I do not think democracy is a universal value. I would consider it a relative newcomer on the calendar of human existence. Why? Well, look at history, past and present. Government has seldom been of, by and for the people. More often, it has been of, by and for a powerful elite---and has been effected through intimidation and violence. Look at any civilization, prior to Plato; and many others afterwards and take their measure. I have always had a problem with church and state: they are inextricable, while many naively avow that they ought to be separate. This is a primary reason why Protestants split from Catholicism. They got tired of money ruling their sacred lives. Today, or course, money rules most everything, sacred and secular. Ain't that a bitch?
Democracy is not one-size-fits-all. Never was. Never will be. Freedom implies more than we are willing to allow.
Pretty much.

Democracy?
Who would vote to be governed, ruled over, or controlled by anyone else but Oneself?
=

In ancient Athens, democracy died a work in progress. Ancient Rome, too, failed to make democracy work; nevertheless, Augustus Caesar preserved the by-then defunct democratic institutions in order to exercise autocratic power through them. The gladiator-rebel Spartacus failed to establish a communistic democracy. A host of odious 20th-century tyrannies dared to call themselves "Democratic Republics." Even in the modern Western democracies the rich are getting richer and the poor more desperate while the wealth of the middle-class is eroding away as our civilization degenerates.
Democracy could be admirable if it could be made to work but as yet there is no evidence that humanity has the wisdom to be able to do so.

Well stated T, well stated. Your last sentence, though not original, is well-reiterated. And the overall substance of your comment is congruent with the reality of what others have stated, seems to me. Democracy is but another ideal---an outgrowth of the indomitablilty of the human spirit. Or, do we call those paradigms now? Thanks for the kind words. JP and KT: please carry on---this blog could one day be legendary...

I wrote a new declaration of independence and preamble to the Constitution sometime ago and thought to share it here.
Thanks,
A Declaration of Unity Freedom & Equality
We the people of this planet Earth, in order to form a more perfect or equal union, establish equitable justice, insure domestic as well as universal tranquility, provide for a common defense against inequity, promote a general equitable welfare system, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, or more simply the true Freedoms of Equality, to ourselves, our posterity, to all things, must declare and practice a new constitution, based on the ultimate truth, the power of Nature?s true equality, the separate and equal station in which Nature?s God entitles all, the self-evident truth that not only all men, but equally all things are truly created equal, that all is truly One. Then and only then, will mankind as well as the entire universe, that he through the course of human events so unlawfully, so unnaturally, so destructively, and so inequitably divided, be truly united, and equally set free. The time has come to dissolve the bands of inequity that divide us, the time has come for a new declaration, an evolution based on truth, a new constitution powered by nature?s true equity, true unity, true Oneness, the time has come to unite all things and set the universe free.
And only the truth shall set us free!
=

If by universal value it is meant a value for which there is a force of reason to adopt, then Democracy is a Universal value. Acts of consent for a governing body are democratic acts; therefore individuals who are in favor of their government are, by definition, participating in a Democracy. Acts of disconsent and protest are attempts to interact democratically with a political entity. Only by nonparticipation does one disengage with democracy.

Equality is the true value of the Universe.
Let freedom ring!
=

Are the flaws of Democracy ? as many in this blog so aptly described, an inherent characteristics of it, or does it have to do more with our failure to set up and impose it properly? I am not an American, but follow the GOP show with great interest. It is horrifying to see if a candidate dare to use his/her brain to reason, he/she becomes suspect liberal and not conservative enough. Or if he/she is open to grow as a person and politician, they stamp the ?flip-flopper? label on him. It appears logical to assume that ?mass consciousness? elects the most dysfunctional politician, following the democratic process.
Let us be positive about this for a moment, and assume the electorate successfully selected the candidate with the best qualification. In a true democracy, the majority should have the means to adjust, change its collective mind on any issue to the extent it is practical, resulting in course corrections the Government should heed. In our current system, we address these issues by limiting the duration of time a politician can hold onto office.
I argue the state of our democracy points to the degree of maturity of the electorate more than whether democracy is inherently a workable societal form of governance. The question is how can we make it work more effectively?
The question of values, whether there are universal values is a critical consideration. Organized religions take it for granted that they are the only one who know what they are. Like it or not, we have a strong religious dimension to our subject matter if the electorate subscribed to follow various religious doctrines. Is there a chance to identify some common values that do not have their roots in religious believes? If values do not sprout from metaphysical layers, how can we go about identifying them? Is there a non-religious god of some sort that would grant the universality to our moral codes? I?d like to suggest there is such a ?god?. It is our ?humanness?, our emerging, developing and expanding human nature.
Universal values are wired, hard-coded into the fabric of our makeup. We do not have to figure out what they are through some convoluted phylosophical reasoning. We can simply know them by reflecting what we are and what it is we all value. Mother Teresa and the Afgan suicide bombers all value life, for example. The suicide bomber wants to secure a luxurious aternal life in paradise by killing fellow humans. These misguided people are still searching for values ? albeit in a highly undesireable way.

Hmmmm...a universal shout of "democracy sucks, and especially ours." Easy to say, sitting all nice and comfy enjoying all the rights our democracy has provided us (including open blogs like this one). Try taking a look at all the countries around the world that don't have democracy - would any of you (or anyone in their right mind) want to live there instead of here?
The whole question really turns on another, deeper one - do all people in fact have "inalienable" rights? If yes, then if follows that the form of government that best protects those rights is the best form - and therefore universally the best, since those "inalienable" rights apply to all people.
I will take those "inalienable" rights as a given, and I will further posit that no government system known to man protects and promotes those rights better than democracy (Plato's fantasies notwithstanding) - and I think history bears me out. Unless someone can show me another that does (or did) better?

Are inalienable rights a cornerstone of democracy, as we think we know it, or were they there before democracy was conceived? Hoepner got me to thinking. And we all know what happens when a carpenter begins to think. He becomes a dangerous man---open to influence, and God forbid, revolution. Most of us do not get to choose where we get to live, not initially anyway and, of course, that is an inherent attraction for countries like the USA. Give us your tired, your poor; your huddled masses yearning to breathe free; the wretched refuse of your teeming shore (although that third stanza has raised some ire of late...); bring these, the homeless tempest tossed to me...etc., etc.
I left the United States in 1969. Because of the freedoms that allowed government to make foolish decisions about what kinds of foreign incursions (ergo, Viet Nam) it could compel its citizens (mostly young) to participate in. There were other peripheral issues: race discrimination; social inequity; nationalistic and patriotic fervor, both founded upon an arrogance borne from winning some wars and having apres-war booming economies.
Coming back, under humanitarian parole, I had some illusions. Seven years might have elicited change (I thought)---in any case, my mother was gravely ill in 1976, and I did not wish to leave my father without support.
He and she had supported me, above and beyond the call of parenthood. Now, all of these years later, my loving parents are long gone, she in 1985, he in 1994. I am too old to care much about what happens from here on out. Nothing much has changed since 1969. Or since 1976. Americans ought to be better than they are. But, when you believe you are the best, where can you go but...down. Romans did it and who knows how many before them? There is good, better and best in most realms. Sure. I'll leave readers to deduce their own solutions---unless, of course, they see no need to do so.

Many times, my opinions---and/or the manner in which I state them---annoy or alarm people. To me, it is all good fun, because I have lived more than six decades now and have seen language; witnessed behaviors much more egregious than my own...everyday and from individuals in every age group. That much said about me, I'll say this about the issue of democracy: People either understand and want it. Or they don't. In either case, it is not incumbent upon one country to actively assist another. Such global paternalism breeds global animosity. I do not give a flip about arguments concerning national security; regional destabilization or other such political double speak. They are, most usually, smoke screens, designed to cover economic fears and insecurities. Or, at best, excuses for furtherence of war-making, which allieviates some economic fears and insecurities. We can argue whether matter is solid or fluid. The fact remains (so far) that we cannot walk through solid rock and that two equally massive objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. If you have something proving the contrary, please let me know. But understand this: It won't change a damned thing, politically or philosophically.
Science might blink once; then shriek with undisguised glee. Of course. It would change things, uh, astronomically(?) But, it probably would not convert the world to universal democracy...although one just does not know, does one?
My appreciation to all contributors to this blog post and to Messrs. Taylor and Perry. Impeccable, guys---as always, Thanks for allowing me to be a part of it all.
PDV.

Democracy is not the best way to arrange the society, but there is nothing better discovered!

Inalienable rights of course pre-exist all forms of government, they are by definition inherent in human beings. Recognition of them, however, began with democracy. While no system of government is perfect, or perfectly executed (we are humans after all), I will still maintain that democracy protects and promotes inalienable rights better than any other system known to man.
I will wager that even when you left in 1969, you did not flee to a non-democracy? My uncle went to Vietnam, even though he disagreed with the war, hated the Army, and even though I think he sometimes wishes he had gone to Canada instead. Was he wrong to go? Were we as a nation necessarily wrong to go to war in Vietnam? That is a whole 'nother argument. I served twenty-four years in the Army - I think my uncle finds me a bit of a curiosity.
Around the world, non-democracies have to build walls and use force to keep their people in. Democracies find themselves putting up fences to keep people out. I think that says it all.

Carpenter's comments remind me that at one time US soldiers had a Constitutional right to refuse to fight on foreign soil; that is, the US government was prohibited from sending any citizen to a foreign country against his will. The right played havoc with US attempts to invade Canada in the War of 1812-14, for example. The right was abrogated in a "housekeeping" Amendment; but, if the government wished to signal confidence in the democratic process restoring that right would go a long way.

Democracy is not a boolean variable, but a continuum, and in most cases, a work in progress. Absolute autocracy and absolute democracies are both unlikely in practice. For example, if a municipality, let alone a country, requires citizens to vote on every budget line item, they would not have time for their day jobs.
Professor Diamond fails to examine an equally important side of the question: how effectively have democracies been governed? Singaporeans enjoy a limited democracy, yet its per capita GDP has pulled far ahead of Ghana, its economic equal at independence. Poor and Illiterate adults in India have the right to vote, yet the Congress party governs under the control of someone without electoral responsibility. After 60 years, the poorest 2/3 of India saw little improvements in wealth or literacy, while the totalitarian Chinese government has acted far more diligently on big matters of poverty, illiteracy, public health and population explosion.
I do not imply that totalitarian governments are better, or more responsive, just some counter-examples to show Professor Diamond's fallacy to describe democracy in abstract and absolute terms.

I would like to add a couple comments about the government of California. One problem is that California is attempting to mix two forms of democratic government at one time: Representative Democracy and Direct Democracy, which is leading to chaos. How many democracies in the world do this? I think, none, but please tell me if you can think of one. Californians need to choose Representative Democracy or Direct Democracy. Why do you pay representatives to govern if you are just going to do it yourselves anyway? Not only that, but you are paying full time representatives to do a job that the citizenry are constantly trying to usurp. If you are not willing to give up direct democracy, then at least make your legislature part time. Even if you are willing to give up direct democracy, make your legislature part time. That way the legislators would have a greater bond to the communities they represent, and you could pay them less, and maybe you would have fewer laws being passed that lead to the desire of citizens to take the reins into their hands.

Arvoasitis: I've read the Constitution and all amendments, I'm not familiar with this "right" whereof you speak.
It was asked "what have we saved?" with all this defense and promotion of democracy. I would say, in chronological order: western Europe (twice), the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, eastern Europe, Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo...so far. I've been to most of those places. If you talk to people from the generation involved, they are pretty uniformly thankful for it, because they know what the alternative was. We don't, so tend to devalue it.
Democracy is not really a universal value, since it is not a value, it is a system of government. I would maintain it is a universal aspiration - thus even very undemocratic regimes feel compelled to pretend to it. Think about it - when all those people fled Vietnam after the communist takeover, where did they run to? And you know, some of those running to the US were Viet Cong.
We've lived in democracy for so many generations that we find it way to easy to take it for granted.

I am always fascinated by comments that avow (or imply) our "wiring", and its elemental intractibility (my characterization, of course). Human consciousness is either a gift, or a curse. Which we are still exploring.
Isn't democracy just an analog of freedom? (no, I did not say: anagram...) My house is, uh, wired. My car has wiring. I believe that my human consciousness---that of all sentient beings---is something more than the electrical impulses which drive life. Ah, but now I have crossed the line between physics and biology---and, perhaps, started a new thought experiment?? It is said, in some situations, that we cannot have it both ways.
I once felt that way about science and philosophy. I was wrong. Why? One, without the other, would atrophy and perish. Did I just say something profound? No? I did not think so.

Inspired by Abelard's comment, I ask; Isn't the percentage of a population engaged in civil deliberation a more accurate measure of democracy than equality in political representation?

Democracy: Two sheep and a wolf debating on what's for dinner.
Under a collectivist view, if you care about subjective humanity then democracy is not for you.
Since THE WORLD is based upon SUBJECTIVE HUMANITY under objective fact-intuitive principals THEN DEMOCRACY IS NOT FOR THE WORLD.
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.

Democracy can work only in fairly homogeneous societies. Societies that are, say, half Shia and half Sunni, half evangelical Christian and half secular, or half libertarian and half socialist that try to govern themselves democratically soon find they are damned to hell.