Stupidity - the single reason why democracies never work

[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.

[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.

[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"....

[Aemilius Paulus]

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.

Just wondering, where did you get that from? I know you are right, but still, I am curious.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Just wondering, where did you get that from? I know you are right, but still, I am curious.

I got it from nowhere in particular. Just a brief, and simplified summation of what I've gathered over the years are some commonly held beliefs within Russia and elsewhere in the former Eastern Bloc regarding democracy; combined with a summation of necessary components to make democracy function.

The definition of democracy is not only 'rule by the masses', or majority rule. The other definition refers to the particular system of government and society - very broadly defined, very limited in time and geography - of modern Western countries.
The two are often confused, causing lots of misunderstandings and frustration.

The other aspect of the post concerned what happened in Russia. 'Capitalism' and 'democracy' were installed in Russia in the 1990's. This basically boiled down to selling Russia for scraps to gangs of mobsters.
Small wonder, then, that democracy is mistrusted in Russia nowadays. I too would prefer Putin over a mobsterocracy.

Sad. Tsarism, communism, mobsterocracy, autocracy - it doesn't make a difference to ordinary Russians. Dissidents, the poor, the masses outside of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, those not connected with politics - nothing has changed for them. Life is held cheap, winters are cold, and the limitless resources of Russia are plundered for the benefit of a mere handful. Be they aristocrats, apparatchiks, Yeltsin era mobsters. And outside forces are held to blame. Jews, Europeans, capitalists, Americans, Muslims from the southern rim, Chinese in Siberia. Meh, the largest country in the world, and it feels itself perennially surrounded and besieged.


Russia reminds me of Serbia a bit. Narcissim combined with victimization. A great country that through deliberate act of foreigners has been cut up and is kept down. Poor Obama last month thought he could press the 'reset' button. Meanwhile, the Russians and Serbians are still celebrating Russia's attack against Georgia as a great counter-victory against the Americans.

Apart from a mere handful of intellectuals in Moscow, nobody in Russia has positive connotations anymore to the word 'democracy'. And these few that do, are murdered or elsewise silenced.

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

I believe that, for the West, the problem is that we are suffering under too broad a suffrage.

Broadening the suffrage to include everyone with a pulse inevitably leads to a situation where the "have nots" seek the use of government power to take property from the "haves." And why shouldn't they? From the perspective of the HN's, its the most rational of decisions.

We have restricted suffrage for ludicrous reasons in the past (Sex, Coming from an "upper class" womb rather than a "lower class" one, particulars of worship, etc.), but restricting the suffrage in some fashion that requires the voter to think/vote/consider more than simple selfish pecuniary concerns would help.

Wish I knew a way to do that....

A way to do that? Well you could turn fascist. Failing that, you could vote the next best thing, Republican.

Maybe poor Americans who have the nerve to long to be free and equal citizens can emigrate elsewhere? Perhaps in search of a place that accepts the poor, the huddled masses, a country that is a home of the free?

[Sarmatian]

Russia reminds me of Serbia a bit. Narcissim combined with victimization. A great country that through deliberate act of foreigners has been cut up and is kept down. Poor Obama last month thought he could press the 'reset' button. Meanwhile, the Russians and Serbians are still celebrating Russia's attack against Georgia as a great counter-victory against the Americans.

Apart from a mere handful of intellectuals in Moscow, nobody in Russia has positive connotations anymore to the word 'democracy'. And these few that do, are murdered or elsewise silenced.

You seem to believe that you have a talent for summing up nations, just as well as individuals. Last time I've mentioned that, you interpreted it as my way of saying how Serbs are a great nation because I've pointed out that being a shrink for 12 million people is a bit too much. Now you think you're good enough to do exactly that with app. 160 million people. Louis, you're getting better with each passing day. Do you think India was victimised in childhood and did China had problem with the parents? I think Brazil wet the bed even in the teenage years and Nigeria didn't leave the breast for a very long time.

But, unfortunately, there's some truth in your words. Can't say for Russia (although I do believe there is similarity), but definitely for Serbia. Problem is that trust and cooperation are a two way street. As long as the other side refuses to even contemplate the idea that mistakes and blunders have been made and how much of that distrust is their fault, we won't move from square one. We might, actually, but at a snail's pace. Can't speak for the nation but I won't accept moral responsibility for mistakes other people made, no matter how profitable it might be.

I'm also not aware of anyone in Serbia celebrating the conflict between Russia and Georgia. I've been outside those days and there were no mass gatherings in the streets celebrating anything, let alone an armed conflict. Someone might have celebrated it in the privacy of his/her home, I could hardly barge into homes of other people to check. Maybe you have another "reliable" article the proves otherwise, that half of the population was celebrating, I don't know.

Poor Obama last month thought he could press the 'reset' button.

You mean Biden's visit to Serbia? Or something involving Russia?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A way to do that? Well you could turn fascist. Failing that, you could vote the next best thing, Republican.

Maybe poor Americans who have the nerve to long to be free and equal citizens can emigrate elsewhere? Perhaps in search of a place that accepts the poor, the huddled masses, a country that is a home of the free?

I'll skip the fascism, thanks. Private ownership but government control isn't all that much more appealing to me than is outright government ownership, and demonizing some "enemy" to deflect criticism is politics at its tackiest. Besides, I can't really grow a proper chaplinesque mustache.

You are going right to the heart of my concern Louis. Yes, I believe we would be better off with a suffrage that is restricted to those who will give a **** and apply a little long-term thinking to their selections of representatives and the like -- who won't just react to which one is taller or has the most salacious pornographic films (gotta love Italian voters....).

But all of the previous restriction metrics: wealth, birth, ethnicity, sex, have all been abjectly unfair. I DO want somebody who sees themselves as a having a "stake" in the long-term success of the society. I just haven't figured out a way to do it without resorting to something that is worse in terms of individual liberty than the current system.

Our system may be broken (or at least dinged about), but it isn't completely non-functional. Therefore, it is incumbent to come up with a better idea before trashing the current one. I have yet to do so.

[Cronos Impera]

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