Re: Low-Tech Democracy.
 

If this makes democracy impossible, it must be impossible now. People do work for sanitation and sewage treatment companies or government departments, and they mostly work pretty efficiently.

Re: Low-Tech Democracy.
 

If this makes democracy impossible, it must be impossible now. People do work for sanitation and sewage treatment companies or government departments, and they mostly work pretty efficiently. And sure, lots of people look down on them, same as they do all sorts of other lower class jobs. Yep, democracy is impossible

Re: Low-Tech Democracy.
 

They have the advantage of advanced technology and organization, not to mention enough wealth floating around that even garbage men can change clothes and bathe privately after work.

And the question was not whether it makes democracy more impossible then. There were plenty of Medieval republics and constitutional monarchies. The question was whether it would be something that would look like a modern democracy with liberal values, or would look like-a medieval democracy.

Re: Low-Tech Democracy.
 

Ok, we will hypothesize that the OP has a democratic state in which either: A) the nation is shreaded by plague every few years or so, or B) there is a system of constantly clogged aquaducts and pits and waste carried out by animal or even human muscle on unwashed people who die like flies, are shunned by everyone else and have an extreme Social Stigma. Neither is admittedly incompatible with the technical term Democracy. I am just assuming that the OP has in mind a society he likes or at least likes better then neighboring monarchies and I got the impression that what he had in mind lacked some of the more distasteful things that come with a low TL society.

So what I am really asking is does the OP mean, "a state that has mores recognizably similar to modern liberal values that has nothing but obvious physical concerns to give a modern westerner discomfort", or "a giant Swiss Confederation." Because if the answer is the later, then yes, nothing prevents it other then administrative ingenuity. If the former he is out of luck; some things just can't be gotten at that TL.

Re: Low-Tech Democracy.
 

I don't think extreme social stigma is necessary for gong farmers. They were paid workers in England of the centuries in question, not slaves.

But, sure, if the OP wants what you say he wants, it might not make sense below a certain TL.

Maybe.


But I really don't find your argument about poop collection convincing.

We have people now, in this country, who do dangerous and dirty jobs.

So do India, Mexico, Brazil, South Korea, etc.

Re: Low-Tech Democracy.
 

I certainly don't find it unlikely that 'nightmen' (as they were called in Danish -- natmænd) might be disenfranchised in a low-tech democracy. What I don't see is why having a small group of disenfranchised people would make a democracy impossible. Or a fairly large group for that matter.


Hans

Re: Low-Tech Democracy.
 

There's an important distinction here. Liberalism is actually in opposition to democracy - it defines a set of things that the state can't do *even if the vast majority of the people want them*. Things like enslave the untouchable scum might very well win a supermajority, it conflicts with the liberalism not the democracy.

The not particularly liberal concept of rule of law, and it's cousin constitutionalism, functions the same way, and are likewise fundamentally anti-democratic. Any of these can appear independently of the others, and democracy is the least important of the three for creating a government modern westerners could feel comfortable with.

Re: Low-Tech Democracy.
 

No more then was in practice. Plenty of "democracies" existed then which fill the technical definition as well as now. At the very least many merchant states and many monarchies had constitutionalist elements that included some provision for the rights of the commons to a vague form of participation. Iceland was certainly a democracy. And modern bureaucratic oligarchies don't fit the definition much better even if individual rights are often better protected. The point is that some nasty elements of Medieval and Antique life might be criticized by philosophers but really needed technology to excise them. And that if the OP wishes a realistic Medieval democracy he has to be willing to tolerate them. Treatment of sanitation workers was just one example.

Now that could actually be made a useful plot point, by allowing the PCs to have Pet The Dog moments. And so on. The problem is that to be anything like reality the PCs will be as shocked and possibly as sanctimonious as Cordelia was in Barrayar and if they are written up as natives that will make it hard to roleplay.

Re: Low-Tech Democracy.
 

Or to put it another way, is the OP making a low tech democracy just for the fun of making a con world, or is he trying to make a "good guy" country? If the former it can be arranged; an empire sized state on that model is difficult to believe but one can stretch a point. If the latter, antique and medieval constitutionalist states may have been on the whole better then traditional monarchies but that does not make them nice places either.

Re: Low-Tech Democracy.
 

That is just one example of the problems of environment. Social, economic, and even economic realities define government more often then vice versa. The example just given is just a question of how humanely it would be ruled in practice. Other social realities define whether a democracy can exist at all. There has to be a strong middle class with plenty of money and an easily mastered weapons system that does not require spending so much time practicing at arms that normal work cannot be done. That is you can have a hoplite democracy but not a samurai one.