Is Democracy the way to go?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I study Politics at Uni, and all we ever hear is the benefits of democracy. We write essays or whenever or not there's hope for the world outside the west to become democratic. We hear debate after debate on whether there is a democracy deficit in the EU. We must consider which type of democracy is the best. They would have you think democracy will solve all the world's problems.

And yet it seems there is very little meaningful choice within many of todays democracies when it comes to election time. Take a look at Britain for example. We have New Labour, the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats. Traditionally there have been substantial differences between these parties, but it seems now they have all merged into one horrible party group, with Labour and the Conservatives closing in from both sides and the Lib Dems always being in the middle anyway. And what sort of insults do they hurl at each other? Not long ago Labour were accused of stealing the Conservatives policies. Whether or not they sneaked into the office and photocopied them, it is a sad fact that they are exactly the same. And yet as far as I can see the average person does not support the Thatcherite policies of either of these parties. And yet they are lied to and tricked and conditioned into keeping up their old voting patterns. The result - a government which wants to disproportionally tax the poor, and in no way represents the people.

Plus there is the usual swapping of insults between MP's. Its so pathetic it makes me sick. I can't remember exactly what it was but I recall Wendy Alexander making some comment on some insignificant policy matter. So how did the SNP MSP reply, he said her career was "utterly ruined", and "in tatters". They fight like children in a playground and yet these guys are supposed to run the country?

Ah well, maybe its just as Winston Churchill said, its the best of a bad bunch."

*Well he said something along those lines anyway

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I chose indifferent. Not because I don't care about what system of government we have, but because I prefer a combination of democracy with an autocracy, carefully balanced to ensure that neither side can assume complete power, and governed by a constitution. I've spent a long time working out various parts in the machinery, but I'm confident that it could work, given the chance.

EDIT: For the name of it, see <.

[Craterus]

Ooops, I voted for Strong No, but probably meant the one up from that. Under the right conditions, it could work. I think there would need to be variety among the parties and a politically-minded population with high voter turnout.

The way things are though, elections aren't representative and I think it's fair to say that the mass (as a collective unit) doesn't know what's best for it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think it's fair to say that the mass (as a collective unit) doesn't know what's best for it.

That's why we Bolsheviks need to do things for them!

I'm happy with the responses so far, I was worried the Democratic Bereau for the Protection of Free Speech was going to send a SWAT team to my house.

EDIT: I'm just a 'No' BTW.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Ah well, maybe its just as Winston Churchill said, its the best of a bad bunch."

*Well he said something along those lines anyway

Nonono. That quote is always misquoted. What really happened, is that an MP said to Churchill: 'Democracy may be bad, but if you are a democrat at the age of eightteen, I'd poison your tea'. To which Winston replied: 'Well if my wife was still a democrat at forty I'd fight her on the beaches and in the hills'.

Something like that. Yeah.

[Tratorix]

I voted indifferent.

I think for democracy to truely flourish the general population has to take an interest in how the government does things. Which usually doesn't happen.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I think for democracy to truely flourish the general population has to take an interest in how the government does things.

Mwah. I'll content myself with the default of modern Western democracies: a mostly uninterested electorate and governments of somewhat reasonable and somewhat competent politicians who get the boot every few years.

God help us all when the general population starts to take an active interest in politics and demands a fair say.

Was it Churchill again? The one who said that 'the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter' ?

[Adrian II]

God help us all when the general population starts to take an active interest in politics and demands a fair say.

Yeah, we all know what that leads to.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yeah, we all know what that leads to.

Haha. Great one, Adrian. Very amusing.


Now you've done it.

It will not come now. It may not come tomorrow. But my vengeance will come, and she will be horrible and merciless...

[seireikhaan]

I think it can depend a bit. We've seen many occasions in which democracy simply fails, due to any number of reasons. However, I'd as a general rule say democracy is the most reliable form of government to best serve the masses.

[Ice]

This question amusing especially because it comes with a poll.

Democratic elements of government are always good, but like others have said, I don't believe in a pure democratic society, but more of a republican one.

[Drisos]

It isn't ideal, but because of weaknesses of us humans it's the best option.

[Justiciar]

Speaking as a fellow British citizen, Caledonian, I'm ardently indifferent. Democracy in this country is thoroughly flawed. Party politics is infuriating at times, and laughable at others. And the often inept civil service do their utmost to ruin things (intentionally?). But can I offer up a suitable alternative? Noop.

Care to share the structure of "Authoritarian Democracy" with us, EMFM?

[LittleGrizzly]

Dictatorships are much more effecient and if we could get leaders who were not power hungry and greedy but was a big supporter of human rights, a great administrator and roughly reflected the populations wishes.

But because we don't live in a perfect world democracy is the best of a bad bunch.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I think it can depend a bit. We've seen many occasions in which democracy simply fails, due to any number of reasons. However, I'd as a general rule say democracy is the most reliable form of government to best serve the masses.

I think it depends on the country. Some countries are, IMHO, more "culturally suited" to democracy, and some need time to evolve. Sometimes the people themselves don't prefer democracy (Bhutan).

Care to share the structure of "Authoritarian Democracy" with us, EMFM?

Well, a basic outline (I don't have a lot of typing time):

There are two sections to the government - an unelected portion, headed by a monarch or an appointed council (depending on the will of the people - referendums), is counterbalanced by a directly elected Parliament with proportional representation - the balance of power is roughly equal. The constitution would protect the integrity of the system.

Simply.

[Ice]

I think it depends on the country. Some countries are, IMHO, more "culturally suited" to democracy, and some need time to evolve. Sometimes the people themselves don't prefer democracy (Bhutan).



Well, a basic outline (I don't have a lot of typing time):

There are two sections to the government - an unelected portion, headed by a monarch or an appointed council (depending on the will of the people - referendums), is counterbalanced by a directly elected Parliament with proportional representation - they balance of power is roughly equal. The constitution would protect the integrity of the system.

Simply.

That sounds eerily similar to how our system was set up minus the President. I like.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That sounds eerily similar to how our system was set up minus the President. I like.

The only major differences are that my system, the way it was intended, has a monarch that doesn't change every four/eight years (unless he abdicates - I'm considering adding in an "impeachment" clause in the constitution I drafted, but I'm still looking into that), and a directly elected parliament (America's system is rather odd, IMHO).

EDIT: And a frequent use of referendums.

[Tuuvi]

I almost voted indifferent but ended up voting yes. I think that democracy is the best we have right now, but that doesn't mean it's not without it's flaws and we couldn't come up with something better.

[SwordsMaster]

Strong No here. Not for any particular reason, except for the fact that every political system tried in the past was "the best" until a new one came along, from the Greek city state democracies, the formalised Roman republic, and every other form of government that has existed so far.

In the same way that it was inconceivable for Henry the VIII to grant voting rights to peasants, there must be some form of government that seems inconceivable now but will be perfectly normal in 60-70 years.

Or maybe it'll be the opposite way around, and people will tire of freedoms, and demand strong leaders, and an autocratic government will come back into power. People are liberals until they have something they want to keep. Then they become conservatives.

In continuing with the quotations : "If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal." Don't know whose that was, but i fundamentally agree.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Or maybe it'll be the opposite way around, and people will tire of freedoms, and demand strong leaders, and an autocratic government will come back into power. People are liberals until they have something they want to keep. Then they become conservatives.

It's a cycle, and we're on the right hand turn.

[TevashSzat]

Nope, simply because the masses are too dumb and gets manipulated too easily. Seriously, ask the common man deep questions about various political issues and he'll not give you very smart and thought out answers, just the ones they've heard from the so called political pundits on the media all the time

[Ice]

The only major differences are that my system, the way it was intended, has a monarch that doesn't change every four/eight years (unless he abdicates - I'm considering adding in an "impeachment" clause in the constitution I drafted, but I'm still looking into that), and a directly elected parliament (America's system is rather odd, IMHO).

EDIT: And a frequent use of referendums.

We have a directly elected parliament, the house of representatives. What I was referring to with the monarch was the fact that the senators in the upper house use to be appointed by state governments and were not chosen directly by the people.

[Devastatin Dave]

Republics are the way to go. Mob rule is foolish and thank God the Founding Fathers understood this.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

We have a directly elected parliament, the house of representatives. What I was referring to with the monarch was the fact that the senators in the upper house use to be appointed by state governments and were not chosen directly by the people.

I see. I was referring to the Presidential Elections. I like a mix of proportional representation, rather than first past the post in every district. It gets more variety in terms of parties.

Call it a "traditionalist Republic" if you like.

[Redleg]

Representive Republics are about the best form of democracy going right now.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Representive Republics are about the best form of democracy going right now.

I prefer Parliamentary Democracy.

[Redleg]

I prefer Parliamentary Democracy.

Representive Republics allow the people to have a direct voice into the government, and have a clear cut seperation of powers between the different branches of government.

Parliamentary Democracies run a very close second, but without a clear cut seperation of powers its hard for it to beat a representive democracy.

Now you might prefer a Parliamentary demoncracy it lacks a key seperation of powers to insure no abuse and oversight by a seperate branch.

I would prefer the United States Congress to actually exercise its authority and responsiblity but their lack of doing so does not negate the overall benefit of the ability to do so.

[Adrian II]

This question amusing especially because it comes with a poll.

[HoreTore]

In the same way that it was inconceivable for Henry the VIII to grant voting rights to peasants, there must be some form of government that seems inconceivable now but will be perfectly normal in 60-70 years.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Viking]

The weaker and the more democratic the governemnt, the better. No one need a state to tell them what to do.