Democracy or Autocracy?

[Divinus Arma]

Rule of the people?

or Rule of the Few?



Keep in mind that Athens was partially destroted by its democracy when it undertook the Campaign in Sicily towards the end of the war with Sparta. Democracy has its flaws too.

So, rule by the ignorant and esily swayed masses, or rule by the educated upper classes?

Or somewhere in between, such as a qualifying citizenship based on education?

[AntiochusIII]

Erm...just wanted to point out that we've "developed" (i.e. compromised) our democracy into some kind of a Republic already, albeit with minor differences among different "democratic" countries. Athens was all about every citizen got the right to vote and to propose stuff in the "meeting." Therefore a few nutjobs (they were alive, they still are, and they will be alive in the future!) can provoke the entire citizen body into some stupid wars (sounds familiar.. nah.. wrong thread ) if they're skilled enough demagogues.

Autocracy, by the way, sucks. Why do we need hundreds of nobility to rule over us when one (i.e. a king in absolutism) is already troublesome enough to remove?

[Divinus Arma]

Erm...just wanted to point out that we've "developed" (i.e. compromised) our democracy into some kind of a Republic already, albeit with minor differences among different "democratic" countries. Athens was all about every citizen got the right to vote and to propose stuff in the "meeting." Therefore a few nutjobs (they were alive, they still are, and they will be alive in the future!) can provoke the entire citizen body into some stupid wars (sounds familiar.. nah.. wrong thread ) if they're skilled enough demagogues.

Autocracy, by the way, sucks. Why do we need hundreds of nobility to rule over us when one (i.e. a king in absolutism) is already troublesome enough to remove?

In America we went with a Republic for a number of reasons:

(1) There was already very few people who quailfied to vote anyway: white male property owners.
(2) The logistics of travel made direct democracy nearly impossible.
(3) The framers wanted to avoid exactly what you point out: Charismatic leaders controlling the public.

The problem is that we have already ceded a huge amount of authority to the few. The Supreme Court has become a lwa making body when it decided for itself that it could undertake judicial review. The President can go to war with "a resolution authorizing force" instead of a congressional declaration of war.

Are we slipping away from democracy?

[AntiochusIII]

Ah, I see there's a poll set up. I vote for the people, then.

In America we went with a Republic for a number of reasons:

(1) There was already very few people who quailfied to vote anyway: white male property owners.
(2) The logistics of travel made direct democracy nearly impossible.
(3) The framers wanted to avoid exactly what you point out: Charismatic leaders controlling the public.

Yes. I am aware of the troubles too, especially concerning logistics.

The problem is that we have already ceded a huge amount of authority to the few. The Supreme Court has become a lwa making body when it decided for itself that it could undertake judicial review. The President can go to war with "a resolution authorizing force" instead of a congressional declaration of war.

Are we slipping away from democracy?

Those measures are there for mainly some of these reasons:

1. To counter the power of the mob. This is a Constitutional (or legal, depends on the country) counter against a possible "tyranny of the majority." Such measures, however, needs to be very carefully established as it can easily upsets a nation's balance of power.

2. For emergency measures when majority voting and other such administrative procedures becomes liabilities, such as cases that threaten a nation's security. This is an even harder issue than the counter-balance above.

[bmolsson]

This is actually a difficult question. In a homogen nation, surely democracy, but in several countries around the world, it's not possible.
Democracy is education and absence of fundamentalism in different forms. An open society require that the citizen not only have their rights, but also take their responsibilities. That is not the case in many countries today.
Furthermore, democracy also require a framwork protecting minorities. In the future when the few supports the majority, we might have a situation there the majority oppress the minority for it's own existence. When that happens, democracy or not, we are not better than any autocracy ever existed in history.

[Al Khalifah]

Power to the citizens. Those willing to work for their country should have the deciding say in how the country is run rather than those who just work for themselves.

Athens is definately the last choice there. It was far from being a fully empowered democracy, although those who were able to participate had far more say in matters than in many present day democracies.

[JimBob]

Rule of the people, always the people. Besides the masses aren't always a rabble, they just get told that they are and believe it.

[Divinus Arma]

I chose the masses.

I am firmly against elitism.

The problem with "combination" is that the citizens may further restrict who is a citizen until it slides to autocracy. This happened in Athens briefly as the great Democracy was slowly overthrown and became an autocracy for a brief period. It slid further and further into fewer and fewer people in control.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Neither.
Rule of Me.

[AntiochusIII]

Neither.
Rule of Me.

How predictable.

Real evil geniuses like me hide behind the stage and pull the strings from the shadow!

[yesdachi]

I am definitely a proponent of democracy but I really dislike the idea of everyone being equal. They are not.

I chose the Combination option but I think an uncorruptable Republic would be an excellent choice. A completely impossible one but excellent.