Are humans capable of handling democracy?

[Kadagar_AV]

I'll probably get flamed, but I have a hard time seeing how democracy can be the best system.

For democracy to work, the people voting must be knowledgeable about the topics at hand, they must actively seek information, and the must have the brain capacity to process said information.

I believe we are to lazy and stupid for that, to be honest.

I can take myself as example. I am clearly smarter than the average joe (you might disagree, but humor me please), and I do believe I take more interest in politics than the average citizen. I read up, check sources and so on. But heck, I can in NO way in hell know if Sweden gains from being part of the EU, if social security is more important than more jobs and so on.

And if I cant say for sure, how would less able and interested people have a clue?

Recently we did a study at my university. some thousand people voting afterwards got to vote again, but this time they didnt vote for a party, instead they had to choose between the different partys agendas without being told which was which.

Now, about 30% didnt cast the same vote! This means that many people votes for something because their parents do, out of habbit, or whatever.

I dont know, lately I've just given up on democracy, we're just to dumb as a species to handle it.

Am I wrong here? I seriosly think that democracy has come down to whoever has the most rethoricly able representatives, and is that the best way to decide the future of countries?

Now, granted I dont have another solution to offer, but let's try and not go into "what would be better", let's ONLY discuss if democracy in its current form is working.

Afterwards we can brainstorm better solutions;)

Thank you for your time.

[Csargo]

Most probably aren't. You probably thought you were going to find a big long post here :P I'm too tired for that kinda stuff maybe tomorrow.

[wammer]

Yes the flaw of democracy is that it is tied to the will of the people, and as we find out most people are, lazy, stupid and ignorant. Democracy is also tied to an image, we vote for who we see and who looks and sounds good, not if they are just on their appearance.
Plato adressed this in "Republic", that with Democracy the will of the State is bound by the people, and since you must get elected to rule, a candidate or official must appease the people in order to keep his power and control. The elected official is not in charge because he is qualified but merely because he won.

Yes I find Democracy flawed as well.

[CountArach]

Democracy is flawed only insofar as the people do not have the proper information on hand. Information is generally guarded and only dissiminated in a way that would please the current Government (Though the Media *sometimes* does its best to help). If the full information is not released, we will never have true Democracy. Once everyone is given equal knowledge (Not to mention education, lets face it, most of those interested in Democracy have been given a better education), we will be able to handle it in a way that is much more pure.

Also we should look past partisan feelings, though I must admit that I often take an ultra-partisan view on my politics, so I am being incredibly hypocritical here.

Not to mention that I don't like the alternatives... Fascism anyone?

[Ironside]

Democracy is more of a "fair" and "safe" system than the rest of the govermental forms and as mentioned, only if you can keep the information free.

The flaw with a chosen leader(s) (more or less from birth) or having a system were the leader seize power are that you don't have a guarantee of the leader's quality until it's too late and as the system is done so that it's hard to replace a leader...

So democracy are the least wost of the systems, but that doesn't say much of how good it is.

[Husar]

I'm lazy, stupid and ignorant and thus democracy is the best system for me, a dictator would make me work or something. Since most people are like me, democracy serves the interests of most people, now where is the problem?

[Fragony]

Democracy should work from small to big. People are smart enough to know what is best for their direct surroundings, and up and up and up we go. It's the best system because it has a killswitch, elections.

[Adrian II]

Now, granted I dont have another solution to offer, but let's try and not go into "what would be better", let's ONLY discuss if democracy in its current form is working.

What nonsense. The main argument in favour of democracy - indeed, some would say the only one - is that it is preferable to the alternatives.

Fragony's 'killswitch' is the crux. Democracy works as long as the killswitch works. The reason being that Man will abuse his power if it unchecked by Law and by his fellow man. Proponents of other 'ideals' such as one-party systems or absolute monarchy lack this fundamental insight in human nature. Such ideals always succumb to hubris and finally to war and the devastations wrought by it.

[Andres]

What nonsense. The main argument in favour of democracy - indeed, some would say the only one - is that it is preferable to the alternatives.

Quoted for truth

[Kadagar_AV]

I'm at work and dont have time to properly answer everyone, but rest assured I will.

However, before thread de-rails, I of course agree that democracy is the best system as I cant think of a better alternative. But if you leave the argumentation at that, then there is no initiative to even create a better system.

So in order to evolve, I do believe highlighting the democracy from the perspective of "is it working" has something to give.

If you dont agree, fine, create a topic about it. But dont derail this please, as the framework in which we discuss the topic in this thread is rather clearly stated.

Singling out one perspective leads to more in-depth analysis, we can save the other discussion till later and in another thread, as I said, feel free to start one.

[Fragony]

Well you believe that people get to decide over things they don't know/care about, and that would be true if we didn't flock in political party's. On a local level a farmer knows what he's talking about, on a national level each party will have someone in charge who know what the farmers want from a national perspective. What we want these farmers to do/get depends on the party we vote on. We give them a mandate for 4 years (here at least), after that we can chose to put someone else in charge. How do you want this to evolve, people will still be stupid and ignorant about things that don't concern them. It's pretty much as close to perfection we can get imvho.

[naut]

Democracy never picks the best path, it only avoids the worst.

[HoreTore]

Democracy is so flawed it's not even funny. It's better than any of the others tried though, so I'm waiting for a brand new one. No idea what that may be though, I'm no visionary.

[Adrian II]

If you dont agree, fine, create a topic about it. But dont derail this please, as the framework in which we discuss the topic in this thread is rather clearly stated.

Not so fast, Brother Kadagar_AV.

You state in your first post: "I have a hard time seeing how democracy can be the best system". In your second post you state: "I of course agree that democracy is the best system". I hope the latter applies, although the world wouldn't be lost if you didn't subscribe to it.

However, your claim that democracy doesn't "work" as it should is apparently premised on the notion that democracy should lead to good decisions executed by capable leaders. In that sense it doesn't "work" and it never will. Wise decisions, brilliant leadership or absence of human stupidity were never part of the definition of democracy.

If you want to discuss the best way to reach decisions or to secure good leadership, be my guest. But those are different topics.

[Don Corleone]

See, I would argue Democracy DOES work. What is the goal of government? To provide the best outcome for the most number of citizens while ensuring those in the minority who choose not to play ball (but remain within the constricts of the law) are protected. By using that yardstick, Democracy is far and away better than any other system of governence out there.

I'm going to quote an over-used American political adage here, because I think it's important and will highlight where your thinking might have taken a step in the wrong direction, Kadagar. It goes: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". You've bought into this crazy notion that if each and every citizen doesn't intimately understand each and every issue, they have no ability to offer an opinion on it. What's more, it seems to me that you're arguing that anything less than a theoretical perfect outcome (possibly even unattainable by any means) equates to utter failure.

Well, time to move out political kindergarten and welcome to the world of gray. No personal disparagement intended, I myself am guilty of allowing my views to be polarized too much. There's a lot of forces at work to see to it that we do that. You don't give $20 bucks to the NRA or Greenpeace unless you've hit at least an 8 on your Moral Outrage meter.

Just remember, breathe deeply and repeat the following with me "Trend analysis". Based on this, and the ability to integrate all my views and not let one issue be a litmus test, my leading candidate in the 2008 elections is actually a Democrat (looks like my membership in the Conservative Club just expired). This may change given further analysis, but hey, if I could contemplate voting Democrat, there's hope for anybody (for thinking outside the box, not for political stance one way or the other).

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I personally believe a combination is best. I must be going now, but I'll remember I owe an explanation.

[Lemur]

From American Caesar, by William Manchester:

One evening at dinner the chief of staff (Richard Sutherland) argued that America should abandon democracy in wartime, that congress wasted too much time debating, that elections should be abolished and a dictatorship proclaimed. According to another officer:

General MacArthur listened for a while and then told Sutherland he was wrong; that democracy works and will always work, because the people are allowed to think, to talk, and keep their minds free, open, and supple. He said that while the dictator state may plan a war, get everything worked out down to the last detail, launch the attack, and do pretty well at the beginning, eventually something goes wrong with the plan. Something interrupts the schedule. Now, the regimented minds of the dictator command are not flexible enough to handle quickly the changed situation. They have tried to make war a science when it is actually an art.

He went on to say that a democracy, on the other hand, produces hundreds and thousands of flexible-minded, free-thinking leaders who will take advantage of the dictator's troubles and mistakes and think of a dozen ways to outthink and defeat him. As long as a democracy can withstand the initial onslaught, it will find ways of striking back and eventually it will win. It costs money and at times does look inefficient but, in the final analysis, democracy as we have it in the United States is the best form of government that man has ever evolved.

He paused and said, "The trouble with you, Dick, I am afraid, is that you are a natural-born autocrat."

[PanzerJaeger]

I can take myself as example. I am clearly smarter than the average joe (you might disagree, but humor me please), and I do believe I take more interest in politics than the average citizen. I read up, check sources and so on. But heck, I can in NO way in hell know if Sweden gains from being part of the EU, if social security is more important than more jobs and so on.

And if I cant say for sure, how would less able and interested people have a clue?

This is why there are no functioning democracies in the world, only republics. We elect people who make it their job to know the specificities of government. They give us a general outline of their politics by proclaiming allegiances such as liberal or conservative and by taking stances on hotbutton issues of the day, and from those indicators and others(speaking ability, real or perceived intelligence, charisma, ect.), we chose who we believe will do the best job. If said person does not deliver on what (s)he promised, or led us to believe, (s)he is voted out.

What nonsense. The main argument in favour of democracy - indeed, some would say the only one - is that it is preferable to the alternatives.

Not all the alternatives.

[Bijo]

Ah, democracy. I recall I used to criticize it to certain people years ago and they regarded me strangely thinking me a fool.

The question lingering in my fatigued brain is "What is flawed?" Democracy "works", and it is exactly doing what it is supposed to: to let silly ignorant humans decide whom they elect, and... well, etc., etc., etc. Let them "feel" as if they have something important to say, etc., while the schmucks are so foolish blah blah.

Then there is the possibility of "behind-the-scenes" activity which could "influence" execution of democracy. (Execution being equivocally utilized.) Agh, I will spend as little time on this topic as possible.

Short answer: democracy is a silly system but at least gives the people -- supposedly -- a chance to foolishly decide who is to rule.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Alright, here's my post for an alternative. Mind you, this is just a basic outline of an idea, and is not be terribly detailed.


My idea is that democracy needs to be balanced. With all the parties coming in and out, long-term plans especially are prone to change as a new party comes into power [1]. Also, as some have pointed out earlier, the people do not always turn out for a vote, Parliaments and Congresses can get lazy, etc [2]. Therefore, I looked at previous governments in history, and came up with a theory, which borrows not from any singular source, but from many. I call this Authoritarian Democracy.

Essentially, how Authoritarian Democracy would work, is that the government is divided roughly in half, with ratios differing depending on the needs of the country. On one hand, there is a monarch of some kind. This position is either elected by a certain group, such as the nobility, or is hereditary. However, there still remains the possibility of a monarch who is either weak or oppressive, so this must be counterbalanced.

This is how the other half comes in. A parliament is elected by the common people. Voting is obligatory, and not voting is punishable by arrest or a fine. This is to avoid only half the populace voting, which is a point where democracy in certain nations fails. The primary objective in this parliament is to counterbalance the monarch. Parties are elected in a free voting process. The monarch and his heirs may not vote, though certain nobles may.

Once the government has been elected, the monarch appoints a chancellor or representative in the parliament, who is allowed one vote in the parliament. The parties put forth legislation, and do all the things normal parties do. The monarch also puts forth legislation, usually through his representative, which can be voted through or revised by the parties. The monarch may declare war, etc., but this action must be approved by a vote in the parliament beforehand.

NOTE: This isn't finished, just a general idea. There are, of course, flaws, as with any plan and system of government. Please point them out so I can look it over.


[1] Example: Gun registry in Canada. Installed by Liberals, Conservatives gain power and plan to scrap it.
[2] Where Have All The Leaders Gone? by Lee Iaccoca

[Lord Winter]

I agree with preaty much what everyone has said about democracy so far, that it is the not the best but the one that obstructs human rights the least. Through history their have been good elightenent absolutist, such as Fredrick the great, but sadly these rulers are few. Mostly we end up with kings that are ethier tyrants or no better then what democray would throw at us. With democracy we at least have a choice between veiws rather then being stuck with the guy born in. You also have to look at the fact that their are no war's of succesion in democracy; we leave all our fighting at the ballot box.
However we do have problems in democracy. Most of these IMHO can be corrected by reforms not a new system. I'll call this system enlightened democray.

The first of many problem that has come to riddle modern democracies, the sheer amount of money needed to run. In the U.S. it cost about 10 million to run a successful campieng thus we can say reserving the spot to ethier the rich or those with corpreate backing. Obviously that means that we limit the pool of people from the average day to joe. Instead we are stuck with what many would call an upper class. To fix this we need to instate campigen finance limits, we should also have a government election fund which would be used to finance any campigen that can't afford money. Secondly we should clasify corpreate donations as bribery since that what it basicly is. This would hopefuly fix the far to large influence bessness's have on government.

The second thing that has to go is the exsitences of parties in politics. We all can see the bickering that occers everyday in washington. Many times party also try to force their view point on there members with threats of withdrawing leadership positions and party funding. The two party system also limits ideas by restricting the debate to only the two parties points of veiw.

[Adrian II]

This is why there are no functioning democracies in the world, only republics.

If we are going to be technical about this: I live in a constitutional monarchy, not a republic. Yet my country is a full-fledged democracy because we could, if we wanted, terminate the monarch's very limited powers tomorrow.

The point is that the concepts have been gradually changed and refined in modern history, roughly since 1648. Democracy in original Greek sense ('rule by the people') never existed, the res publica in the original Roman sense hardly resembled a modern republic, &cetera. Ancient society divided people into classes, most of whom were ineligible and/or not allowed to vote. The great merit of the Ancient Greek and Roman societies is that their ruling classes were the first to develop the principle of democracy among themselves. Slavery and conformism were rampant in Ancient society.

Equality and freedom of conscience however are thoroughly modern concepts. The essence of modern democracy is that people are free and equal in the exercise of their sovereignty, an idea that took hold with the French Revolution. It is of no consequence whether they elect their representatives directly or indirectly, or whether they allow traditional institutions like electors (U.S.), a King (The Netherlands), a Senate (Poland, Germany) or an aristocratic house of parliament (UK) to exist, as long as the supreme power in the state is vested in the nation.

I have to say I laughed our loud about some of the other comments in this thread. I love it when self-righteous brats fresh out of high school (or still in it) sound the deathknell of democracy on account of its 'fatal flaws'. I say you guys start paying taxes, raise your own family, get around and visit some really undemocratic countries, develop a taste for the freedom and privilege you are enjoying and for which the generation of my parents nearly all got themselves killed. Then maybe we will talk.

[Papewaio]

Democracy should work from small to big. People are smart enough to know what is best for their direct surroundings, and up and up and up we go. It's the best system because it has a killswitch, elections.

What he said.

Recently we did a study at my university. some thousand people voting afterwards got to vote again, but this time they didnt vote for a party, instead they had to choose between the different partys agendas without being told which was which.

Now, about 30% didnt cast the same vote! This means that many people votes for something because their parents do, out of habbit, or whatever.

Your data pool is rather limited, 1000 people tested at a vote. Not really enough data to make a conclusion about democracies of various sorts around the world. Even given that the conclusion is wrong. Somehow you take that 30% voting for another party means that democracy is flawed... surely 70% voted for the same party... so surely the 70% trumps the 30%... unless of course you have a pre-determined conclusion and choose to fit the data to your liking.

So a) Not enough trials.
b) The only test trial listed contradicts your conclusions.

Hence not enough evidence to support that humans are not capaple of handling democracy based on one university voting session. BTW did this one have lots of alcohol to get students to vote?...

Anyhow multiple 'dumb' agents working in cooperation will out do a single expert agent... the people as a group have a larger intelligence then then the people as individuals... democracy isn't only safer it's smarter.

[Husar]

I have to say I laughed our loud about some of the other comments in this thread. I love it when self-righteous brats fresh out of high school (or still in it) sound the deathknell of democracy on account of its 'fatal flaws'. I say you guys start paying taxes, raise your own family, get around and visit some really undemocratic countries, develop a taste for the freedom and privilege you are enjoying and for which the generation of my parents nearly all got themselves killed. Then maybe we will talk.

That's discriminating against younger members.
You should learn to appreciate our future which is them.

[Papewaio]

Well as long as the youth legalise euthansia I will be able to handle their ascendancy.

[Cronos Impera]

The problem is that any kind of "Kratos" is bad in one way or the other.
In tyranny you obide by the rules of one guy, in oligarchy you obide by the rules of the few while in democracy you obide by the rules of the many.
Whenever you feel like it you can always gather people like you, buy land and proclaim yourself a brake-away state.It's as simple as this, you proclaim independence.

The problem with democracy is that democracy is only the prologue to tyranny and it all strats with the tension between needs and resources.
See, in the past communities ware small and self-sufficient. Local tribes needed few contacts with the outside world and lived happy short lives. But as their appetite for expansion and security grew so did the social issues.
If you want to see the purest form of democracy you can check up Survivor for a anthrophological study.Watching that show you'll notice that in real life conditions the weakest overthrow the strong and split power among themselves. That is natural selection apllied to an egalitarian society.
Liberty and equality meant something in the past when people ware few and hazards ware many. Liberty encouraged exploration and progress while equality encouraged a population boom. But all this changes now because people have become less usefull in the production of goods and one machine can replace a whole village.
All that had to be explored was explored, all resources that had to be found ware found and humanity is reaching the very limits of human knowledge.
Now, economic freedom has become the biggest threat to human survival.
The problem is this: There isn't a blade of grass that isn't owned by someone and the population grows. Soon there won't be enough resources for anyone and the democratic system will protect those who have the greatest fortunes and their fammilies. So it is either slavery or violence for those who have fewer and violance demands harsher rules and tyranny to control it.
Democracy just gets chocked by the growth of human populations.

[Adrian II]

You should learn to appreciate our future which is them.

As long as my generation is in control we call the shots.

[Adrian II]

Democracy just gets chocked by the growth of human populations.

You have a lot to prove if you want all that to stand up to scrutiny. Starting with the claim that equality, not industrialization and scientific progress, caused the population boom in today's world. Unless I am very much mistaken, population growth is largest in non-democratic societies.
Gee, I wonder why..

[Banquo's Ghost]

As long as my generation is in control we call the shots.

OMG. We're supposed to be in control? You mean all this is our responsibility?

[Adrian II]

OMG. We're supposed to be in control? You mean all this is our responsibility?

God yes...