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.
Plus most so called Communist countries today are CAPITALIST IN TERMS OF THE ECONOMY.
there's a reason for that. the only way to have a society function in todays world is trade and/or money. without those 2 factors, your nation would collapse at some point.
if i may ask a question, nichodemus, what form of government do you think is good?
there's a reason for that. the only way to have a society function in todays world is trade and/or money. without those 2 factors, your nation would collapse at some point.
So what's your point? Having wealth does not necessarily mean you are democratic. If it is, then Russia can eat my heart.
if i may ask a question, nichodemus, what form of government do you think is good?
A hybrid government. One where there is a strong executive, and a strong party. In a system that allows one to choose leaders from a pool of candidates provided by that party. Particularly my example stems from Singapore, whereby the ruling party for forty years has been the same, which the people genuinely support. Which has a mere three Prime Ministers. It's possible to battle corruption, Singapore is one of the top of the most transparent nations in the world.
If it's possible for a Third World Nation to jump to a First World Stage in forty years with close to no resources except humans, then it's possible.
Also, the system is present in current China, which I greatly admire.
my point is that some countries would fail or collapse without trade. to be completely independent of some form of capitalism in our time is not so easy anymore
my point is that some countries would fail or collapse without trade. to be completely independent of some form of capitalism in our time is not so easy anymore
I have never said anything against Capitalism. People often confuse these two why? Democracy is people power, where people vote for their government. Capitalism is wholly different. It's economics. It's about money. Trade as you mentioned.
China is hardly democratic, yet it's trade volume is one of the highest in the world, over Japan. Does that answer your doubts?
that is probably a stereotype in democratic countries
A classic example of why I deem it insensible for people to vote. If such a simple stereotype can be spread so easily till it is accepted as general fact, don't you think the people are a little too gullible to engage in such a painstaking task as governing?
i never had any doubts about capitalism or democracy. just another question, but, do you know the origins of democracy?
there's a reason for that. the only way to have a society function in todays world is trade and/or money. without those 2 factors, your nation would collapse at some point.
In that case what was your second statement for? This thread is about democracy.
And yes I do. It first appeared in Greece during the Antiquity period.
So you're suggesting children be given the right to vote too?
To be honest, I think even not letting children vote it's a bit unfair, but however the children won't be children for much time, and everyone has been a child, so it's not a big problem.
I need statistics. These are all assumptions do you not think? What would be cultured? Are cultured people supporters of governments? For all I know Pol Pot was educated in France and was a French poetry connoisseur. Would a democracy actually lead to education growing slowly?Â
I didn't said that the path is finished. Even the most democratic country still have a long way to do to reach the ideal level. I didn't want to say that this current democracy is ideal, I said that in my opinion the best way is to keep giving everyone the right to vote and and trying to improve our democracy without touching the universal suffrage. And about Pol Pot, there will always be some fanatics, but maybe in a good democracy with a population educated to the importance of democracy and of voting his revolution wouldn't have had success.
Ahem, we never stated that as a pillar of support. I must also state that the conditions of the time played a huge role. And thank goodness the vote was not given. I can't imagine if the French revolutionary crowds were given the vote.
Well, so what should they have done? As long as only a few noblemen keep the power, the crowds will hardly get a better education.
ah, i may have reacted to fast about the whole capitalism thing, if i did, then i am quite sorry for that.
your hybrid government, it has democratic elements in it, no? by a party, do you mean one single party, and you vote for the candidate from that party that you like?
To be honest, I think even not letting children vote it's a bit unfair, but however the children won't be children for much time, and everyone has been a child, so it's not a big problem.
Well, try getting a six year old who crayons every day to vote. If the adults have a hard time, I doubt kids will understand. There's a reason why there's an age limit.
Based on that fallacy I could also say people won't be people for long, so maybe we shouldn't vote?
And about Pol Pot, there will always be some fanatics, but maybe in a good democracy with a population educated to the importance of democracy and of voting his revolution wouldn't have had success.
You don't need an educated population. An educated person can turn radical if there are the right sparks.
said that in my opinion the best way is to keep giving everyone the right to vote and and trying to improve our democracy without touching the universal suffrage.
Why? You have not justified it entirely. Don't undemocratic nations give educations to their youths? As far as I know, the Chinese have a far better education system and more willing hardworking students than the rest of the world. And as far as I know they churn out relatively loyal government supporters because the government is doing something right.
Well, so what should they have done? As long as only a few noblemen keep the power, the crowds will hardly get a better education.
And it was not a few noblemen. There were councils at the grassroots level staffed by middle class workers. Just to correct our assumption, quite a few noblemen took part in the revolution too, and quite a few peasants rebelled against Robespierre.
ah, i may have reacted to fast about the whole capitalism thing, if i did, then i am quite sorry for that.
your hybrid government, it has democratic elements in it, no? by a party, do you mean one single party, and you vote for the candidate from that party that you like?
There are many other parties, but they have no actual talent. Most of the talent is absorbed by that single strongest party, so it also provides the safest bet for a vote.
Why? You have not justified it entirely. Don't undemocratic nations give educations to their youths? As far as I know, the Chinese have a far better education system and more willing hardworking students than the rest of the world. And as far as I know they churn out relatively loyal government supporters because the government is doing something right.
China is quite an exception. Chinese leaders want glory for their nation, and they think a dictatorship is the best way. But most of the Europeans undemocratic governments was more interested in holding all the power in their hands, indeed poor Europeans started to have a decent education just in XX century.
Chinese leaders want glory for their nation, and they think a dictatorship is the best way.
Is it a dictatorship I must say? Or a hybrid system? There have been some moves toward political liberalization, in that open contested elections are now held at the village and town levels,[56][57] and that legislatures have shown some assertiveness from time to time. However, the Party retains effective control over government appointments: in the absence of meaningful opposition, the CPC wins by default most of the time.
A dictatorship has a dictator. Since China lacks one, I must refute your assertion.
I quote Wiki.
The Premier is the highest administrative position in the Government of the People's Republic of China. The Premier is responsible for organizing and administering the Chinese civil bureaucracy. This includes overseeing the various ministries, departments, commissions and statutory agencies and announcing their candidacies to the National People's Congress for Vice-Premiers, State Councillors and ministry offices. Apparently, the Premier does not have authority over the People's Liberation Army, but the Premier is the Head of the National Defense Mobilization Committee of China which is a department of armed forces redeployment. In recent years, there has been a division of responsibilities between the Premier and the General Secretary of CPC wherein the Premier is responsible for the technical details of implementing government policy while the General Secretary gathers the political support necessary for government policy. The Premier has been supported by four Vice-Premiers since Deng Xiaoping's reform in 1983.
But most of the Europeans undemocratic governments was more interested in holding all the power in their hands
Solely in their hands? As far as I know absolute monarchies didn't exist without a sizable government to back them.
Anyway, that's not my main point. I want to know your reasoning for democracy.
