Are humans capable of handling democracy?

[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.