Evaluation of democracy

[vlach]

Since the humble beginnings of democracy it was an outlandish idea and not terribly successful at ensuring the survival of its subscribers. The greeks and later the romans as enlightened as they were for their time had achieved their greatest expanse under monarchical rule rather than as a republic. Similarly since the fall of Rome the divided people of Europe prospered more once united by a single ruler or house than divided into bickering fiefdoms. And I do not refer solely to the military advantage unity confers, but also to the great public works and advancements in education, carried out by monarchs such as Louis the XIV and Fredrick der Grosse, the latter truly lifting his people from obscurity. Without such men and the power they possessed the nations of Europe would have never been, and europe would not be the world changing continent it is today.

All this considered I am aware of the turmoil engulfing monarchical europe and I'm not advocating a return to that, but then again total war was a republic invention. Similarly I am aware of the oppression experienced by the common man under monarchy and do not wish to see that return either. What I am trying to determine is whether or not a return of constitutionally supported singular leadership, so that we avoid dictatorship, would not be more beneficial than the ambiguous party system which relies on intrigue and political gain to pass legislation and are often indecisive, corrupt, and slow.

[Nimthill]

I don't think that great public works and advances in education are neccesarily improved by having a dictator. I do think that countries uniting have a better change to work for the benefit of their members; as large willing groups tend to beat smaller groups in pretty much everything. (evolutionarily speaking, but I think this applies to states as well). Having a single leader is an immense benefit in times when there is very little time to make decisions such as war but it does lead to a rather one-sided approach to everything. Since I do not think anyone is perfect enough for single handedly governing a country, I feel a dictator would be a bad idea.

There are some problems with democracy; definitely. One of them being that mentally retarded people (and I mean actual medical retardation) have the exact same voting priviliges as does a professor in political theory. Actually, I really feel that there should be a mandatory course for voting that one has to pass to obtain ones voting rights. It doesn't make sense that people who have absolutely no clue whatsoever about what is going on get to decide on worldly affairs. Maybe those people ought to be represented by a board of unbiased government officials?

[Azog 150]

I think your assumption that democracy is a limit on progress is a flawed one anyway. Britain dominated the 19th Century, and the US has dominated since the end of WW2 (With unopposed domination since the collapse of the non-democratic USSR). Both these powers have seen dictatorships and single-ruler systems rise and fall in their times as dominant power.

Now you are right, democracy isn't perfect and there are some definitie flaws. But I am not sure what your alternative is- surely a single ruler system is a dictatorship, unless you mean a direct democracy with a single democratically elected leader (But then that is democracy....)?

[vlach]

No I mean monarchy, i.e. a class whose sole purpose from birth is to rule, thus removing the instability of political parties trying for power. Technological progress I think is pretty much independent of regime as long as they don't actively destroy it and most seem to directly encourage it. What I'm talking about is social progress, and I know how ridiculous it sounds to claim social progress by returning to monarchism, however democracy comes with an inherent inability to make the right but unpopular decisions since the parties in power want to do everything to remain in power. The world would be a lot more streamlined without having a legislative body slave to the common opinion.

Democratic states are capable of great public works but the majority are all done under some form of autocracy from St-petersburg to the Ubahns to the highways of America under FDR they were all initiated by the will of a single man

[Rolling Thunder]

No I mean monarchy, i.e. a class whose sole purpose from birth is to rule, thus removing the instability of political parties trying for power. Technological progress I think is pretty much independent of regime as long as they don't actively destroy it and most seem to directly encourage it. What I'm talking about is social progress, and I know how ridiculous it sounds to claim social progress by returning to monarchism, however democracy comes with an inherent inability to make the right but unpopular decisions since the parties in power want to do everything to remain in power. The world would be a lot more streamlined without having a legislative body slave to the common opinion.

Democratic states are capable of great public works but the majority are all done under some form of autocracy from St-petersburg to the Ubahns to the highways of America under FDR they were all initiated by the will of a single man

A man who was elected four times with sizeable majorities. Doing the right thing and doing the popular thing aren't mutually exclusive, you just have to actually treat people like human beings.

[AUSSIE11]

the issue with modern democracy, particularly i think in a place like Australia with three year terms, is that it's all about being re-elected... so the unpopular but possibly right thing doesn't get done yet the popular thing almost always does...

[vlach]

At Rolling thunder:

I did not say he was an unpopular ruler, however he did have more freedom than most US presidents after the success of the new deal, and that is why I had categorised him as such.

I agree they do not have to be mutually exclusive however they very rarely coincide. And that is where the main flaw of democracy draws from, since it automatically equates the popular decision with the right decision. Whilst it is quite often necessary to go against the grain. Another unavoidable side effect of the election politics is that parties are easily manipulated by affluent minorities in exchange for monetary support, without which parties could not even form let alone conduct a successful election campaign thus negating the entire point of the populist government.

The only way I see removing these destabilising aspects of government without resulting to anarchy are through a non-feudal monarchy where the leader is completely secure in his position save for revolution, and the ministers don't posses ideology to guide them or are restricted by popular opinion but are guided to the right decision by science. Determining whether or not my logic is naive, is the reason I shared my thoughts on this forum

[Col. Tartleton]

I think a wise and good leader who feels responsible for his entire nation with good counsel around them will perform better with absolute power than many people of differing levels of wisdom and ethics who feel responsible for a fraction of the people they make decisions for without the same level of counsel.

To be honest I prefer an autocrat to a congress. Republics tend to be rather ineffective as a rule. Dictators are hit or miss. Monarchs tend to be better. It's about how you want to gamble:

Do you want to play the scratch tickets and lose money slowly in the long run but win enough to keep you amused.
Do you want to buy megabucks tickets and almost certainly lose but you might get lucky.

There are certainly people alive in America today who could do a good job with limited absolute power (oxymorons ftw) the question is how do we know who they are?

[Viking Prince]

So how do you remove or in some manner protect yourself from a ruler with absolute power? I mean short of using a pistol at close range. Democracy is a better solution, sorry.

[Mole Praetoricus]

So how do you remove or in some manner protect yourself from a ruler with absolute power? I mean short of using a pistol at close range. Democracy is a better solution, sorry.

Democracy in no way means a political party will not become all powerful. just look at Nazi Germany, they were elected through the (admitedly flawed) electoral system of the time. They knew how to manipulate both the system as well as the people and got away with literally murder. Until 1945 anyway and that's when the pistol at short range came into effect All joking aside, given that the bulk of the people voting are usually manipulated into following slogans heard on the media rather than actual government plans it's not that farfetched a thought that dangerously corrupt and incompetent people are elected into office. Just think of Bush, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, etc. Not exactly victories for democracy.

[vlach]

I'm not disputing the human rights act here, by the rights determined by government I meant where you can park your car or how much of your income goes to the government and the multitude of other legislation that had not the fortune to be considered by enlightenment era philosophers, and that determine the success of a government more than how much it fought for freedom of speech. And as mole pointed out the democratic system is by no means infallible.

I reiterate I'm not advocating dictatorship since that is essentially hijacked democracy and that is why they are so brutal since their position is in no way protected. I'm advocating for a return of the monarchies which in their period as constitutional monarchies have evolved into more libertine and even nobler institutions. Another advantage I perceive is that foreign policy would be a lot cleaner with fewer possibilities for foreign intervention and manipulation

[Azog 150]

What about a combination.

Have a national autocratic government to deal with issues of defence, infrastructure, foreign affairs and general strategic vision, and then massively decentralise and have local democratically elected assemblies to deal with everything else?

On the national level however, you could have elected representatives from each local assembly there to act in the advisory role, bring local concerns to the national leader and to keep things within a constitution to limit the autocrats power?

[city17citizen]

We live in times of expansion of democratic values, but it does not mean Democracy is superior over Monarchy. Both types of government have flaws that can cause troubles. Here are some risks that I can think of:

Dangers of Democracy:
- rules of mob
- problem of dispersed responsibility (especially considering functioning of parliaments)
- slow decision making process, often resulting in implementation of decision in a wrong time or not at all.

Dangers of Monarchy:
- separation of ruling classes from rest of society
- too strong influence of single person and his/her personal traits on legal code, policy and overall political relations (problem especially in absolute monarchy), and all uncertainty and instability that results from it


Rome, for example experienced its heyday not as Republic, but as Empire.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I disagree that democratic leaders are incapable of making right but unpopular decisions.

[AUSSIE11]

I disagree that democratic leaders are incapable of making right but unpopular decisions.

they are not incapable... just look at David Cameron with the Austerity measures and John Howard with the GST, but it is rare, particularly when an election is looming...

[xcorps]

Under no circumstances would I consider a form of government other than a representative democracy. The role of government is to secure the rights of its citizens. The citizens are sovereign, and must remain so. The power of self determination is the greatest power in history.

[vlach]

At xcorps

but the rights of citizens are determined by the government itself so there are no inherent differences between the rights of a citizen under a democracy or under a monarchy except for the fact that you chose who is at the top, and in-between your local councilman and the prime minister you have very little input as to who administers your rights. Anyway I'm not advocating feudalism but simply a ruling class devoid of the political squabbling that hampers progress, and I think that the old monarchies have changed into much more libertine and wiser institutions. IMO monarchical power at the state level and councils at the community level could provide the best of both worlds.

At aussie11

David Cameron is not making the unpopular decision. The tough measures are aimed at what percentage of the population that constitute the students and the lazily unemployed, all of which can easily change the category they are in, they are not aimed at families and the majority of the British population. And all in all the savings due to these cuts are a fraction of the cost of the Olympics and cutting them wouldn't have jeopardised the level of future generations' education. And if he really wanted to save money is if hey would have wrangled in the over bloated money sink that is the NHS, but who would like that.

I never said that democratic leaders are incapable of making unpopular decisions, however throughout their whole period in power they will always try to circumvent it as long as possible diluting the necessary measures, so as to be re-elected, and thus hampering good government.

[xcorps]

At xcorps

but the rights of citizens are determined by the government itself so there are no inherent differences between the rights of a citizen under a democracy or under a monarchy except for the fact that you chose who is at the top, and in-between your local councilman and the prime minister you have very little input as to who administers your rights. Anyway I'm not advocating feudalism but simply a ruling class devoid of the political squabbling that hampers progress, and I think that the old monarchies have changed into much more libertine and wiser institutions. IMO monarchical power at the state level and councils at the community level could provide the best of both worlds.

Rights are not determined by the government. That's the most important concept to understand. The right to speech is not granted by the Constitution, it's protected by it. Rights are granted by creation. By being human, you have rights. The power of government is such that it can only infringe upon the rights of the people. A representative democracy is the best vehicle for protecting those rights.

Wouldn't you accept a direct democracy? (With the obvious checks and balances - an independent judiciary, some kind of Constitution, etc).

No. A direct democracy is just as capable of tyranny and oppression as a monarchy, but with even less accountability.

[Rolling Thunder]

Rights are not determined by the government. That's the most important concept to understand. The right to speech is not granted by the Constitution, it's protected by it. Rights are granted by creation. By being human, you have rights. The power of government is such that it can only infringe upon the rights of the people. A representative democracy is the best vehicle for protecting those rights.



No. A direct democracy is just as capable of tyranny and oppression as a monarchy, but with even less accountability.

But where would the difference be if, instead of having 500+ Representatives/100+Senators voting on given political issues, we had 100+million Americans? The Constitution is still there, the Supreme Court is still there, the executive is still there. Where exactly is the difference?

[xcorps]

But where would the difference be if, instead of having 500+ Representatives/100+Senators voting on given political issues, we had 100+million Americans? The Constitution is still there, the Supreme Court is still there, the executive is still there. Where exactly is the difference?

First, the logistical cluster that direct democracy entails. Who gets to introduce legislation? How do you make sure that proposed legislation is read and voted on by every single eligible voter?

Second, imagine it's June 11, 1963. Kennedy has just asked for a bill "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments,"

How do you think a direct democracy would have responded at the time?