I've made earlier criticisms on the Talk:Bottom-up democracy page on previous versions of this article; I'd also point out that the Top-down democracy article is even more of a candidate for deletion. The various versions of this article are quite disjointed and poorly written, but aside from that, I suspect that there is an attempt to shoe-horn multiple concepts into this article, some of which don't fit:
1) the use of the term in broader "grassroots" sorts of contexts - I think this is what many of the google hits may be. People use this phrase in a variety of contexts, mainly in the sense of "grassroots activism" within an existing system, or a concern with local issues, etc. Each use is slightly different, and usually doesn't refer to a specific "chain of representatives" government structure. Most of the Chomsky references seem to be a variation on this - Chomsky criticizes the United States for trying to impose democracy in Iraq from the "top down", as opposed to letting it develop from the "bottom up", or for opposing Chavez in Venezuela. Just because someone uses the phrase "bottom-up" doesn't mean they are referring to some specific "chain of representatives" concept. A general paragraph or two illustrating the various ways the phrase is used might be useful.
2) the council communism or Workers' council concepts - these are legit articles, but there is no evidence that "bottom-up democracy" is in any sort of general use as a term to describe them. Ditto for the anarchist citations.
3) any theoretical proposals that User:Skovoroda may have been thinking of in his original draft [1]. Presumably this may have been the original intent of this article. If there are notable theories of this sort, they should have an article entry themselves, and if "bottom-up democracy" is in use to describe them, then they can be linked from this article. So far this isn't the case - the closest is the (indirect) link in recent drafts to a proposal by Fred_E._Foldvary entitled "Cellular Bottom-Up Multi-Level Governance", which does in fact describe this sort of "chain of representatives" structure. I have no idea how notable this (or similar) theories might be, but I would suggest those interested begin by writing articles on them, as opposed to trying to salvage the current chimera that is the " bottom-up democracy" article. - David Oberst 04:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- (1) A substatial rewrite has been made, incorporating your ideas.
(2) If "bottom-up democracy" is not deleted, then the contrasting "top-down democracy" should not be deleted. But if the "bottom-up democracy" concept is deleted, the "top-down democracy" should also be deleted. One concept is defined in terms of the negation of the other. Skovoroda 15:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- More changes have been made incorporating David Oberst's ideas. Fred E. Foldray is cited as advocating a "bottom-up democracy" -- using this phrase.
Skovoroda 16:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Roberto Flores also is cited us using the phrase.
Skovoroda 16:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have deleted the material on Chomsky, and substituted the original claim I had made that Chomsky's style of anarchism is a type of bottom-up democracy. This time I have added the relevant verification. Skovoroda 19:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- You introduce the idea of an "encyclopedic term" or phrase. I take it that such a term or phrase is either important or worth including. What are ther criteria for such worth or importance? 69.211.108.165 13:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- I wish I could take credit for introducing this idea, but alas, this idea is as old as encyclopedias are. "Encyclopedic" is indeed a judgment call, in that a term should be widely recognized as important and/or scholarly. I feel that, despite the presented evidence, the term is neither important nor scholarly. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 19:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to hear your criteria of "impotance" and "scholarly." Skovoroda 14:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- "Bushist fake democracy" is a phrase invented by you, therefore it would constitute original research, which is forbidden. "Bottom-up democracy" is not a phrase invented by me -- it is a fact that many people are using the phrase. David Oberst made a good observation that the phrase is used in an ambiguous way: two or more meanings. The article attempts to disambiguate, and focus on a particular usage -- backed up with verification. Skovoroda 15:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- There are all sorts of phrases that "many people" use, but that doesn't make them encyclopedic. Just because a few scholars place an adjective "bottom-up" in front of "democracy" doesn't make the combo encyclopedic. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 19:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Consider the difficulty created by the following dialogue if there is not distinction between types of representative democracy.
- Smith: Are you in favor of representative democracy.
- Jones: Yes.
- Smith: Does the U.S. have representative democracy?
- Jones: Yes, it does.
- Smith: Then it follows that you are in favor of U.S. representative democracy.
- Jones: No, I am not.
- Smith: But you are contradicting yourself.
- Jones: No, I am not, because there are at least two kinds of representative democracies -- call it "representative democracy I" and "representative democracy II".
- Smith: I don't know what you are talking about. There is only one type of representative democracy, the kind we have in the United States, and in most of the world, where there is democracy.
- Jones: That may very well be. But the kind of representative democracy which I favor does not exist except in primitive tribes and among Native Americans, and did exist in some short-lived communities.
- Smith: Is there some other name for "representative democracy I" and "representative democracy II"?
- Jones: Some have introduced the phrases "bottom-up democracy" and "top-down democracy." But if these do not gain a wider popularity, I suppose I'll have to talk about "representative democracy I" and "representative democracy II" and a lot of explanation.
Skovoroda 16:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Meanwhile, others enter the conversation:
- Smith: Are you in favor of representative democracy.
- Rabin: Yes.
- Smith: Does the U.S. have representative democracy?
- Rabin: Yes, it does.
- Smith: Then it follows that you are in favor of U.S. representative democracy.
- Rabin: No, I prefer the Israeli proportional representation system.
- Lloyd-George: And the president should debate in Congress.
- Jung: Don't forget the Swiss just because we are neutral.
- Smith: But don't you see you are all top-down and not bottom-up democracies?
- Rabin: I've never heard of this big top/bottom division - do most people use it?
- Lloyd-George: Not really. It is useful in differentiating some theoretical proposals.
- Rabin: So we now have to call ourselves top-down democracies? What's with that?
- Jung: Where did this come from? Our collective unconciousness?
- Lloyd-George: No, someone named Skovoroda insists on it.
- Trudeau: Oh, fuddle-duddle!
David Oberst 17:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
There are two mistakes that you make in this dialogue. The first one is to claim that I am introducing the distinction, when in fact I am claiming that it is explicitly found in Roberto Flores, Fred Foldvary, and Noam Chomsky. It is their theoretical distinction -- not mine. If it were mine it would constitute introducing a novel idea, and for that reason barred from Wikipedia. It may be true that not many people use this language, but still some do. And if Noam Chomsky uses it, it should be taken heed of.
The other mistake that you make is to have Rabin say "So we now have to call ourselves top-down democracies?" No, no one has to call themselves anything. Fred Foldvary, Roberto Flores, and Noam Chomsky will call these democracies "top-down democracies."
I am recommending nothing. I am reporting and clarifying a particular usage. Noam Chomsky has been called by the New York Times "the most influentual intellectual alive." I think it is worth while, for one, to report and clarify on the usage of "the most influentual intellectual alive." Skovoroda 19:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Consistency?
In democracy (varieties) the division of Democracy is between, on the one hand, Direct and Indirect. Indirect is divided into Representative and Delegative. On the other hand, Democracy is divided into Direct and Representative. In that case, Representative should be divided into Delegative and Non-Delegative. I left a note to this effect at its discussion cite.
When I clicked on Delegative Democracy, there was nothing; so I created the entry. It seems to me that what people are calling "bottom-up democracy" is equivalent to "delegative democracy." And what people are calling "top-down democracy" is equivalent to "non-delegative representational democracy." David Oberst, I suspect, does not want Representationa Democracy to be divided into "bottom-up" and "top-down," but will he concede that it should be divided into Delegative and Non-Delegative?
He has conceded that the "bottom-up"/"top-down" distinction is useful in some contexts -- but because it is not widely used, it should not be introduced into the main divisions of Democracy. This is why he is, I think, fighting this distinction. I will concede to him if he recognizes either of the above two division which include Delegative Democracy. I will not try to substitute "bottom-up democracy" for "delegative democracy" as long as he does give "delegative democracy" a recognition in the divisions of Democracy.
Finally, there is no good reason to delete the "bottom-up democracy" entry. Skovoroda 15:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyone, feel free to move this to the Talk Page]. Some quick Googling on "delegative/delegatory democracy" seems to indicate that it is often used in a similar sense to "representative democracy", not Skovoroda's sense. See Marxists.org which explictly refers to "parliament and...delegatory democracy", as opposed to "council rule"!, or this this by the Peruvian ambassador to the OAS differing "delegatory democracy" from "representative democracy" in the direction of "authoritarian regimes"! There did seem to be some references (especially in reference to British union or Labour politics) in the other direction, but also usages by apparent "Original Research" types [2]. In any case it definitely does not seem to be in the sort of common, consistent usage that would justify such a major distinction such as this Democracy article revision.
I'm not sure where the term "delegative democracy" came from in the democracy (varieties) article - it seems to have been there for quite some time. Since it doesn't give any examples I'm not sure what the author intended, but it seems to concern recall and representation issues in regards to their constituents, would be quite at home with election to a single level of representation, and doesn't seem to necessitate this "chain of delegates" concept at all.
- Did you examine all 23, 700 entries for "delegative democracy"? or are you guessing? Skovoroda 03:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
If "bottom-up democracy" is to be kept as an entry, perhaps
User:Oberst/Bottom-up_democracy could be used as some sort of outline. If people want to create articles on particular theories (say, Foldvary's "cellular democracy" paper), do that, or try adding to articles such as
Politics_of_Noam_Chomsky. The existing
bottom-up democracy article is not useful in its current "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" form.
David Oberst
21:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "delegative democracy" has 23,700 entries on Google. It may, in some instances, be used as equivalent to "representative democracy" but in many of the instances I have examined it seems to be equivalent to "bottom-up democracy." In such a case, one writes: The phrase "delegative democracy" is ambiguous: in one sense it means the same as "representative democracy"; in another, what is expressed in the "bottom-up democracy."
In addition, the existing bottom-up democracy is not mixture of different things but of instances of a common species. Skovoroda 03:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did scan your recently added reference from Guillermo O'Donnell ("Delegative Democracy"). I quote from it: "Delegative democracies are grounded on one basic premise: he...who wins a presidential election is enabled to govern the country as he sees fit, and to the extent that existing power relations allow, for the term to which he has been elected. The President is the embodiment of the nation and the main custodian of the national interest, which it is incumbent upon him to define. What he does in government does not need to bear any resemblance to what he said or promised during the electoral campaign—he has been authorized to govern as he sees fit....
Elections in DDs are a very emotional and high-stakes process: various candidates compete to be the absolutely zero-sum winner of the delegation to rule the country with no other constraints than those imposed by naked—i.e., noninstitutionalized—power relations. After the election, voters/delegators are expected to return to the condition of passive, but hopefully cheering, spectators of what the President does."
O'Donnell appears to use "delegative democracy" as a term for countries (his "purest" examples are Argentina, Peru and Brazil) which are caught in an intermediate zone between authoritarianism and a fully realized representative democracy. O'Donnell describes them as "particularly unequal", and in "infernal circles" and a "terrible drama". To put it mildly, this seems almost diametrically at odds with the "bottom-up" theories. This appears to be an extreme example of your tendency to throw together various quotes and concepts into the mix, which is a fine formula for a stew, but not the creation of a coherant encyclopedia entry. - David Oberst 06:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out -- let's recognize his usage, but scrap it as irrelevant to the sense being focused on. See delegative democracy. Skovoroda 14:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
My proposal is that Democracy be divided into Direct and Indirect. Indirect divided into Representative (=top-down) and Delegative (=bottom-up).
The other alternative is that Indirect Democracy be divided into Representative Democracy and Soviet Democracy.
Or, can someone tell me where Soviet Democracy fits in their Dicotemous Hierarchies? Skovoroda 04:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I've made earlier criticisms on the Talk:Bottom-up democracy page on previous versions of this article; I'd also point out that the Top-down democracy article is even more of a candidate for deletion. The various versions of this article are quite disjointed and poorly written, but aside from that, I suspect that there is an attempt to shoe-horn multiple concepts into this article, some of which don't fit:
1) the use of the term in broader "grassroots" sorts of contexts - I think this is what many of the google hits may be. People use this phrase in a variety of contexts, mainly in the sense of "grassroots activism" within an existing system, or a concern with local issues, etc. Each use is slightly different, and usually doesn't refer to a specific "chain of representatives" government structure. Most of the Chomsky references seem to be a variation on this - Chomsky criticizes the United States for trying to impose democracy in Iraq from the "top down", as opposed to letting it develop from the "bottom up", or for opposing Chavez in Venezuela. Just because someone uses the phrase "bottom-up" doesn't mean they are referring to some specific "chain of representatives" concept. A general paragraph or two illustrating the various ways the phrase is used might be useful.
2) the council communism or Workers' council concepts - these are legit articles, but there is no evidence that "bottom-up democracy" is in any sort of general use as a term to describe them. Ditto for the anarchist citations.
3) any theoretical proposals that User:Skovoroda may have been thinking of in his original draft [1]. Presumably this may have been the original intent of this article. If there are notable theories of this sort, they should have an article entry themselves, and if "bottom-up democracy" is in use to describe them, then they can be linked from this article. So far this isn't the case - the closest is the (indirect) link in recent drafts to a proposal by Fred_E._Foldvary entitled "Cellular Bottom-Up Multi-Level Governance", which does in fact describe this sort of "chain of representatives" structure. I have no idea how notable this (or similar) theories might be, but I would suggest those interested begin by writing articles on them, as opposed to trying to salvage the current chimera that is the " bottom-up democracy" article. - David Oberst 04:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- (1) A substatial rewrite has been made, incorporating your ideas.
(2) If "bottom-up democracy" is not deleted, then the contrasting "top-down democracy" should not be deleted. But if the "bottom-up democracy" concept is deleted, the "top-down democracy" should also be deleted. One concept is defined in terms of the negation of the other. Skovoroda 15:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- More changes have been made incorporating David Oberst's ideas. Fred E. Foldray is cited as advocating a "bottom-up democracy" -- using this phrase.
Skovoroda 16:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Roberto Flores also is cited us using the phrase.
Skovoroda 16:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have deleted the material on Chomsky, and substituted the original claim I had made that Chomsky's style of anarchism is a type of bottom-up democracy. This time I have added the relevant verification. Skovoroda 19:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- You introduce the idea of an "encyclopedic term" or phrase. I take it that such a term or phrase is either important or worth including. What are ther criteria for such worth or importance? 69.211.108.165 13:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- I wish I could take credit for introducing this idea, but alas, this idea is as old as encyclopedias are. "Encyclopedic" is indeed a judgment call, in that a term should be widely recognized as important and/or scholarly. I feel that, despite the presented evidence, the term is neither important nor scholarly. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 19:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to hear your criteria of "impotance" and "scholarly." Skovoroda 14:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- "Bushist fake democracy" is a phrase invented by you, therefore it would constitute original research, which is forbidden. "Bottom-up democracy" is not a phrase invented by me -- it is a fact that many people are using the phrase. David Oberst made a good observation that the phrase is used in an ambiguous way: two or more meanings. The article attempts to disambiguate, and focus on a particular usage -- backed up with verification. Skovoroda 15:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- There are all sorts of phrases that "many people" use, but that doesn't make them encyclopedic. Just because a few scholars place an adjective "bottom-up" in front of "democracy" doesn't make the combo encyclopedic. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 19:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Consider the difficulty created by the following dialogue if there is not distinction between types of representative democracy.
- Smith: Are you in favor of representative democracy.
- Jones: Yes.
- Smith: Does the U.S. have representative democracy?
- Jones: Yes, it does.
- Smith: Then it follows that you are in favor of U.S. representative democracy.
- Jones: No, I am not.
- Smith: But you are contradicting yourself.
- Jones: No, I am not, because there are at least two kinds of representative democracies -- call it "representative democracy I" and "representative democracy II".
- Smith: I don't know what you are talking about. There is only one type of representative democracy, the kind we have in the United States, and in most of the world, where there is democracy.
- Jones: That may very well be. But the kind of representative democracy which I favor does not exist except in primitive tribes and among Native Americans, and did exist in some short-lived communities.
- Smith: Is there some other name for "representative democracy I" and "representative democracy II"?
- Jones: Some have introduced the phrases "bottom-up democracy" and "top-down democracy." But if these do not gain a wider popularity, I suppose I'll have to talk about "representative democracy I" and "representative democracy II" and a lot of explanation.
Skovoroda 16:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Meanwhile, others enter the conversation:
- Smith: Are you in favor of representative democracy.
- Rabin: Yes.
- Smith: Does the U.S. have representative democracy?
- Rabin: Yes, it does.
- Smith: Then it follows that you are in favor of U.S. representative democracy.
- Rabin: No, I prefer the Israeli proportional representation system.
- Lloyd-George: And the president should debate in Congress.
- Jung: Don't forget the Swiss just because we are neutral.
- Smith: But don't you see you are all top-down and not bottom-up democracies?
- Rabin: I've never heard of this big top/bottom division - do most people use it?
- Lloyd-George: Not really. It is useful in differentiating some theoretical proposals.
- Rabin: So we now have to call ourselves top-down democracies? What's with that?
- Jung: Where did this come from? Our collective unconciousness?
- Lloyd-George: No, someone named Skovoroda insists on it.
- Trudeau: Oh, fuddle-duddle!
David Oberst 17:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
There are two mistakes that you make in this dialogue. The first one is to claim that I am introducing the distinction, when in fact I am claiming that it is explicitly found in Roberto Flores, Fred Foldvary, and Noam Chomsky. It is their theoretical distinction -- not mine. If it were mine it would constitute introducing a novel idea, and for that reason barred from Wikipedia. It may be true that not many people use this language, but still some do. And if Noam Chomsky uses it, it should be taken heed of.
The other mistake that you make is to have Rabin say "So we now have to call ourselves top-down democracies?" No, no one has to call themselves anything. Fred Foldvary, Roberto Flores, and Noam Chomsky will call these democracies "top-down democracies."
I am recommending nothing. I am reporting and clarifying a particular usage. Noam Chomsky has been called by the New York Times "the most influentual intellectual alive." I think it is worth while, for one, to report and clarify on the usage of "the most influentual intellectual alive." Skovoroda 19:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Consistency?
In democracy (varieties) the division of Democracy is between, on the one hand, Direct and Indirect. Indirect is divided into Representative and Delegative. On the other hand, Democracy is divided into Direct and Representative. In that case, Representative should be divided into Delegative and Non-Delegative. I left a note to this effect at its discussion cite.
When I clicked on Delegative Democracy, there was nothing; so I created the entry. It seems to me that what people are calling "bottom-up democracy" is equivalent to "delegative democracy." And what people are calling "top-down democracy" is equivalent to "non-delegative representational democracy." David Oberst, I suspect, does not want Representationa Democracy to be divided into "bottom-up" and "top-down," but will he concede that it should be divided into Delegative and Non-Delegative?
He has conceded that the "bottom-up"/"top-down" distinction is useful in some contexts -- but because it is not widely used, it should not be introduced into the main divisions of Democracy. This is why he is, I think, fighting this distinction. I will concede to him if he recognizes either of the above two division which include Delegative Democracy. I will not try to substitute "bottom-up democracy" for "delegative democracy" as long as he does give "delegative democracy" a recognition in the divisions of Democracy.
Finally, there is no good reason to delete the "bottom-up democracy" entry. Skovoroda 15:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyone, feel free to move this to the Talk Page]. Some quick Googling on "delegative/delegatory democracy" seems to indicate that it is often used in a similar sense to "representative democracy", not Skovoroda's sense. See Marxists.org which explictly refers to "parliament and...delegatory democracy", as opposed to "council rule"!, or this this by the Peruvian ambassador to the OAS differing "delegatory democracy" from "representative democracy" in the direction of "authoritarian regimes"! There did seem to be some references (especially in reference to British union or Labour politics) in the other direction, but also usages by apparent "Original Research" types [2]. In any case it definitely does not seem to be in the sort of common, consistent usage that would justify such a major distinction such as this Democracy article revision.
I'm not sure where the term "delegative democracy" came from in the democracy (varieties) article - it seems to have been there for quite some time. Since it doesn't give any examples I'm not sure what the author intended, but it seems to concern recall and representation issues in regards to their constituents, would be quite at home with election to a single level of representation, and doesn't seem to necessitate this "chain of delegates" concept at all.
- Did you examine all 23, 700 entries for "delegative democracy"? or are you guessing? Skovoroda 03:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
If "bottom-up democracy" is to be kept as an entry, perhaps
User:Oberst/Bottom-up_democracy could be used as some sort of outline. If people want to create articles on particular theories (say, Foldvary's "cellular democracy" paper), do that, or try adding to articles such as
Politics_of_Noam_Chomsky. The existing
bottom-up democracy article is not useful in its current "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" form.
David Oberst
21:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "delegative democracy" has 23,700 entries on Google. It may, in some instances, be used as equivalent to "representative democracy" but in many of the instances I have examined it seems to be equivalent to "bottom-up democracy." In such a case, one writes: The phrase "delegative democracy" is ambiguous: in one sense it means the same as "representative democracy"; in another, what is expressed in the "bottom-up democracy."
In addition, the existing bottom-up democracy is not mixture of different things but of instances of a common species. Skovoroda 03:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did scan your recently added reference from Guillermo O'Donnell ("Delegative Democracy"). I quote from it: "Delegative democracies are grounded on one basic premise: he...who wins a presidential election is enabled to govern the country as he sees fit, and to the extent that existing power relations allow, for the term to which he has been elected. The President is the embodiment of the nation and the main custodian of the national interest, which it is incumbent upon him to define. What he does in government does not need to bear any resemblance to what he said or promised during the electoral campaign—he has been authorized to govern as he sees fit....
Elections in DDs are a very emotional and high-stakes process: various candidates compete to be the absolutely zero-sum winner of the delegation to rule the country with no other constraints than those imposed by naked—i.e., noninstitutionalized—power relations. After the election, voters/delegators are expected to return to the condition of passive, but hopefully cheering, spectators of what the President does."
O'Donnell appears to use "delegative democracy" as a term for countries (his "purest" examples are Argentina, Peru and Brazil) which are caught in an intermediate zone between authoritarianism and a fully realized representative democracy. O'Donnell describes them as "particularly unequal", and in "infernal circles" and a "terrible drama". To put it mildly, this seems almost diametrically at odds with the "bottom-up" theories. This appears to be an extreme example of your tendency to throw together various quotes and concepts into the mix, which is a fine formula for a stew, but not the creation of a coherant encyclopedia entry. - David Oberst 06:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out -- let's recognize his usage, but scrap it as irrelevant to the sense being focused on. See delegative democracy. Skovoroda 14:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
My proposal is that Democracy be divided into Direct and Indirect. Indirect divided into Representative (=top-down) and Delegative (=bottom-up).
The other alternative is that Indirect Democracy be divided into Representative Democracy and Soviet Democracy.
Or, can someone tell me where Soviet Democracy fits in their Dicotemous Hierarchies? Skovoroda 04:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)