is not only unnecessary for democracy, it is inimical to it. The ancient Athens system of democracy by unbiased lottery is better. People nominate, and then a lottery selects the leader.

> a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state

That’s not democracy – that’s anarchy.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

The definition of Democracy is “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.” The definition used here seems to be a very narrow interpretation of the above.

Not really.

1) A state, and
2) A formal election process

Aboriginals had a state, they owned their country over tens of thousands of years. They had no need of a formal election process, because they did not elect a leader as they made decisions together in a democratic way.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

The definition of Democracy is “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.” The definition used here seems to be a very narrow interpretation of the above.

Not really.

1) A state, and
2) A formal election process

Aboriginals had a state, they owned their country over tens of thousands of years. They had no need of a formal election process, because they did not elect a leader as they made decisions together in a democratic way.

No. I don’t recognise that as being a state in the modern sense. There are only around 200 or so recognised states, with their own diplomatic relationships with other states, membership of international bodies, signatories to treaties and so on. The grey areas are places like Taiwan and Somaliland. Native tribes don’t count as states.

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

The definition of Democracy is “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.” The definition used here seems to be a very narrow interpretation of the above.

Not really.

1) A state, and
2) A formal election process

Neither.

Election is not only unnecessary for democracy, it is inimical to it. The ancient Athens system of democracy by unbiased lottery is better. People nominate, and then a lottery selects the leader.

> a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state

That’s not democracy – that’s anarchy.

As said before, you can define democracy any way you like, and nominate the oldest democracy if you so choose.

I’ll stick with my definition, which has the benefit of being closer to how the word is usually used.

I concur with the Kiwi conclusion.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-27/wee1-tactical-jr15-rifle-investigation/101900010

Tonight, you kids will sleep with your rifles. You will give your rifle a cute name because this is the only toy you people will get

Peak Warming Man said:

I think a democracy should be defined as any contiguous land mass where the people, the people of any gender, any colour or race they identify with, people of any religion, any sexual identity, anyone over the age of 18 who owns more than 300 acres have the right to vote.

Only the landed gentry eh?

What about the people who owned the land before the interlopers?

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

The definition of Democracy is “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.” The definition used here seems to be a very narrow interpretation of the above.

Not really.

1) A state, and
2) A formal election process

Neither.

Election is not only unnecessary for democracy, it is inimical to it. The ancient Athens system of democracy by unbiased lottery is better. People nominate, and then a lottery selects the leader.

> a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state

That’s not democracy – that’s anarchy.

That’s not the recognised definition of anarchy either you idiot.

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

Not really.

1) A state, and
2) A formal election process

Neither.

Election is not only unnecessary for democracy, it is inimical to it. The ancient Athens system of democracy by unbiased lottery is better. People nominate, and then a lottery selects the leader.

> a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state

That’s not democracy – that’s anarchy.

That’s not the recognised definition of anarchy either you idiot.

I wanna be

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

Not really.

1) A state, and
2) A formal election process

Aboriginals had a state, they owned their country over tens of thousands of years. They had no need of a formal election process, because they did not elect a leader as they made decisions together in a democratic way.

No. I don’t recognise that as being a state in the modern sense. There are only around 200 or so recognised states, with their own diplomatic relationships with other states, membership of international bodies, signatories to treaties and so on. The grey areas are places like Taiwan and Somaliland. Native tribes don’t count as states.

A state is defined as “a centralized political organization that imposes and enforces rules over a population within a territory. There is no undisputed definition of a state.” Aborigines had their OWN country for thousands of years and they lived by laws that governed their activities and if these laws were broken the people responsible were punished.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

Aboriginals had a state, they owned their country over tens of thousands of years. They had no need of a formal election process, because they did not elect a leader as they made decisions together in a democratic way.

No. I don’t recognise that as being a state in the modern sense. There are only around 200 or so recognised states, with their own diplomatic relationships with other states, membership of international bodies, signatories to treaties and so on. The grey areas are places like Taiwan and Somaliland. Native tribes don’t count as states.

A state is defined as “a centralized political organization that imposes and enforces rules over a population within a territory. There is no undisputed definition of a state.” Aborigines had their OWN country for thousands of years and they lived by laws that governed their activities and if these laws were broken the people responsible were punished.

The aborigine didn’t have a modern sense of what we call democracy. Their system lasted many millennia without any need for argument about who ran what and nobody came and annexed their land until white men arrived.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

Aboriginals had a state, they owned their country over tens of thousands of years. They had no need of a formal election process, because they did not elect a leader as they made decisions together in a democratic way.

No. I don’t recognise that as being a state in the modern sense. There are only around 200 or so recognised states, with their own diplomatic relationships with other states, membership of international bodies, signatories to treaties and so on. The grey areas are places like Taiwan and Somaliland. Native tribes don’t count as states.

A state is defined as “a centralized political organization that imposes and enforces rules over a population within a territory. There is no undisputed definition of a state.” Aborigines had their OWN country for thousands of years and they lived by laws that governed their activities and if these laws were broken the people responsible were punished.

You have left out the most important bit: recognition as a state by other states under international law.

As I said, the list to choose from is limited to around 200.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

No. I don’t recognise that as being a state in the modern sense. There are only around 200 or so recognised states, with their own diplomatic relationships with other states, membership of international bodies, signatories to treaties and so on. The grey areas are places like Taiwan and Somaliland. Native tribes don’t count as states.

A state is defined as “a centralized political organization that imposes and enforces rules over a population within a territory. There is no undisputed definition of a state.” Aborigines had their OWN country for thousands of years and they lived by laws that governed their activities and if these laws were broken the people responsible were punished.

You have left out the most important bit: recognition as a state by other states under international law.

As I said, the list to choose from is limited to around 200.

There was no such thing as international law for the aborigine but there were quite a number of states under a National law with trade between states.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

No. I don’t recognise that as being a state in the modern sense. There are only around 200 or so recognised states, with their own diplomatic relationships with other states, membership of international bodies, signatories to treaties and so on. The grey areas are places like Taiwan and Somaliland. Native tribes don’t count as states.

A state is defined as “a centralized political organization that imposes and enforces rules over a population within a territory. There is no undisputed definition of a state.” Aborigines had their OWN country for thousands of years and they lived by laws that governed their activities and if these laws were broken the people responsible were punished.

The aborigine didn’t have a modern sense of what we call democracy. Their system lasted many millennia without any need for argument about who ran what and nobody came and annexed their land until white men arrived.

Yes and the white man, then and even now is extremely arrogant by thinking that because of their European war experiences and their more refined weapons, made them more intelligent and better than everyone else. When in fact they were largely unthinking highly arrogant people only with better weapons and better ways of killing those with only primitive means of defending themselves.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

A state is defined as “a centralized political organization that imposes and enforces rules over a population within a territory. There is no undisputed definition of a state.” Aborigines had their OWN country for thousands of years and they lived by laws that governed their activities and if these laws were broken the people responsible were punished.

The aborigine didn’t have a modern sense of what we call democracy. Their system lasted many millennia without any need for argument about who ran what and nobody came and annexed their land until white men arrived.

Yes and the white man, then and even now is extremely arrogant by thinking that because of their European war experiences and their more refined weapons, made them more intelligent and better than everyone else. When in fact they were largely unthinking highly arrogant people only with better weapons and better ways of killing those with only primitive means of defending themselves.

*shakes fist * at white people.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

No. I don’t recognise that as being a state in the modern sense. There are only around 200 or so recognised states, with their own diplomatic relationships with other states, membership of international bodies, signatories to treaties and so on. The grey areas are places like Taiwan and Somaliland. Native tribes don’t count as states.

A state is defined as “a centralized political organization that imposes and enforces rules over a population within a territory. There is no undisputed definition of a state.” Aborigines had their OWN country for thousands of years and they lived by laws that governed their activities and if these laws were broken the people responsible were punished.

You have left out the most important bit: recognition as a state by other states under international law.

As I said, the list to choose from is limited to around 200.

They were recognised and respected by the other Aboriginal Nations that knew of their existence, which is their equivalent of international law.

The Vatican…

furious said:

The Vatican…

Not that again

Cymek said:

furious said:

The Vatican…

Not that again

What did the Roman Catholics ever do for us?

Peak Warming Man said:

Cymek said:

furious said:

The Vatican…

Not that again

What did the Roman Catholics ever do for us?

Cementa shuze.

U
S
A

U
S
A

When Rublicans are in charge it’s the best democracy in the world

The-Spectator said:

U
S
A

U
S
A

When Rublicans are in charge it’s the best democracy in the world

For the Republicans..

roughbarked said:

The-Spectator said:

U
S
A

U
S
A

When Rublicans are in charge it’s the best democracy in the world

For the Republicans..

Maybe he actually meant the Rublicans: an Alien race from Rigel 6.

I wonder if notions that equate with and arrive at an arrangement that is democratic, that might be considered a ‘democracy’, need a formal state at all, or any state, and frankly I doubt it

rev apparently means formalized democracy, as people would recognize today, but i’d expect the informal dimension of that has something of restraint about the imposition of group norms on individuals, or to generalize further – limits on impositions of any kind

in whatever it is there has to be ideas about agreement, what constitutes agreement, and how agreement is got

democracy is some measure of the amount of agreement that exists, not just an instrument to decide one way or the other, to do or not to do

technically you could have unanimous agreement about something but still not do whatever

your ancestors one occasion might have mostly agreed the men should go hunting in a lightning storm, headed out and someone got struck by lightning and died, then all fled back to the camp, there was an accidental agreement about abandoning the hunting

the partner and children of the one that died are hysterical about the loss on hearing the news, the partner thinks fuck democracy you’re idiots for going out in a lightning storm

wandered into some humor there, had a sensation I was taking myself too seriously

but back to being more serious, I wonder what democracy would be without some measure of the agreement, without evidence of the extent of the agreement, and the flipside of that surely involves sensitivity to the imposition of whatever, the extent whatever was not agreed

I wonder, if democracy had a spirit, had a soul, what would it be, the psychology, and did it exist hundreds of thousands of years ago

transition said:

I wonder if notions that equate with and arrive at an arrangement that is democratic, that might be considered a ‘democracy’, need a formal state at all, or any state, and frankly I doubt it

rev apparently means formalized democracy, as people would recognize today, but i’d expect the informal dimension of that has something of restraint about the imposition of group norms on individuals, or to generalize further – limits on impositions of any kind

in whatever it is there has to be ideas about agreement, what constitutes agreement, and how agreement is got

democracy is some measure of the amount of agreement that exists, not just an instrument to decide one way or the other, to do or not to do

technically you could have unanimous agreement about something but still not do whatever

your ancestors one occasion might have mostly agreed the men should go hunting in a lightning storm, headed out and someone got struck by lightning and died, then all fled back to the camp, there was an accidental agreement about abandoning the hunting

the partner and children of the one that died are hysterical about the loss on hearing the news, the partner thinks fuck democracy you’re idiots for going out in a lightning storm

wandered into some humor there, had a sensation I was taking myself too seriously

but back to being more serious, I wonder what democracy would be without some measure of the agreement, without evidence of the extent of the agreement, and the flipside of that surely involves sensitivity to the imposition of whatever, the extent whatever was not agreed

I wonder, if democracy had a spirit, had a soul, what would it be, the psychology, and did it exist hundreds of thousands of years ago

I reckon it has been around since the first campfireside chat.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ms spock said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But I don’t think that makes a democracy, and these groups are no longer countries.

You are right if you see Australia in a particular way but you might have room for extra knowledge if you look at Indigenous nations and how they interact in other ways.

It’s my point of view. No one else has to embrace it. Some communities further way from the major invasion sites weren’t impacted on as much. I have met Indigenous people who ever saw a white person until they were 13 years old or in their 20s. It’s a big country out there, there are many nations to visit just like if you went to Europe. You wouldn’t say you have seen all of Europe and know what it’s all about if you just went to France? If you only read negative articles about France? If you only engaged with certain French people.

And I am happy to be wrong in other people’s eyes this is just based on my experiences since I was on the run from my father when I was 15. Some of these communities sheltered me when the police and the welfare wouldn’t assist me because my father’s training and demeanor scared them.

We all come to looking at Indigenous Nations from very different viewpoints and perspectives, and that is as it should be. Everyone puts out their life experiences, knowledge, reading, engagement with Indigenous communities and whether or not the majority of what they know about Indigenous nations comes from a particular type of history and media representation.

I am a most passionate person, as you know. I don’t mean to disrepect to other people’s points of view. I have only recently realised what a poor communicator that I am. I am working on it. I am definitely a work in progress.

I am not denigrating Australian cultural systems in any way, but their cultural systems are not democracies, and their cultural groups are not countries, and that is what the question was about.

Yes that was about democracies, and my understanding perhaps not relevant to this discussion, is that certain nations definitely consider themselves a nation/country and consider themselves to be much more democractic than other nations/countries.