Originally Posted by pink freud
In my mind there exists two democracies.
The first is the electoral democracy, in which people vote in favor of an outcome. This is the most obvious democracy, easily recognized.
The second is the consensual democracy. This is an unconscious democracy. This is the democracy that exists in all forms of rulership over sentient beings: The leaders are only in a position of authority because those they rule deem their conditions acceptable enough to not overthrow said rulers.
This is a very complicated democracy, as psychological studies have shown that whole groups of dissatisfied people can still be ruled over because of a lack of meta-knowledge of the dissatisfaction. Once somebody voices dissatisfaction it creates a sweeping realization that not only are you unhappy, but that others know that you know that others are unhappy. This can solidify entire movements, and can be used to describe much of what we have been seeing in Africa and the Middle East.
Yeah, for sure that is complicated. That starts delving into the Marxist "false consciousness" (an oppressed class or group believing the conditions which cause their oppression are just in some manner) kind of thing, or you can go into things like gunboat diplomacy - what seems to be a cornerstone of US foreign policy* which are not democratic in the least yet they serve to exert power over foreign states.
There's Africa and the Middle East, there are also movements like the Zapatistas in Mexico (any lefty who is hip to the scene knows that Che is totally passe, it's all about Subcomandante Marcos now
) or even the Oka Crisis in Canada back in 1990. The Zapatistas were basically an indigenous/some Mexican identified movement who occupied civilian villages (apparently not through coercion although they were/are an armed group) and they got into it with the Mexican government and state military. The Oka Crisis was basically a bunch of people who wanted to build a golf course on a reserve, indigenous people said ".... this" and established a road block, barring the offenders from creating a golf course. The police came, the Army shortly after. I think one person was killed (a police officer I think, the indigenous people WERE armed) and I dont think the golf course was ever built? Basically both instances are one group thinking it's more powerful and more important than another group, so it walks all over them. This is basically the relationship between governments in the West and indigenous people. Democratic? Nope.
*If you're in the service, I expect that it's quite possible that you'd object to this assertion because it doesn't show very well on the US or servicemen and I agree, it doesn't. I'm one to support the soldier, not the mission necessarily and that's basically where I stand. Go ahead and debate rather than neg rep because I'm all for broader thought. Or you could totally agree. In either case, I'm not trying to attack you or accuse you of anything.