Stupidity - the single reason why democracies never work

[Cronos Impera]

The greatest failure of democracy is that they turned a show of strength into a popularity pagent and called it an election. What was once in autocratic regimes a matter of reason has now turned into a popular show where millions of idiots chose the most handsome prince of the realm and bestow in him all the power. And when you ask them why they voted they simply reply "he has a charming smile and he speaks in a way that blew my mind". In short they vote only because that guy looks good for a campaign ad and is charismatic.

The greatest danger of allowing stupid people to express an option is that the stupid are easily masturbated by speeches and beauty. They actually feel good when a guy in a monkey suit tells them how important they are to him, how free they are and how much they deserve. Nowadays a politician can win an election by simply masturbating his audience with fiery speeches about how they built the future and how human rights must be preserved. Anyone who doesn't tackle issues like : "the war on terror", "global warming", "human rights in State X", "freedom of X" or "gunbortion" isn't cool enough to be given office though he might actually have real solutions for agriculture, industry, budgets and healthcare. Instead of having people actually working for a particular goal, you have endless rants about terrorism, human rights and so on without feeling any real change in your personal life.

Therefore I propose we discard the outdated term "democracy" in favor of a more realistic term "kalocracy" meaning "power of beauty". Anything that' not beautiful or nice enough never gets a chance despite the obvious qualities of that proposal.

Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, George Bush and Ronald Reagan. The only thing they have in common is they're gorgeous.

Save yourself. Vote only ugly and repulsive people in office. After all this isn't like asking them on a date.

[HoreTore]

Oh come on, you want ugly state leaders? I present Merkel, Brown, Chirac. Our very own Brundtland, "the statemother", wasn't exactly a looker either.

I'll turn your argument around; a people's stupidity is the greatest strength of democracy. Why? Because those with brains have every incentive to educate their lesser brothers, because when it comes to the election day, we all have the same power. In a dictatorship, there is no reason to educate people, as the dumb ones don't matter at all. In a democracy, they do. And it's your responsibility to educate them.

Also; corruption. Power corrupts. Democracy is the single form of government that keeps corruption under control, because the system is transparent and people are prosecuted and/or judged by the people. In a dictatorship, that won't happen. That's the reason every single dictatorship will fail. Forget about "benevolent dictators", they're a myth. A dictator won't ever be an improvement over a democracy.

[Reverend Joe]

The greatest failure of democracy is that they turned a show of strength into a popularity pagent and called it an election. What was once in autocratic regimes a matter of reason has now turned into a popular show where millions of idiots chose the most handsome prince of the realm and bestow in him all the power. And when you ask them why they voted they simply reply "he has a charming smile and he speaks in a way that blew my mind". In short they vote only because that guy looks good for a campaign ad and is charismatic.

The greatest danger of allowing stupid people to express an option is that the stupid are easily masturbated by speeches and beauty. They actually feel good when a guy in a monkey suit tells them how important they are to him, how free they are and how much they deserve. Nowadays a politician can win an election by simply masturbating his audience with fiery speeches about how they built the future and how human rights must be preserved. Anyone who doesn't tackle issues like : "the war on terror", "global warming", "human rights in State X", "freedom of X" or "gunbortion" isn't cool enough to be given office though he might actually have real solutions for agriculture, industry, budgets and healthcare. Instead of having people actually working for a particular goal, you have endless rants about terrorism, human rights and so on without feeling any real change in your personal life.

Therefore I propose we discard the outdated term "democracy" in favor of a more realistic term "kalocracy" meaning "power of beauty". Anything that' not beautiful or nice enough never gets a chance despite the obvious qualities of that proposal.

Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, George Bush and Ronald Reagan. The only thing they have in common is they're gorgeous.

Save yourself. Vote only ugly and repulsive people in office. After all this isn't like asking them on a date.

If you remove democracy you either get oligarchy, where the guy who panders to the elite the most gets elected, or dictatorship, where anything goes. Any way you turn, you're going to get a lot of bad apples. The idea behind democracy is that it's harder to be dictatorial or incompetent because you'll get voted out of office faster.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'll give you Clinton and Reagan, but not Nixon or Bush. They are not pretty or charming.

So.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obama's not on your list?


Anyway, democracy is the worst. Except for all those others.

(Everyone should know who said that)

Seriously, we shouldn't allow people who get more in benefits from the federal government than they pay in taxes to vote.

CR

[Vladimir]

Obama's not on your list?


Anyway, democracy is the worst. Except for all those others.

(Everyone should know who said that)

Seriously, we shouldn't allow people who get more in benefits from the federal government than they pay in taxes to vote.

CR

Obama's not a president. He's the second coming.

And why does some guy from Romania have to go across the Atlantic for his examples? Are there no democracies in Europe? No doubt those are the only the presidents who were around during his short lifetime. Okay, maybe he heard about Regan on TV.

[Hooahguy]

Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, George Bush and Ronald Reagan. The only thing they have in common is they're gorgeous.

you think theyre gorgeous?

making me wonder what you think "gorgeous" means.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Because it is plainly obvious that today's democracies are just not working, while all the despotic governments are doing great.

[Cronos Impera]

Oh come on, you want ugly state leaders? I present Merkel, Brown, Chirac. Our very own Brundtland, "the statemother", wasn't exactly a looker either.

I'll turn your argument around; a people's stupidity is the greatest strength of democracy. Why? Because those with brains have every incentive to educate their lesser brothers, because when it comes to the election day, we all have the same power. In a dictatorship, there is no reason to educate people, as the dumb ones don't matter at all. In a democracy, they do. And it's your responsibility to educate them.

Also; corruption. Power corrupts. Democracy is the single form of government that keeps corruption under control, because the system is transparent and people are prosecuted and/or judged by the people. In a dictatorship, that won't happen. That's the reason every single dictatorship will fail. Forget about "benevolent dictators", they're a myth. A dictator won't ever be an improvement over a democracy.

You don't need to educate the people to get elected. An educated mass will always move towards anarchy and never to a heirarchical society like a democracy is. Natural weakness or dumbness cannot be overcome through education. Just like a circus lion runs amock and kills his handler if the latter makes the wrong move, for a dumb mass learning isn't more than just a social activity and an inconvenient one. Despite cheap prints and free public libraries, few young people ever read a book.
The dumb will never read a book that would really improve their health, intelect or strength. They will always choose TV or cheesy computer games, despite having hundreds of quality books to read. And they will always be like that because they are weak and know their place.

The dumb masses are always inert. They're just like an audience. They can complain about the performance on stage all they can but if you place them in front of an Ibanez they will run away like hell or tear it apart.The dumb masses are always the bowling ball.They will sacrifice their lives, risk their wealth and honor just to get a few applauses.

Just like debates. It doesn't matter if the facts are right or not, if the debator was skilled his words are always true. The dumb masses never judge an event in a reasonable way, to them passion is everything.
The only true political system for humans is Oligosoc. In animal societies that dumb mass we call the people would have been long eradicated by predators, disease or starvation but thanks to our species's place in the food chain, those weaklings survive and thrive. In the absence of natural enemies who would eat us, we have developed a two-tire order...part bee hive, part lion pride.
Oligosoc relies on the brainless masses to build cities and gather food and also on a small elite to evolve them. The only thing that's changable is the way the top interacts with the bottom and the rethoric of the regimes + some minor differences in terms of mercy and intolerance. But the heirarchy itself is always present and inequality though emphasised or diminuished in the rethoric of the rulers is always present.
Oligosoc means a few struggle for power and use the weak in the same way a boxer uses gloves in a match. Why?

Because the strong can always be self-aware and identify themselves as themselves without fear or cowardice and the weak always need a group identity for safety, the powerbase will always be small.
The people are ever a powerbase, they are a means to achieve power.

That Oligosoc has many flavours and some are nastier to some and that some prefear diferent flavours is a different matter.
In a dictatorship the dictator wields limited powers: WITHOUT HIS OLIGARCHY HE'S DOOMED.

Just like USSR couldn't run without the KGB and how the KGB changed Hruschiev for Brezjnev, or how Loius XV was Richelieu's pawn is another matter.

[Cronos Impera]

And to hooahguy:
You gotta love the charming face or W.Bush, that Texan face, that sexy Southern accent and al.
Richard Nixon - could play in a Frank Coppola production with that face
Ronald Reagan - he was Hollywood material, looked great on camera when making announcements
Bill Clinton - blue eyes, golden hair and a baby face

They're all cute and handsome.If I ware gay, I'd marry one of them.

[Centurion1]

Nixon was a good looking guy. As was Reagan (but he was pretty old when elected), George W. isn't hot..... but he is in pretty good shape. clinton, is just a little too slimy for me. Now that i feel remotley gay......

Democracy is the best of the worst. While i may personally believe a benevolent dictatorship under my reign would be best, Democracy is the most viable option.

[HoreTore]

*snip*

Way to misunderstand what I said.

First things first though; democracies work. Look around you, it's plainly obvious. Whatever you may believe, we do not live in crappy countries. We live in great countries. All of us living in democracies. We have peace. We have work. We have plenty of food. We can say what we want, when we want to. We are protected from criminals. We have very few worries, most of them are of our own doing. Most of our population is able and educated. This is because we live in democracies, we simply would not be in this shape if we live under a dictatorship, and yes, that includes your fancy version of fascism.

Speaking of fascism... Because you do realize that is the system you're proposing, right? Alright, let's have a looky at the fascist countries of the past. Oh yes, they're of the past, simply because they proved unsustainable. Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain - they were all ruled by the few strong. And that proved a complete disaster. It was Nazi Germany's "strong" men who spelled their own doom by launching a half-arsed invasion of Russia. The invasion was planned and directed by Germany's strongest and most educated. And it failed completely because of them. Why? Because they eliminated the sobering effect of opposition. When you gather a clique of the strongest, you will lose the most important aspect of government, oppositional thought. It doesn't matter if the opposition is smart or idiotic, all that matters is that they're there. Why? Because it makes the powers that be think harder. Simple, really. Those in power will propose something. Whether good or bad, the opposition will voice their concern. Those in power will then recheck their proposal. Without an opposition, nobody will bother doing that.

Now for what you misunderstood:

I wasn't talking about those up for election needing to educate people. I was talking about you needing to educate people. It's simple really; the village idiot has the exact same power as you do. Therefore, it's in your interest to make sure said idiot is as smart as possible. And so you should see to that.

And please tell me you're not under the impression that it's the idiots doing all the voting. The idiots don't care, they stay at home. The more educated people are, the more likely they are to vote. So our democracies are indeed ruled by the smartest and most educated. Whether you like it or not.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Rabbit made the golden answer already: democracy is the worst form of government. Save for all the others.
As a variation, Papewaio (or was it Ser Clegane?) made the famous remark that 'democracy does not make the best decisions. It avoids the worst'.

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

Excellent points, HoreTore.

Two comments:
- We do not all live in democracies. There are many systems that call themselves democratic, but really aren't. (Think, for example, all those communist countries with the name 'Democratic').
And, more worryingly, since more prevalent of late, there are lots of countries that bear a faint resemblance to democracy but miss the finer points of it.

Examples:
'Winner takes all democracies'. Here, it is assumed that democracy means majority rule. It doesn't. Democracy is not 'most votes count'. Democracy means that every vote counts. It is not about establishing majorities, it is about protecting minorites.

Authoritarian states with elections and other democratic elements as a thinly veiled façade.

Functioning democracies that lack rule of law, minority rights, human rights, soberness and moderation in public conduct etcetera.

These examples are a reason why democracy is so misstrusted in many formerly undemocratic states. The name of the system has changed, the same crooks are still in power.


-I've forgotten what was to be my second comment.

No wait, I remember. I predict serious competition for democracies by East Asian authoritarian systems. They do provide a standard of living, law and order, public peace, that is on par with Western democracies.
Not so much China, which is clearly dictatorial (but to a large extent isn't), but more Singapore. I can not simply dismiss the argument that 'In Singapore the police will cane you for littering chewing gum, but the streets are clean and women can walk home at three o'clock at night. In a miniskirt.'

Riding the metro in a Western city, smelling the piss, watching the graffiti, evading the bands of thugs, and avoiding being mugged, beaten or spit at, one can not help but think of Singapore as a serious challenger.

[Dîn-Heru]

Riding the metro in a Western city, smelling the piss, watching the graffiti, evading the bands of thugs, and avoiding being mugged, beaten or spit at, one can not help but think of Singapore as a serious challenger.

To give another example, arriving at Changhi (Sp?) airport from Heathrow was like going from hell to heaven.

Just one example:
While the toilets I found at Heathrow were sometimes unflushed, stained with feces and toiletpaper on the floor ( Though there was one guy going around picking it up). The experience at Changi was one of clean and self-flushing toilets.

[Cute Wolf]

You guys never live under a totalitarian regime....

If u used to live some time under that, you'll value, whatever bad things come from democracy, they are just batter than living under a totalitarian regime that if u suddenly and accidentally said "******* are ******* tyrants and their wives are whores.... and the next day all your families are tortured and sent to prison for "displeasant actions" or another ridiculous bad behaviours.

[a completely inoffensive name]

While i may personally believe a benevolent dictatorship under my reign would be best, Democracy is the most viable option.

What a great guy.

[Meneldil]

And why does some guy from Romania have to go across the Atlantic for his examples? Are there no democracies in Europe? No doubt those are the only the presidents who were around during his short lifetime. Okay, maybe he heard about Regan on TV.

Do you know of any Romanian leader? Had Cronos Impera decided to use an European example (other than Berlusconi, Prodi, Chirac, Sarkozy, Blair, Brown and the few other well-know leaders), everyone would wondering who the hell is that guy.

Now, I kind of agree that democracies are flawed and largely became mere public opinion contests. Education systems aim for the lowest common denominator (ie. It's okay if the guy somewhat knows how to read and write by the end of high school). Our media are mostly of terrible quality, putting the emphasis over mindless and pointless sensational news rather than trying to educate their readers (as Michael Jackson's death proved).
But then, most democracies never advocated that all citizens should be enlightened. This idea appeared with the development of new ideologies such as socialism. Voltaire (and even Rousseau, in a way), advocated that the uneducated masses shouldn't have a say in political matters. The founding fathers were also quite an elitist bunch. Liberalism (which was the dominant ideology in early democracies) was an elitist ideology, closely tied to the bourgeoisie and other upper classes. For those, the 'people' was completely unable to rule, and should let the benevolent elites do all the stuff.

Then, some people claimed that the lower-class should have a say aswell. They decided that democracies should strive to educate their citizens, turn them into enlightened and rational persons. Thing is, as you say, educating citizens causes a few issues. First, it is my opinion that many citizens don't want to be educated. Though they dislike their own state, they simply are too dumb and lazy to even try. They also distrust the educated elites, the intelligentsia, considered responsible for all their demises. Anti-intellectualism is very strong in western societies, and not only among the american right.
Then, as you pointed out, having educated citizens is tedious. They ask for stuff, they're unhappy, they want to have more weight in political matters than the rulers are willing to offer them. They disagree with eachothers, they argue, and so on. Having a bunch of voters who never read a book in their life and spend their time watching reality TV is much more convenient.

Now, obviously, that doesn't mean democracies don't work. They have a lot of issues (such as the ones pointed out by Louis: criminality, lack of order), but most democratic countries offer pretty good standards of living to their citizens. I don't buy the whole 'liberalism = democracy = wealth' theory, but so far, most democracies are doing quite a decent job when it comes to taking care of their citizens.
Some people still try to educate their fellow countrymates. Some people still try to make humanity better. Some people still care about politics. Things have been going like that for a while. While I can see how the situation is in some way getting worse, I also see that democracies have always been public opinion contests.

[LittleGrizzly]

If there was a way to get proven good governors who aren't corrupt and have the entire populations interest at heart rather than the just an elites, then a dictatorship would probably be great...

Also that thier willing to hand over the office when the time comes.

Unfortunately there is no way to gaurentee good dictators... so stuck with democracy for the forseeable future...

On the whole Bush being charming thing, he wasn't the most eloquent speaker but compared to his rival Gore he could have been Denzel Washington.

[miotas]

The greatest failure of democracy is that they turned a show of strength into a popularity pagent and called it an election. What was once in autocratic regimes a matter of reason has now turned into a popular show where millions of idiots chose the most handsome prince of the realm and bestow in him all the power. And when you ask them why they voted they simply reply "he has a charming smile and he speaks in a way that blew my mind". In short they vote only because that guy looks good for a campaign ad and is charismatic.

That's why you need a democratic system where the popularly elected official isn't actually the head of state. Plus look at the ugly annoying, that we elected. Clearly Australia is doing something right

[Louis VI the Fat]

If there was a way to get proven good governors who aren't corrupt and have the entire populations interest at heart rather than the just an elites, then a dictatorship would probably be great....

If you could find me a man-God, a man with perfect ideas, only noble intentions, and incorruptible, I would still prefer democracy over his rule.


As John Stuart Mill once wrote (paraphrasing him here beyond recognition probably): a man's own decisions are the best. Not because they have the best possible outcome for him, but because they are his own.

It belongs to being a free citizen, to the human experience even, to make your own life. To make mistakes, bad decisions, good decisions, heartfelt decisions. What matters is that you make your own life.

Democracy in this respect then, is not the outcome of careful delibiration over what is the best form of government. It stems from a philosophical view of man. That of liberty, of man as a free individual. The decisions of a smart man are not worth more than the decisions of a dumb one. No more than the tears and joy of the smart man are worth more.



(Consequently, one can wonder if democracy isn't more suited to Western than to East Asian philosophy. To a large extent, developed East Asian countries, while not autocratic, are not entirely democratic in a Western sense. Possibly their communal values prefer more communal systems of government. Certainly, they function very well.)

[Cronos Impera]

The biggest problem is the following:
Both in tyranny and "democracy" the biggest criteria for establishing a winner is popularity. And that popularity is never linked to any real competence or skill. You can be competent and unpopular or popular and an incompetent moron. Like at the office you're neighbour can be either a skilled cranky bitch or a stupid popularity queen. And you'd prefer the popularity queen because she helps your ego more.

Like in dictatorships there is no real competition.All you have to do is say the magic words a few times and be PC and hug babies and you're as good as elected.Democracy and tyranny are bound because in both any real competition is supressed and all you have to do is follow a ritual routine.
In tyanny you butkiss your ideological leader and hug his image, in democracy you butkiss some abstract concepts to the same extent in your speeches.

My ideal government would have been along the meritocracy that benefited Genghis Khan on his campaign trail. For him it didn't matter if that man he elected was a bastard,as long as he did the job pronto he could keep that job. Object to that status quo and if you ware better that that bastard you could compete him and win the job.

Morale from the Genesis:
"Stop whining and start winning for Chirst's sake.The only reason you lost this battle was because you sucked more than your opponent."
Not a single democracy had the guts to say something along that lines to its fanbase.

The single day you'll find a politician brave enough to point the middle finger at his voters and than say: Vote me, you suck. And his voters to vote him despite that insult because he did his job right, than I'll have faith in democracy and claim it really promotes any real value.

In my country all democrats are just mediocre businessmen who need state contracts for their firms to survive and have no real need to improve anything. The office is theirs, the auction is won by their pet venture and a villa and Bentley soon follow.20 years of republican democracy have brought nothing except the silly routine of putting stamps on a sheet of paper and watching statitics afterwards.

Advice for a true political system:

- establish objective criteria for getting an office
- concieve a wide range of tests to be completed by the candidates including math, grammar and law
- establish brownie points for past work experience
- make that competition open for anyone older than 21
- employ foreign proffesionals to correct the test papers live in front of cameras.
- elect the men with the highest scores

Preserve the integrity of the process by establishing the commison as a power barter on the same level with Parliment, the Government and Justice. That system would work better than the beauty pagent that we call "election day" because it would encourage real competence and skill rather than rhetorics.

[Cronos Impera]

Nice one, I wish every country was like Astralia in this respects.

[Louis VI the Fat]

In my country all democrats are just mediocre businessmen who need state contracts for their firms to survive and have no real need to improve anything. The office is theirs, the auction is won by their pet venture and a villa and Bentley soon follow.20 years of republican democracy have brought nothing except the silly routine of putting stamps on a sheet of paper and watching statitics afterwards.

Romania is not a democracy. It is a mobsterocracy.

In fact, I was thinking about opening a thread about the EU's report from two days ago. Maybe I will when I have some more time.

Romania (and Bulgaria in the EU, and many other states in the former Soviet bloc) are democracies in name only. This has created a deep mistrust of democracy in this region. Democracy is associated now with mobsters, corruption, plunder. Many long for authoritarian states, aka Russia.
All I can say is, these systems are not democratic in the full extent of the word. It also shows that democracy does not mean elections and majority rule. Democracy resides in 'soft democracy'. Such as a developed civic society, a strong middle class, human rights, minority rights, the rule of law, and soberness and moderation in public debate and conduct.

Many of which are under threat in the West. Romania should be an example to all those spoiled westerners flirting with populist parties...

[HoreTore]

Romania is not a democracy. It is a mobsterocracy.

In fact, I was thinking about opening a thread about the EU's report from two days ago. Maybe I will when I have some more time.

Romania (and Bulgaria in the EU, and many other states in the former Soviet bloc) are democracies in name only. This has created a deep mistrust of democracy in this region. Democracy is associated now with mobsters, corruption, plunder. Many long for authoritarian states, aka Russia.
All I can say is, these systems are not democratic in the full extent of the word. It also shows that democracy does not mean elections and majority rule. Democracy resides in 'soft democracy'. Such as a developed civic society, a strong middle class, human rights, minority rights, the rule of law, and soberness and moderation in public debate and conduct.

Many of which are under threat in the West. Romania should be an example to all those spoiled westerners flirting with populist parties...

[Cronos Impera]

Romania is not a democracy. It is a mobsterocracy.

In fact, I was thinking about opening a thread about the EU's report from two days ago. Maybe I will when I have some more time.

Romania (and Bulgaria in the EU, and many other states in the former Soviet bloc) are democracies in name only. This has created a deep mistrust of democracy in this region. Democracy is associated now with mobsters, corruption, plunder. Many long for authoritarian states, aka Russia.
All I can say is, these systems are not democratic in the full extent of the word. It also shows that democracy does not mean elections and majority rule. Democracy resides in 'soft democracy'. Such as a developed civic society, a strong middle class, human rights, minority rights, the rule of law, and soberness and moderation in public debate and conduct.

Many of which are under threat in the West. Romania should be an example to all those spoiled westerners flirting with populist parties...

The only difference between my mobsters and yours is that while mine leech on a dead horse yours leech on a blue whale.Corruption is more easily observed in small, poor countries like Romania or Moldova than huge ones like Russia or USA.
Obama was sponsored with millions of dollars for his election, and that money didn't come from Devastation Dave's retirement fund. It came from businessmen who wanted state contracts for themselves. In Romania the politicians and businessmen are one and the same and corruption is more obvious than in other places.You vote for a mayor and he brings along his wife's venture for garbage disposal, you vote for a MP and he brings his firm for catering.
On a party list you'll find a popular statesmen "called the locomotive in Romanian slag" in the header and 20 shady figures in the footer. To get on the lists a candidate must invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in his party's treasury so when he gets his office his concern isn't for the morons who voted him, but for the few ventures which sponsored him.
The civil society is just a party of beggars who couldn't buy their membership in a top party and get employed by politicians to lampoon an opponent.
Human rights work like magic. The inmates live better lives than free men. No need for Amnesty International when an inmate can woo his girlfriend in a special cell or where an inmate is allowed to spend his holidays with his fammily while his victim lies in an unmarked grave.
The upper middle class does just fine and builds villa after villa while the lower middle class and lower classes can't even afford a rent.
Minority rights work fine too. The minorities get an equal share of the plunder. The Magyars even got half of the last government nominations despite holding barely 7% of the Parliment seats.
We had an Armenian for Finance and Economy and Gipsy for Mayor in Bucharest. But the plunder continued.
The rule of law works too.But the law is so confusing and ambiguous that you can't rely on procedures to guarantee anything.If you have good relations with the Court Archives you can have entire evidence dissapear from files. Than you're acquited because the whole procedure was incorrect. Sometimes you can even bribe your prosecutor to compromise the procedures. And if you get a NLAR (No Legal Action Required) from the judge your whole file gets into the memory hole. The law regulating procedures is so ambiguous that you need an army of lawyers to navigate through procedures alone. And judges work so slow that defendants can have their case judged for decades before any solution is given, but not before they've spent thousands of Euros on court fees.
All Romanian politicians are sober. You need to be sober when signing millon-dollar contracts for your cousin's small shop.

So Romania by your criteria for a "soft democracy" is a perfect candidate.We even got the Rainbow show up when Bush had a state visit, and Clinton said "Romania is a model for the Balkans". And minority rights ware respected in Communist times too. We had 4 hours of programming for minorities on state television and more. When the Iron Curtain fell, the party beheaded Ceausescu and split into five factions. After that the dissidents came and invested their money to make even more money and sold anything of value.

In 1990 a group of Hippie Businessmen and former dissidents protested for "democracy" and pooed on the streets for civil disobedience after they lost the elections. The miners from Jiu Valley came to supress the revolt, condemned by the the authorities as "anti-democratic" and "fascist". Those fools thought they ware defending democracy when they started beating the crap out of the students and teachers gathered in the streets. The bloodshed was greated by President Iliescu as a victory of "democracy" over "fascism" and saluted the gesture for "civil conscience". Then those students rose to power and robbed the miners silly. And then the Communists ware back in power.And then the tides changed again and an orange coalition came to power.Than the orange liberals formed a coalition with the communists again to ensure a majority.

[Brenus]

“Louis XV was Richelieu's pawn”. Louis XIII. Not XV.
And Louis the XIII was far from a pawn in Richelieu’s hand. That is a "3 musketeers" version due the A. Dumas…
In reality Richelieu is one of the most successful prime ministers in the French history: He re-established peace and order in the Kingdom (remember that Louis XIII's father (Henri IV) was murdered by a fanatic monks (Ravaillac), this after his predecessor (Henri III, King of Poland and King of France after his brother Charles IX death) being murdered by a monk (Jacques Clément) and the King’s authority.
Even as Cardinal he kept the Edit de Nantes which allowed peace between Catholic and Protestant.

Now, about the subject: I didn’t notice that the non-democratic leaders were specially intelligent, without mercy, yes, and most of the times idiot and stupid and corrupted.
As Horetore said, democracies work. Dictatorships, communist, liberal, whatever don’t.

[Samurai Waki]

I'm not sure if all the media sensationalism, and general dumbing down of the populace is really the direct fault of democracy (maybe indirect), it seems like more a sign of the times. However, having bore witness to our economic downturn, I've seen more people who I would have categorized into the large idiot index, actually try to better themselves because of the uncertainty, I can't help but think democracy is the best option because in many ways it forces us to take responsibility for ourselves. I don't think this is happening in any authoritarian country (I think China is about ready to tear at the seams).

Singapore is in a unique position, being at perhaps the largest trade crossroads in the world, there doesn't appear to be any shortage of money in the near future. However, if, or should I say when?, the trade stops flowing in that direction Singapore will be in a lot of trouble. Whereas countries such as Mali, that have very, very little going in the way of economic success have done remarkably well considering their circumstances, I feel this has a lot to do with the fact that they have a Democratic Government, and more importantly, are willing to fight for it.

Authoritarianism is a complete copout. Most regime's are only functional or relevant at the time they are in power, Democracies have the advantage that they can change with the times, while Dictatorships stagnate, and their people suffer, as the rest of the world progresses. Every great Democracy in the world has had to fight bitterly for it, through hundreds of years, the US had the luxury of it's isolation, but was extremely frail for the first 120 years.. The UK fought for (a nominal democracy) since the signing of the magna carta. France, Germany, Italy, and Japan had to weather many wars, and a few crushing defeats before they realized Dictatorships don't work.

[HoreTore]

However, having bore witness to our economic downturn

The financial crisis is a great argument agains the notions Cronos is fighting for. It showed Al Greenspan and the rest of the world's smartest economist being as clueless as the dumbest village idiot as to what was going on, as Greenspan said in his congress hearing, "I have no idea what is going on with the economy"....

[Crazed Rabbit]

-I've forgotten what was to be my second comment.

No wait, I remember. I predict serious competition for democracies by East Asian authoritarian systems. They do provide a standard of living, law and order, public peace, that is on par with Western democracies.
Not so much China, which is clearly dictatorial (but to a large extent isn't), but more Singapore. I can not simply dismiss the argument that 'In Singapore the police will cane you for littering chewing gum, but the streets are clean and women can walk home at three o'clock at night. In a miniskirt.'

Riding the metro in a Western city, smelling the piss, watching the graffiti, evading the bands of thugs, and avoiding being mugged, beaten or spit at, one can not help but think of Singapore as a serious challenger.

I must disagree, simply because our western governments could not implement such a thing correctly. Both our countries already have violent, abusive cops who seem to think they are the law. They would be mentally unable to apply the violence as Singapore does - ie as punishment for some infraction and not simply because they like hitting people. Instead of strict discipline, it'd simply be letting hooligans with badges roam the streets.

You'd have better luck getting rid of the welfare state, I think.

CR

[Beskar]

Dumbing Down of the Population is a method used by governments to enforce law and order, in the spirit of eroding democracy. It is by this, it should be compulsory for people to be enlightened, especially in schools, in ways such as taught to think critically, and how to look at facts.

Also, in many ways, I support the BBC as well. In shows such as Crimewatch, Panaroma and others. They play a very good public role and should broadcast more shows like these.