Come to think of it...I can't quite help but dislike the concept of democracy, the freedom of giving the right to vote to people.
Firstly, a populist leader with no substance would be able to gain power, which isn't exactly good. Any run of the mill person with an aptitude for speaking and pulling of heartstrings is going to get in.
Secondly, are the people even able to vote correctly? Would they be educated enough, or sensible enough to vote for a good stable government? I know how the West keeps baying for voting rights, , political rights like a pack of insatiable hellhounds, yet are the people or The Great Unwash able to govern themselves? Would it be sensible to ask a farmer, who say only knows in detail his farm and the neighbouring areas to vote?
Thirdly, it causes fragmentation. Different diverse groups are bound to form. Groups who stand for ridiculous reasons like the Pirate Party are going to pop up, grab some seats, and deal a deathblow to the bigger parties trying to cobble a coalition. So far last year, I've seen so many hung parliaments, or minority governments. Australia, Britain, Sweden went into a deadlock, the US seems kind of balanced between the two big parties. And these tend to fail or fare badly, the party can't even agree amongst themselves, let alone get many bipartisan bills passed.
Is sacrificing the rights of people to vote in favour of a system that would tolerate less internal division unjust? I still can't comprehend why the West slams China for it's style of government for one. It works perfectly fine, some people are sidelined, yet there are always casualties in any battle. Most of the people from China whom I have known for years tell me they don't give a hoot about voting, they put their trust in the CCP as they have for decades.
And before some people shoot off about how the Chinese stamp out dissent such as the jailing of that recent Chinese Nobel Laureate, I would like to stress that that person has caused more disorder in China than actually bringing peace thank you very much.
So is democracy really worth it? People get their vote? And knowing people tend to have a nasty habit of conceiving different opinions about everything and anything under the sun, this would lead to political fragmentation and ultimately stagnation.
Specifically I won't mind if the government introduces minor censorship ( In Singapore they block over a hundred sites, but it doesn't affect us. Twitter, FB, Youtube, Wiki are still up for one), if for pragmatic reasons.
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Winston Churchill
I take it that what Churchill was saying is that, yes, democracy is not ideal. But it's better than anything else we have. With any political system, there are going to be flaws. But I truly believe representative democracy affords the best opportunity for equal rights and representation for its citizens. We could go 'round and 'round all day. You could state a problem and I could offer some more favorable interpretation of the problem. But at the end of the day, all the problems you mentioned in the OP are genuine and result from our political system - especially the 3rd point about political fragmentation.
I think for a representative democracy to really work, you need a polity that is well informed and can think independently about major issues. Right now, most people who live in democracies (not just Americans) are being spoon-fed the information that other people think they should know. And that's all fine as long as the public takes that information and then does their own investigating. But most of the time, people take that information as the end-all-be-all and represent it as such. The bottom line is that people have opinions about political matters when they're really in no position to have opinions at all. It's not just that we're all ignorant - it's that we think that we're well informed.
One change I would like to see is the option to vote for "neither." For example, in my home state, the choices we had for Senator were between someone with idiotic ideas or someone who had cheated to get the nomination. I didn't think either deserved to serve on the U.S. Senate. I ended up just not voting because there was no way I was going to lend support to either candidate. This scenario is, I suspect, worldwide. So many people just have to choose the lesser of two evils, and that's not right. But I don't think this is a flaw of the system itself - it's a flaw of the people within the system. All the intelligent people and those with real ambition go and get a good-paying job at a successful company (or start one themselves). The people in the political arena are those that are smart enough to fool the general public, but too stupid to get a "real" job. Just a thought, but maybe if representatives got paid more but there were fewer of them, the political arena might attract the "top crust" of those up and coming young minds.
I think democracy is good(I hate communists, dictators and others as such, mainly because of my countries history regarding them).
As for the voting, they should make a test/exam that you take at 18 yrs old to determine if you are mature enough to vote. I do remember the situation of Britain in thi.. I mean last years election. I think solution = voting exam.
China.. I guess some countries like communism, but as long as it doesn't ruin people's lives or the country's economy, then I don't care.
China.. I guess some countries like communism, but as long as it doesn't ruin people's lives or the country's economy, then I don't care.
I would like to strongly assert that China is not Communist. China has quite a few on the Forbes Richest 500 list, yet many in Xinjiang live in poverty. The economy itself is highly capitalist. It's quite a pity many Westerners think all Chinese are flag waving, red wearing Communists who promote merely sheer labour and try to close their country.
Hmm this might seem arrogant, but I love the system of government in Singapore. Take a look.
Our senior officials are retired when they are not efficient, the corruption is virtually zero, and those who prove their merit can keep rising. Most of the talent in the country is kept within a single political entity, which the people would genuinely vote for.
Personally, I would like a touch of authoritarian government to rope in dissidents.
But I truly believe representative democracy affords the best opportunity for equal rights and representation for its citizens.
And is it true one should have rights? Is it a right when the government can take it away or amend it, like the US Bill of Rights? Is it a right, or should it be termed a temporary privilege? If these petty rights need to be sacrificed for the greater good, I'll gladly throw in my vote.
I rather liked the way that the Soviets run things but moving away from that I'd say overall - democracy, in it's purest form (direct democracy) is the only form of democracy that really works. Representative democracy allows for self-interest, party allegiance superseding the representation of constituents, gerrymandering (In some electoral systems) and a multitude of other major faults that detract from the democratic value of the system as a whole and leave things looking... rotten. Sadly, there is what has been described as 'an anglo-saxon preoccupation with territorial representation', things don't look set to change soon and even if they did - the mechanics of allowing direct democracy in the UK (the country that I have most experience with) would be so time-consuming and costly as to be near-impossible. Of course, we gain democracy through the use of referenda and fixed-terms between elections but we lose it due to widespread voter apathy and the fact that many electoral systems 'squeeze out' third parties and leave the 'democratic' system in a position where it is dominated by 2 parties only. The value of a mandate with such low voter turnouts is brought under question and a rather poignant question gets raised at this point; should the UK introduce compulsory voting? Back on topic, there is also the problem in the UK of the Executive (in this case the Prime Minister) dominating the Legislature (In this case the House of Commons) and being able to force almost any of the party policies through into law with the opposition having next to no power with which to stop it. Your original question was 'Is democracy the best?' - I think the better question would be 'is democracy democratic?'
The value of a mandate with such low voter turnouts is brought under question and a rather poignant question gets raised at this point; should the UK introduce compulsory voting? Back on topic, there is also the problem in the UK of the Executive (in this case the Prime Minister) dominating the Legislature (In this case the House of Commons) and being able to force almost any of the party policies through into law with the opposition having next to no power with which to stop it.
I was under the impression Gordon had quite a hard time with hardball playing Conservatives.
I rather liked the way that the Soviets run things
Care to distinguish whether they were the Soviets i.e Peoples' Council, or the USSR?
'is democracy democratic?'
Needs a new thread since my focus is between democracy and other systems, not subsets of democracy.
Democracy is a great way for a country to stay stable for a long time. If people are going to riot you can always say they could just vote against it or make there own party if none are against it. A dictatorship is great for rapid growth but on the long term the country will be unstable it needs everyone to surport the leador and if they don't they are more likly to riot then in a democracy. An elitist democracy with a requirement of wealth or IQ to vote leads to those excluded rebelling, so democracy is the best we have for now.
Hmmm I need explanations, since my readings have pointed me in a direction that paints an imagery of corruption, inter-clan ties (Mikoyan, Molotov, amongst others had ties to Stalin) and a state that was top heavy.
And is it true one should have rights? Is it a right when the government can take it away or amend it, like the US Bill of Rights? Is it a right, or should it be termed a temporary privilege? If these petty rights need to be sacrificed for the greater good, I'll gladly throw in my vote.
It is not a right when the government can take it away. However, a Bill of Rights is very beneficial - it is what keeps a democratic system in check.
a republic with popular vote is the best form of goverment, but over years people choses the leader that promises them free bread and wine, thus will reach a finacal braking point, thus most democracies develop a cycle: revolt, properspity, apathy, oppression and revolt, be that as it may this form of goverment provies rights to the people but still can fuction, (for the long part) so i say yes, it is the best format for goverment the humanity has evoplted so far.
I'll provide an explanation - I didn't like it for any other reason than it gave us an example of a route not to take. Every wrong direction that we cross out leads us closer to the right one (if such a thing exists).
Plus, how is it beneficial? I don't see a direct correlation.
In a true democracy, someone could be banished or put to death by popular vote if people so desired. With a Bill of Rights, people are protected from a tyranny of the majority by preventing the majority from infringing their rights.
