The Problem of Democracy

[Monarchist]

Greetings,

I have recently been thinking about the moral core of Democracy. As I pay more and more analytical attention to what news stations, people, and philosophers say and have said about Democracy, the more fascinated and, partially, annoyed I become. Why on earth are people so attached to Democracy? It is inherently unfair (rule by the majority, simply shooing away those who don't agree), it leads to such intense divisions in society (because individuals can wield their own sense of power, which is naturally divisive) as to negate its benefits, and it generally makes the populace arrogant in their illusion of power.

The peasants (intellectually and economically speaking, though the latter can often rise above their condition through truly hard work) and uneducated masses continue voting and thinking that it is a great power, or advantage they have over the hated "Fed" (after all, aren't all governments hated by the people? Admit it: you gripe about "the government"). It seems to me that Democracy is simply the epitome of hypocrisy; it glorifies its own hypocrisies and paradoxes, its supporters spraying out platitudes like "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others!". The core of my own objection to Democracy is this illusory, transitory way it forces people to think: "If I vote, it will change things!". As we all know, though, human nature cannot be changed by votes; a corporation or person or bureau may be restricted by a democratically-resolved law, but they/he/it will find a way around it. Human ingenuity itself is against this form of government.

I will never argue for my preferred ideal of government (Absolute Monarchy regulated by technocrats and aristocrats, kept by their own traditions) by saying that it solves this "Problem of Democracy" (hypocrisy and popular illusion), because its members and servants most certainly lie with the best of us. However, monarchies at least attempt to dispense with the ridiculous notion that "the people" can rule effectively. The people that vote - the masses - are, in Democracy, totally convinced that their benevolent action of voting actually aids in ruling the country. In reality, voting merely complicates the processes of government by clogging the system with impracticable and often fantastic ideas that the general populace, ignorant of economics because they are not specialists, concoct based (usually) on popular myth. At the very least, monarchy tries to do away with the complication of plebeians pretending they can rule without training.

This is not an indictment against commoners, the middle class, and other lay-people, however. I believe that a good monarch should be open to suggestions, and implementations from respected representatives of ideas. These ideas must be based on slow, deliberate thought, but carried out with expedience as monarchs can.

Democracy has proven, at least to me, inefficient, ineffective, and ineffectual. In fact, the final word of that three-part alliteration is the most serious, for me. Human beings want power. Human beings in government have the ability to achieve power, and to acquire more. Human beings in government who want power and also have Democracy have an even greater path to power. All a democratically-decided issue must have is the support of a bunch of ill-informed lower class people (the vast majority) who can be bent and shaped completely by spin, flashing signs, and empty words. Monarchy, on the other hand, does away with this terrible ineffectual quality of politicians thinking "If the majority wants this, I'll support it!", and simply goes with one extremely well-educated person to make decisions with moral conviction.

Naturally, monarchy can be oppressive (re: all stereotypes and modern conceptions of non-Democratic government) as well as incredibly positive (re: John II Komnenos of Byzantium. An amazing example of what well-bred and well-taught monarchs can be). It is as with all things. I merely argue that, for humanity to truly progress, while instilling in itself the good old traditions of absolute morality, monarchy of any kind is preferable to self-loathing and cynical Democracy. Democracy never appears to be about freedom to me; it is more cynical in nature, as described above (ineffectuality).

There is the addition problem, posed in my very first paragraph (how long ago that seems ), of Democracy's fetishistic support in the modern world. People often support it out of blind tradition, and not out of any real moral conviction. You have people agreeing to random invasions and bombings and interventions in whole countries merely because a targetted nation isn't Democratic! This chauvanism of, and obsession with, Democracy is going very, very far in the name of freedom, I think!

I truly hope that you do not think me angry, irrational, and lacking calm conviction. I am not here to incite hate, flames, and trolling. This is an honestly-held view of mine (the fact that I even have to say this in our Democrat-centric world puts me in a rather dejected mood), and could not be held with more moral fire than resides in my own heart. I will not stand dogmatically on one side or the other; if one position is truly proven morally untenable to me, I shall abandon it with caution. At this moment, however, liberal democracy seems morally perilous.

Are there any thoughts? Derisions? Support? What do you think of the problems, positives, and honesty of Democracy? Rule by the public? Please be honest, moral, and true, in your answers, as I have tried to be.

[Shmuel]

As one former supreme court judge said "Democracy need not kill itself to prove it's alive".
the palestinian terrorists israel captured enjoy many privligaes a common prisoner doesnt, they have TV's in every cell , they are allowed to study , and recieve degrees from univercities,
they get visits from red cross doctors , and so on , if you dont believe me , look at samir kuntar before he was locked , and after he was released,
another example is the situation with iran , the western democracies will debate constantly and try to make peace with iran , while iran builds a nuke,
if iran for example threatend china , there wouldnt be iran right now.

[Nimthill]

As one former supreme court judge said "Democracy need not kill itself to prove it's alive".
the palestinian terrorists israel captured enjoy many privligaes a common prisoner doesnt, they have TV's in every cell , they are allowed to study , and recieve degrees from univercities,
they get visits from red cross doctors , and so on , if you dont believe me , look at samir kuntar before he was locked , and after he was released,
another example is the situation with iran , the western democracies will debate constantly and try to make peace with iran , while iran builds a nuke,
if iran for example threatend china , there wouldnt be iran right now.

... qutie amazing to find a topic that is not about Gaza going off-topic in it's very first post, good job.

@ OP: I agree with the things that you say, except for the fact that there are similar flaws in Monarchy.
There are two ways in which you can elect a monarch: An hereditary monarchy in which nobody has a say about who is going to be the next monarch (who could be a retard, for all we know) or a election, which is democratic and hence flawed. An interesting puzzle, now that I think of it.

[Justice and Mercy]

You went from one bad system, and jumped across the spectrum to one of the worst.

The best government is limited government, regardless of the wishes of the people or the government itself.

[Boer]

Monarchy, on the other hand, does away with this terrible ineffectual quality of politicians thinking "If the majority wants this, I'll support it!", and simply goes with one extremely well-educated person to make decisions with moral conviction.

This only works if you have a "good" king (good as in skilled, wise, ect). Many kings have proven poor, mentally deficit or simply focused on their own good. IF you could some how find a way to only let in "good" kings, then the system would work. Of course, democracy would also work if only the "good" leaders were allowed to rule. Besides, the monarch would still need to consider the majority's opinion or he could face a revolution.

[Monarchist]

This only works if you have a "good" king (good as in skilled, wise, ect). Many kings have proven poor, mentally deficit or simply focused on their own good. IF you could some how find a way to only let in "good" kings, then the system would work. Of course, democracy would also work if only the "good" leaders were allowed to rule. Besides, the monarch would still need to consider the majority's opinion or he could face a revolution.

This is why I like monarchy much more than democracy - it seems much more honest in intent. I mean, politicians will lie (including monarchs, especially if it involves preserving their control of the realm), but democratically elected politicians can never be absolute. The people are often careless and certainly uneducated about economics and political reality as a whole, and thus they simply vote for whatever they fancy at the moment, en masse at least. A democratic system can never be true to itself, but then again I suppose monarchs change their positions for the nobility often enough. I'm still thinking on this.

You went from one bad system, and jumped across the spectrum to one of the worst.

The best government is limited government, regardless of the wishes of the people or the government itself.

You seem to equate "monarchy" with "bureaucracy", "red tape", and massive spending, things which have become staples of modern democracy. Every single government type will tend toward the gigantic, because that's how people are! To say that democracy quells or curbs this urge to greed and expansion is to tell a lie. Monarchs can promote a limited interventionist policy in economics, just as easily as democratic officials can impose a huge tax-and-spend system that appears oppressive. Monarchy itself isn't oppressive, and Democracy itself isn't liberal in its freedoms and economics. Things shift as the people or councils shift, but Monarchy offers some form of constancy that Democracy seems to lack, at least to me.

[Justice and Mercy]

You seem to equate "monarchy" with "bureaucracy", "red tape", and massive spending, things which have become staples of modern democracy.

Just "absolute monarchy".

Every single government type will tend toward the gigantic, because that's how people are! To say that democracy quells or curbs this urge to greed and expansion is to tell a lie. Monarchs can promote a limited interventionist policy in economics, just as easily as democratic officials can impose a huge tax-and-spend system that appears oppressive. Monarchy itself isn't oppressive, and Democracy itself isn't liberal in its freedoms and economics. Things shift as the people or councils shift, but Monarchy offers some form of constancy that Democracy seems to lack, at least to me.

I don't support democracy either.

A government must be limited by law. Tell the government exactly what they have the authority to do, and leave it at that. I don't care so much who rules (though there are a number of reasons I support representative systems over monarchist ones).

[Dr. Croccer]

There are things called consencus democracies, you know. These are democracies that consider the opinion of every political group in parliament and try to make a compromise but still stick to the majority opinions.

Democracy isn't perfect. It has it's flaws but it's still the most humane and least flawed political ideology in existence.

Monarchs aren't always educated. They often were, as princes and princesses got the best educations in the country but a lot were simply guided by their opinion. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Men like Wilhelm II and Czar Nicholas ruled their states based on their opinion and, while they saw themselves as military and political leaders, they were incompetent and arrogant in both areas and ultimately, not safe agaimst the power of the army, aristocracy and people. For every ''enlightened'' monarch, there are 5 incompetent ones.

The best government is limited government, regardless of the wishes of the people or the government itself.

Best to whom?

[Lovejoy]

Democracy has a moderating affect on the leaders. A leader in the democratic society cant go all nuts, because then he will be replaced. In a monarchy you dont have that.

In a democracy we control each other.

[Monarchist]

The idea that a Democracy involves people controlling each other strikes as rather more propaganda than fact, at least to me. If you look at the way democracies are run, the people may vote on an issue once or twice a year, or even every two years. The only times people actually seem to vote in America, for example, are once every four years for their President, and scattered elections for Representatives/Senators. However, the 'aristocracy', if you will, that sits in Congress, does most of the 'controlling' that people are so attached to.

It is an illusion that democracy promotes rule by the people, because the people make perhaps one decision, then let the bureaucrats go to it and rarely intervene unless things become ridiculous. Even then, they might just keep sitting back and waiting for the government to fix the government. Human nature seems to be against democracy!

I do see the caution in men's eyes about monarchism, especially because the past has fielded so many terrible examples. I often think that a particular house of monarchy should be established, with Magna Carta-esque rules imposed by an elite (intelligent elite, that is , at least until homogeneity and patting on the back develops, which occurs in Democracy too) on a monarch to force him to be educated in a certain manner. The institution that supports the monarchy should not be totally absolute under his/her rule, of course, because that can lead to all sorts of King John-like problems. However, it is not exactly democratic (by "the people") to give a bunch of rich, well-educated elite the power to control the King, and the King power to control them.

The U.S. system of checks and balances, ironically, might instruct a strong and capable monarchy, but one that is sensible. Raising people properly is the issue - all sons of a royal house should be raised properly, and not neglected in favor of the first-born son. Accidents happen, and if the first born dies you may have to turn to a neglected second son, or even a third son! Then, his resentment reaches out to the kingdom when he reaches the throne. No, monarchy must be reshaped and remade for a more sensible era!

I thank you for being respectful and not angry about this topic. I was fearing a bunch of westerners shouting me down for not being tolerant of democracy.

[Lovejoy]

The idea that a Democracy involves people controlling each other strikes as rather more propaganda than fact, at least to me. If you look at the way democracies are run, the people may vote on an issue once or twice a year, or even every two years. The only times people actually seem to vote in America, for example, are once every four years for their President, and scattered elections for Representatives/Senators. However, the 'aristocracy', if you will, that sits in Congress, does most of the 'controlling' that people are so attached to.

I believe you miss the point. Democracy is about more then voting. Its about freedom of speech and freedom of press and moderating powers. The prime minister in Sweden cant build himself a large mansion, buy air planes and build himself a personal army. He have his power because we allow it. The people, the government, the press, they control each other. They are held in check.

In a monarchy, the balance is destroyed. The government becomes the sole power. If they do something "bad" nothing can be done about it.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

I agree with most of what you said. This is why I support a republic, not a democracy A republic is far from perfect, but its the best form of government we have been able to come up with so far IMO. Sadly, people are corrupt and you will never get a perfect government.

[Monarchist]

I agree with most of what you said. This is why I support a republic, not a democracy A republic is far from perfect, but its the best form of government we have been able to come up with so far IMO. Sadly, people are corrupt and you will never get a perfect government.

You are right, though I have a great deal of faith in the ingenuity, intelligence, and creativity of humanity, so I am not that bleak. However, I agree that no government could possibly be perfect, because utopia is impossible. I would never want a utopia... the idea sounds as if it is set in stone, never changes, and goes nowhere. Bravo to good thought and honest ideals.

[Bovril]

Absolute Monarchy regulated by technocrats and aristocrats, kept by their own traditions

Saudi Arabia, Nepal untill very recently, Bhutan.

Is that really your favoured form of government?

Some constiutional monarchies seem to work quite well, such as Jordan.



On the subject of democracy, your point is kind of besides the point. Policy is usually not dictated by popular opinion to a large extent in modern parliamentary democracy. The actions and ideals of governments are very often at odds with those of the majority of their populations. Political succes corelated highly with campaign expernditure (far more than it does by appealing to popular policies) in western democracies, particularly in the English speaking world. Since campaign funds come from 'technocrats', if you want them in charge, parliamentary democracy is your best bet.

[seal]

Welcome to the D&D boards, TH! Anything less than your initial post would be a dishonor to the effort you put into your political thoughts.

I have recently been thinking about the moral core of Democracy.

As we all should. Any responsible citizen of a democracy must from time to time ponder the effectiveness of their government. I have even pondered a kind of a techno-popularism, where each citizen debates abd votes on the issues of day-to-day legislation via the internet. Of course, the logistics make it impossible.

As I pay more and more analytical attention to what news stations, people, and philosophers say and have said about Democracy, the more fascinated and, partially, annoyed I become. Why on earth are people so attached to Democracy? It is inherently unfair (rule by the majority, simply shooing away those who don't agree), it leads to such intense divisions in society (because individuals can wield their own sense of power, which is naturally divisive) as to negate its benefits, and it generally makes the populace arrogant in their illusion of power.

One of the big concerns of democracy, is of course, the "tyranny of the majority." That is why in its modern form, there is always a system of checks and balances. In most tri-level democracies, the representative democracy is checked by the Judicial branch, thus negating the inherent unfairness of majority rule. Division is in society will always exist, even in your preferred enlightened absolute monarchy, because society is made up of individuals, not blocks of political power. In your absolute monarchy system, you would have a royal, noble, and a none of the above class. Each individual of these classes will look after their own needs first and foremost. Would your enlightened king step down from power voluntarily and and patiently await the gallows if that's what it took satisfy the greatest good? Of course not, because you have just presented the sovereign with a zero-sum game.

The peasants (intellectually and economically speaking, though the latter can often rise above their condition through truly hard work) and uneducated masses continue voting and thinking that it is a great power, or advantage they have over the hated "Fed" (after all, aren't all governments hated by the people? Admit it: you gripe about "the government"). It seems to me that Democracy is simply the epitome of hypocrisy; it glorifies its own hypocrisies and paradoxes, its supporters spraying out platitudes like "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others!". The core of my own objection to Democracy is this illusory, transitory way it forces people to think: "If I vote, it will change things!". As we all know, though, human nature cannot be changed by votes; a corporation or person or bureau may be restricted by a democratically-resolved law, but they/he/it will find a way around it. Human ingenuity itself is against this form of government.

Ignoring the obvious negative implications of the word "peasant," a government rules only by the consent of the people. If your core agrument is that democracy is illusory, the clear counter-argument is what government type isn't a facade of the combined will of the public? Even under Divine Mandate, the royal sovereign could be overthrown by the people. Any government is bound under the Social Contract to its population.

I will never argue for my preferred ideal of government (Absolute Monarchy regulated by technocrats and aristocrats, kept by their own traditions) by saying that it solves this "Problem of Democracy" (hypocrisy and popular illusion), because its members and servants most certainly lie with the best of us. However, monarchies at least attempt to dispense with the ridiculous notion that "the people" can rule effectively. The people that vote - the masses - are, in Democracy, totally convinced that their benevolent action of voting actually aids in ruling the country. In reality, voting merely complicates the processes of government by clogging the system with impracticable and often fantastic ideas that the general populace, ignorant of economics because they are not specialists, concoct based (usually) on popular myth. At the very least, monarchy tries to do away with the complication of plebeians pretending they can rule without training.

Your last sentence is at the heart of your thinking. However, in a representative democracy, isn't it really the most elite member of our society that become elected. The only difference between your King and my Congressman, is that my Congressman must not only be held accountable to the People, but also the system of checks and balances. This system does not effectively and reliably exist under a monarchy.

These ideas must be based on slow, deliberate thought, but carried out with expedience as monarchs can.

In this you find the beauty of democracy. Democracy is based on debate, logjams, and inactivity. Thus, only legislation that is truly for the benefit of society is enacted into law. Once this legislation has been passed, there is no difference in expediency between a King and a President.

Democracy has proven, at least to me, inefficient, ineffective, and ineffectual. In fact, the final word of that three-part alliteration is the most serious, for me. Human beings want power. Human beings in government have the ability to achieve power, and to acquire more. Human beings in government who want power and also have Democracy have an even greater path to power. All a democratically-decided issue must have is the support of a bunch of ill-informed lower class people (the vast majority) who can be bent and shaped completely by spin, flashing signs, and empty words. Monarchy, on the other hand, does away with this terrible ineffectual quality of politicians thinking "If the majority wants this, I'll support it!", and simply goes with one extremely well-educated person to make decisions with moral conviction.

Does a Prime Minister have less temptation to the excesses of power than an all-powerful monarch? Absolutely not, again refering back to the system of checks and balances. Ineffectiveness is the point of a democracy because while the debate rages, the decision ultimately lies with the individual, as it should be. A concept must absolutely pass the common sense test before it can be applied to all individuals in a society. The whims of a queen backed by her wealthy friends do not qualify as a common sense test.

There is the addition problem, posed in my very first paragraph (how long ago that seems ), of Democracy's fetishistic support in the modern world. People often support it out of blind tradition, and not out of any real moral conviction. You have people agreeing to random invasions and bombings and interventions in whole countries merely because a targetted nation isn't Democratic! This chauvanism of, and obsession with, Democracy is going very, very far in the name of freedom, I think!

As you stated in your paragraph before, the things that you have accused of democratic states, have been done a many times over by monarchies and authoritarian states than any democracy. Just because it is a norm now in Western Society, doesn't mean we need revert back to failed systems when we are unsatisfied. The real goal is to find something totally new.

[Monarchist]

Hello seal,

I thank you for welcoming and greatly honoring me with your words, that do service to my conviction! It is rare to find a respectful, thoughtful, and moral person all in the same being. Your own ideas are based on the same sound logic of deliberate thought and long discussion that I believe in and try to expound.

It is true that Monarchy is inherently irrational and anti-populus, and that Democracy often comes to loggerheads. This is the problem, and the dilemma that I face: either it is Democracy, with its extremely long delays, its bureaucratic corruption (due to the lack of one truly unchecke'd forced that might stop such behavior), and its often immense hypocrisies of power, voting, and the illusion of plebeian power that comes with it. On the other hand, it is Monarchy, with the sometimes short, sharp, and irrational decisions, nominally tempered by advisors and the advice of noble councils, but nonetheless subject to a King's momentary passion.

Both systems have checks and balances: the Monarch with his Lords and "Advisors", (sometimes not at all advised or cautious) and Democracy with its Judicial/Executive/Legislative divisions (sometimes not at all divided or balanced), yet both systems give in to an inherent problem: their humanity. People often speak of "the government" as if it is a being unto itself, or a corporation as one entity. We all know that individuals make up any nation's support structure, but seem to like conflating it all into one big center of a vast machine. In this sense, the general consensus of 'the people' - after you peel away the propaganda of freedom and will for equality that are so often abused - tends towards dictatorship and control.

It is a massive, sweeping label to give to the "general populace" the appelation of "leeches on government", but it seems that today, especially with recent presidents such as Clinton, Bush II and Obama, there is a tendency to suckle the Democratic government. At the very least, most non-parliamentary democracies force the general public to give up this notion of 'welfare' and depend on only one thing: protection. However, sometimes even protection is not guaranteed under a non-illusory, self-serving Monarchy! You can see the problems I have with both systems, but that I tend toward Monarchy simply because I have not experienced it, and have become disillusioned with Democracy; Monarchy seems fresh, though old, and might just be applied in a modern way to our obsessively rational culture.

Know that I respect your ideas and cautions, seal, and hope you continue supporting Democracy in the same way that I support Monarchy. I may even be convinced of "The Stagnant Institution"'s validity, some day.... though that day is likely far off.

[seal]

Well then, I hope that I can sway you to, if not supporting the concept of democracy, then the revolutionary philosophy of something totally different.

It is true that Monarchy is inherently irrational and anti-populus, and that Democracy often comes to loggerheads. This is the problem, and the dilemma that I face: either it is Democracy, with its extremely long delays, its bureaucratic corruption (due to the lack of one truly unchecke'd forced that might stop such behavior), and its often immense hypocrisies of power, voting, and the illusion of plebeian power that comes with it. On the other hand, it is Monarchy, with the sometimes short, sharp, and irrational decisions, nominally tempered by advisors and the advice of noble councils, but nonetheless subject to a King's momentary passion.

In American terms, this is an age old argument of Jefferson vs. Hamilton politics. Clearly, I tend towards a Jeffersonian point of view, whereas you prefer a Hamiltonian method of government. In my mind, it is to the benefit of the individual that a central government is weak. This allows for greater individual freedom, which leads directly to greater levels of innovation on all levels.

Both systems have checks and balances: the Monarch with his Lords and "Advisors", (sometimes not at all advised or cautious) and Democracy with its Judicial/Executive/Legislative divisions (sometimes not at all divided or balanced), yet both systems give in to an inherent problem: their humanity. People often speak of "the government" as if it is a being unto itself, or a corporation as one entity. We all know that individuals make up any nation's support structure, but seem to like conflating it all into one big center of a vast machine. In this sense, the general consensus of 'the people' - after you peel away the propaganda of freedom and will for equality that are so often abused - tends towards dictatorship and control.

The problem with a House of Lords style check to executive power is that there is rarely a formal agreement, arbitrated by a unbiased third party. This eventually leads to some sort of political struggle between the Lords and the Monarch, usually one that is violent.

Authoritarianism happens in democracy when the populace becomes apathetic in their required duties in a democratic society. The citizen should be well versed in the questions of the day, and should be able to back up their opinions with rational thought. Passion and emotion should never play a part in this. These emotions too easily lead to fear, and that is when irrational behavior begins. Thankfully, there is a Judicial Branch that mitigates this threat.

It is a massive, sweeping label to give to the "general populace" the appelation of "leeches on government", but it seems that today, especially with recent presidents such as Clinton, Bush II and Obama, there is a tendency to suckle the Democratic government. At the very least, most non-parliamentary democracies force the general public to give up this notion of 'welfare' and depend on only one thing: protection. However, sometimes even protection is not guaranteed under a non-illusory, self-serving Monarchy! You can see the problems I have with both systems, but that I tend toward Monarchy simply because I have not experienced it, and have become disillusioned with Democracy; Monarchy seems fresh, though old, and might just be applied in a modern way to our obsessively rational culture

It is in this paragraph where I become confused by your argument. I often chide those who adhere to big government as needing to suckle on the teet of Momma State. It is in the benefit of a Monarch to have peasants who believe him to be their Father or Uncle. Yet you deride this as if it is a sin of liberalism. You are mistaken; this is a symptom of a large central government, whether you call it monarchy or socialism. Either way, it kills the spirit of the individual.

[motiv-8]

You seem to equate "monarchy" with "bureaucracy", "red tape", and massive spending, things which have become staples of modern democracy.

Incidentally, all these things were staples of ancien regime monarchies long before they became staples of modern democracy.

[Monarchist]

Incidentally, all these things were staples of ancien regime monarchies long before they became staples of modern democracy.

Isn't it ironic? How to supplant an idea: repeat it and hope it doesn't become as corrupt as the old way. So many questions...

[motiv-8]

Isn't it ironic? How to supplant an idea: repeat it and hope it doesn't become as corrupt as the old way. So many questions...

The true irony is in thinking that by taking a step backward you are making progress.

Of course, your criticisms of democracy are nothing new -- the same paranoia is found in literature nearly 2500 years old.