Question: Is it possible to have a democratic forum and still not permit everyone to participate in it? In other words, how can we call a forum democratic if we put a restriction on its access? Is it not contradictory?


Before answering this question in a more technical way, let me paraphrase a story about Mahadev's boon and Bhasmasur's penance. Mahadev, who is also called Ashutosh because of his propensity to be pleased quickly, had a reputation of giving unconditional blessing to anyone provided the person made him happy. Bhasmasur, a sly demon, knew this idiosyncrasy of the god of Gods and decided to get a blessing from him by undertaking a very severe form of penance for many years. Mahadev, seeing his bhakta's sacrifice, ultimately became pleased and asked him if he wished any boon. Bhasmasur asked, "Can you give me anything that I asked?". Mahadev said, "Yes, anything". Bhasmasur then said, "I want a power to destroy the person on whose head I put my hand". Mahadev was about to give this boon to Bhasmasur but Bishnu, who was watching all this from his palace in Baikuntha, understood the malicious intent of Bhasmasur. He knew that Bhasmasur would use the power given by Mahadev to destroy Mahadev hismself. So, he descended to Kailash from Baikuntha and winked at Mahadev. However, Mahadev, being Mahadev, gave the boon to Bhasmasur without considering the consequences. Bishnu then felt the need to rectify this mistake immediately and took recourse in a ruse. He mockingly said to Bhasmasur, "You have been deceived by Mahadev as he has not given you any such power. You can verify it by putting your hand over your head." Bhasmasur did what Bishnu suggested and became a pile of dust in no time.

Yo ta bhayo pauranik kaalko Mahadev ra Bhasmasur ko katha. Do we have any thing similar to that in our time? I believe Arrow's Impossibility Theorem pertaing to democracy is one such story. Arrow in his PhD thesis demonstrated that it is not possible to include everyone's preferences even in a democratic system. That is, even a democratic system, is not necessarily fair to everyone.

From a systems perspective, it is evident that the degree of openness (or closeness) of a system is only a relative one. A completely open system is an ideal system. One must impose boundary in such a system before it can be studied or managed.

Even open source systems in computing need to agree on some fundamental standards. Without such protocols, it is not possible for them to manage their complexity and evolve.

==========================================
Just because that a forum imposes certain restrictions or requirements does not necessarily mean that the forum is undemocratic. As long as such stipulations do not contradict the underlying democratic values, it is entirely possible to impose those restrictions and yet have a democratic system. Since democracy itself is a system, it must have a set of its rules and boundary. The decision where to put the boundary depends on the intended level of organizational complexity though.

okay getting back to the original question...is democracy always the right solution? i can think of one hypothetical example where it's not....let's say that in this hypothetical world, 49% of the people are knowledgeable, and are genuinely concerned for the overall welfare of society..the other 51% are ignorant buffoons who think they are smart, but in reality always end up harming everyone in the society by their stupid decisions. say there is a major referendum on a critical issue affecting everyone in society...democracy in this case ensures that society will be worse off...

now before someone starts labeling me anti-democratic, lemme just say that i believe in the institution of democracy, and i am exercising my right by playing devil's advocate here...laterzzzz

A Democratic Forum should inlcude everyone, including those who are Undemocratic, but Undemocratic Forum does not have to do the same.

By the same token, Ashu, do you justify the violent behaviour of Maoist - the rebels, and put blame on the Government (Army), in this war that is going on in Nepal.

I am sure you condemn the Maoist behaviour. But my question is are the Maoists justified to do whatever they are doing just because they are rebels. Do you see the similarity here between the democrats and the non-demcratats.

Condorcet's Paradox

the basic idea in Arrow's work can be captured in a 3 person, 3 alternatives model.

let the three alternatives (election candidates, say) be x, y and z.
let ">" represent "prefers to"
let ">" be transitive, i.e. x > y and y > z implies x > z

suppose we have the following preferences
Person 1: x > y, y > z
Person 2: y > z, z > x
Person 3: z > x, x > y

What does the society choose using majority (which some claim is democracy)?

Define pair-wise majority as choosing an alternative based on comparisons between only two of the alternatives at a time. What this means is that you have to consider all 3 alternatives, but you do that by considering two at a time. What does the society choose?

Can you come up with a rule so that the society makes a definite choice?

the answer is no, of course. this is what i think... the main source of the paradox is that preferences are not cardinal. if there were an absolute measure of utility (perhaps something what teh communists say, like everyone shoud prefer this to that..), the problem would not arise. say X=1 and Y=2 and Z=3 and that the numbers represent absolute utilities for everyone in society. . In this scenario, the preference structure you listed above would never arise, and it is possible to make a clear choice that maximizes society's welfare, serves the majority, and also maximizes each individual's welbeing. the solution is obvious.

now the problem in real life is that utilities vary. i may like a red car more than a green car. and someone may prefer a green car to a red car. hence the paradox...

and democracy celebrates diversity. everyone should have the freedom to choose what they want to say, who they want to hang out with, and what they do, as long as they dont harm other peoples' way of life.... quite contrary to the communist viewpoint that everyone should do the same damn thing...like in communist china, everyone (men and women) was required to wear the same blue shirt and trousers all year round....of course the peasants wore cotton, while chairman mao wore silk...(utter hypocrisy)..

Amartya sen's definition makes more sense.

Couple questions.

Now, since Nepe brought his "theory" for public reasoning in this forum, does that make him democrat?

If I consult someone (my secret source) before framing my views and making them public, would that be non democratic practice?

Although mathematical models go over my head, it's good to see Sajhaites making sense of them and explaining things for us. I will be checking for more discussions.

*** *** *** *** ***

Meanwhile, I have been quietly enjoying the publicity ND Google group is getting from Ashu's critical remarks about it in this and other threads. As they say, no publicity is a bad publicity. Because, at the end of the day, people make their own opinion.

Now, how's a publicity good for a group which loves, ahem, privacy ?

Well, one, to attract more (of course like minded) people to it and, two, for members like me who want at least a partial transparency in it, to make a stronger case.

So, I would thank Ashu for his contribution even when he is making assumptions and arguing about them.

*** *** *** *** ***

However, I am a bit disappointed to see that Ashu did not catch the drift of the original story (of Bhasmashur and boon) Gokul-jee brought so befitting to the discussion on how democratic a democracy can/should be.

Can a system allow a component that kills the system ?

Should a democracy include a voice for a dictatorship as a dissenting voice ?

How can a voice for a dictatorship be a dissenting voice ?

How can the supporters of Feb 1 claim a room in the house built to oppose it ? Or a supporter of the supporter of Feb 1, or a supporter of the supporters of the supporters of Feb 1 and so on, to be more inclusive.

I think these were the questions.

*** *** *** *** ***

Zalim wrote:
>Okay getting back to the original question...is democracy always the right solution?

No, it is not always the RIGHT solution. However, it is always the BEST solution.

Nepe

well the way you quoted me (with just my conclusion, withtout citing the context of a hypothetical example) makes me come across as a proponent of anarchy,which i am not. and all i wanted to do was to bring some opposing points of view to the discussion rather refuse to consider differeing thoughts like an overzealous religious fanatic. i hate to repeat, but in this case, i guess the point did not get across, so ...

I said:

"i can think of one hypothetical example where it's not....let's say that in this hypothetical world, 49% of the people are knowledgeable, and are genuinely concerned for the overall welfare of society..the other 51% are ignorant buffoons who think they are smart, but in reality always end up harming everyone in the society by their stupid decisions. say there is a major referendum on a critical issue affecting everyone in society...democracy in this case ensures that society will be worse off...
"
so, in this hypothetical world, democracy is neither the best nor the right solution. the best (and right, assuming that you are concerned about everyone's welfare) solution, is for the 49% of hte ppl to decide on behalf of everyone. this process may not be democratic, but it benefits EVERYONE. A pareto efficient point, as an economist would say. ...i am sure you will let me know if it is unclear.

If you require all the voters to be educated then maybe they will vote for the right thing. Then again the education process needs to be reviewed. Some are educated from beginning by having to jai jai jai the king every day and study that they are supreme beings gods. On the otherhand some might be educated under Maoist where chairman mao is the father of demokwashi.

Just the fact that Nepe is spltting the community and the fact that he is not going to let everyone(ONLY HIS LIKE MINDED PEOPLE he he ) in on his DEMOQWAAASHI NEPAL GOOGLE GROUP shows his intentions.
"for members like me who want at least a partial transparency in it, to make a stronger case" he he HE WANTS PARTIAL TRANSPARENCY TO MAKE A STONGER CASE FOR HIS KURSII WHEN THE TIME COMES. he he !
He would also like to thank ASHU FOR MAKING THE CASE FOR HIS FUTURE KURSII.
Any sloution that would help put NEPE on the map that would help him get a KURSII in the futre is the best solution.

Zalim,

You are trying to open avenues of interesting discussion. I appreciate that.

By 'BEST", I meant the method. Because the major question is the method. Solution comes after the method.

Who decides what is good and what is not ? That's the central question of democracy.

Your hypothesis envisions a pre-existing judge who knows what is right and what is not. Who is this judge ? This judge is the major problem of your hypothesis, I think.

nepe, i was thinking about the outcome when i wrote what i wrote. but you bring up an interesting point about the method, which the critique of democracy does not deal with. i was more concerned about the end result. since it is probably more interesting, let's see…

i am still operating within the HYPOTHETICAL world.

the biggest probelm is not really the method in my example. hypotehtically speakign, if the remaining 51% realize that they are better off governed by the 49%, and ALLOW this to happen, there is no problem.....even if the 49% manipulates the mass to serve teh common good, some people might still consider this to be a fair outcome. it will be like the 49% acting like "concerned parents" looking after the welbeing of their children. Lemme give you another simple example to illustrate my point. Suppose a husband and wife, and their 3 kids go out to dinner. The kids insist on ordering some dish that the parents know will give them an upset stomach. Ignoring the kids’ pleas and moans the parents go the undemocratic way and order something more healthy for everyone. The parents can be undemocratic because they have more power (and the paycheck). In this case, the method is simple exercise of power. And in this particular example, the use of power to suppress democracy is justified. (please don’t quote this last sentence out of context)

It seems like you are extrapolating this to current real world situations, while I was merely engaging in a mental exercise. This cannot be applied to most current REAL WORLD settings because 1) teh assumption that 49% are intelligent well-wishers and 51% are dumb and always make the wrong decisions is usually invalid. 2) like you mentioned, even if the earlier assumption holds, it is hard to determine who constitute the 49% 3) the remaining 51% would want to have a voice in the government or 4) that if you coerce/manipulate the 51%, you are being undemocratic. (which is a joke, cos the rich lobbyists are always manipulating the democratic machinery and taking advantage of the poor even in industrialized nations).

one may argue also that having control over one's own governance through the democratic machinery (viz, majority voting) and achieving a sub-optimal societal outcome is preferable to being governed by 49% and achieving an optimal outcome.

The democratic process certainly seems simple and in most cases, more equitable than the alternatives. I do not claim to have an answer or a better alternative. If I did, I would be world famous by now.

bidwan, in my definition, education empowers one to make informed decisions for the welbeing of oneself, one's family, and ideally, one's society and teh world. a person who is blinded by zealous devotion to any particular individual, and is unwilling to reason and to question one's preexisting beliefs may be literate, but is surely not educated. at least IMO.

Zalim,

There is some confusion. You probably got "population" and "poll" mixed up. If you illustrate it with an example, things might be clearer.

nepe, i am not sure what the source of the confusion is...if i can think of something i will let you know...else i will let it go...let it go...let it go....

very interesting, Zalim:

"... the main source of the paradox is that preferences are not cardinal. if there were an absolute measure of utility (perhaps something what teh communists say, like everyone shoud prefer this to that..), the problem would not arise. say X=1 and Y=2 and Z=3 and that the numbers represent absolute utilities for everyone in society..."

- I don't think having a cardinal preference Necessarity guarantees a solution.

- When you assign numbers to x, y and z, I think you are confusing preferences with utility. Now, granted they are very closely related, but they are not the same. Perhaps, you wanted to say x yields a utility(whatver the heck that is) of 1 and so on. This still does not solve the paradox. The problem is that people have different preferences, a.k.a. in your parlance, it yields different levels of utility to different people. So say, if x > y and y > z for person1, s/he gets utils of 3, 2 and 1 from x, y and z respectively. We have now rephrased the paradox, but paradox it remains.

- Ok, if one person says everyone should prefer A to B (perhaps because s/he prefers A to B) then that person is a "dictator" in Arrow's world. And that is precisely his impossibility - it is impossible to find a consistent method of picking the best alternatives (when they number more than 3) without a dictator. (of course his work has a lot of bells and whistles.)

But some might wish to state it as a POSSIBILITY result though : It is possible to find a consistent method of picking the best alternative if there is a dictator.

Basically, if you want a consistent method, you've got to have a dictator.

Although I do not support (or oppose) Nepe's distracters, here's a quote by Nepe:


" Should a democracy include a voice for a dictatorship as a dissenting voice ?"

I take it is rhetorical question but I would like to answer it anyway. And it is a BIG OF COURSE!

hehe, that's what its all about.

what more, what i was saying was that you ascribe a certain utility to the consumption of a particular good or service. x=1, y=2 and z=3 in my example above. x, y and z's are the goods. the numbers are the cardinal and absolute utilities gained from the consumption of those goods. in your example, people have different preferences for different things. for example, 1 prefers x to y and y to z, and so on.....what i am saying is actually very simple.... if utilities were cardinal and absoute, for example, then everyone would have the exact same preference structures (or were forced to consume goods based on a pre-defined structure by the state). everyone would say that red cars give a utility of 1, green cars a utility of 2 and tan cars a utility of 3...

in other words, the preference structure you show for the three individuals would not be possible, and this probelm would not arise. of course we are all different and have different preferences, which is why the problem becomes interesting...

Keep arguing...

He He He, Shree.

Okay, this is to Whatmore-jee. No, it's not.

>" Should a democracy include a voice for a dictatorship as a dissenting voice ?"

>I take it is rhetorical question but I would like to answer it anyway. And it is a BIG OF >COURSE!

>hehe, that's what its all about.

Hmmm.. that's what its [democracy is] all about.

Here is the catch. For a democracy to include a voice for a dictatorship as a dissenting voice, what we will need is, what else, "a voice for a dictatorship as a dissenting voice" itself.

Now, can a voice for a dictatorship be a dissenting voice ? That was my second question.

By definition, a voice for a dictatorship is a DICTATING voice, not a DISSENTING voice.
(supporters of Feb 1 are not putting it in a poll and asking for support. They want it to be supported just like that).

So, the question becomes, " Should a democracy include a voice for a dictatorship as a DICTATING voice ?"

This time you can not answer- " a BIG OF COURSE", Whatmore-jee. Or can you ?

Nepe

Democracy and Dictatorship being mutually exclusive, the questions itself begs to be rephrased.