Democracy is the worst form of government...

Occams Barber · Aug 13, 2023

Blaise N said:
Though Winston “the British bulldog” Churchill was tough as steel,a noble and brave leader,and a historical legendary figure,the worst form of government is actually Marxism/communism

Where do things like monarchy or oligarchy or autocracy or plutocracy or gerontocracy (my mob :wave:

) fit on your political rating system?

OB

JSRG · Aug 13, 2023

Bradskii said:
‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

I've been thinking about this for quite some time (probably a lot more since the Brexit vote). There must surely be a way to improve the way we decide the major decisions that are needed to be made. Surely it's impossible to argue that what we have now is actually the best we can expect. As Winston also said:

'The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter'.

Somebody please cheer me up and tell me we can expect something better.

The second quote you post from Churchhill seems a false one, at least according to this:

Red Herrings: Famous Quotes Churchill Never Said

History Detectives A Concise List of Attributed Churchill Quotes which Winston Never Uttered Finest Hour 141, Winter 2008-09 Page 30 By Michael Richards The Oxford English Dictionary defined “red herring” […]

winstonchurchill.org

It says:

“The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

No attribution. Though he sometimes despaired of democracy’s slowness to act for its preservation, Churchill had a more positive attitude towards the average voter.

Searching around online, I find no source by anyone for this quote, apparently confirming the above. I suppose it's possible he said it somewhere, but without evidence I would be inclined to consider it a false quote.

Bradskii · Aug 13, 2023

JSRG said:
The second quote you post from Churchhill seems a false one, at least according to this:

Red Herrings: Famous Quotes Churchill Never Said

History Detectives A Concise List of Attributed Churchill Quotes which Winston Never Uttered Finest Hour 141, Winter 2008-09 Page 30 By Michael Richards The Oxford English Dictionary defined “red herring” […]

winstonchurchill.org

It says:

“The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
No attribution. Though he sometimes despaired of democracy’s slowness to act for its preservation, Churchill had a more positive attitude towards the average voter.

Searching around online, I find no source by anyone for this quote, apparently confirming the above. I suppose it's possible he said it somewhere, but without evidence I would be inclined to consider it a false quote.

It would be nice to definitely attribute it to him, but even if he never said it, I would still have posted it and attributed it to 'anon'. It was included to suggest that the problem with a democracy is the need for educated and responsible voters.

Occams Barber · Aug 13, 2023

Bradskii said:
I completely agree. But looking at the other side of that coin, does it mean that it's acceptable for a government (or whoever is in charge - even our good friend the 'benevolent dictator') to take actions that they actually know will lead to a public good but which goes against the will of the people?

It was a close call that the UK government actually did that with Brexit. They didn't have to listen to the people because the vote wasn't binding. And they could have reasonably said 'Look, this situation is a lot more complex than has been explained to you and you have made the wrong choice. So we're going to ignore what you said because, to put it bluntly, we know better than you do'.

In this case, with hindsight, that would have been the better course to take.

I suspect the big mistake was putting the question out for a public vote in the first place.

OB

Sketcher · Aug 13, 2023

Bradskii said:
Ah. Fair enough. I like your confidence. So you vote for a dictatorship.

As long as I get to be the dictator, it's great. Other dictators? Total disasters.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Aug 13, 2023

Whyayeman said:
I don't mean to restrict the discussion in any way but broadly speaking, yes. Either the population has some influence about public affairs or it doesn't.

The English King, Charles I, wanted to be an autocrat and was beheaded on that principle by those who would establish Parliament as sovereign.

Does one have a choice within a democracy to seperate oneself from the political? Or is one compelled to participate politically within the system?

If you object to totalitarianism, the problem you face with your own support of democracy is that it has compelled more people Into doing things and participating in the system than many kings have before it.

Are you in principle for absolute freedom or are there things we shouldn't expect to be free from?

Gene2memE · Aug 13, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
Hehheh... I saw what you did there.

How has Australia managed to avoid the worst effects of "Rupert", and the US and Britain hasn't?

Mostly because of Australian's innate national distrust of the wealthy/powerful, and the fact that we've not totally gutted and undermined trust in our state-supported but independent public broadcast media (ABC, SBS, Radio National). Not for lack of trying by the Liberal party.

Australia is also a little less 'outrage media' driven than the US and UK, although maybe we're just late in arriving to that particular party.

The BBC is hanging on mostly through dint of its BBC Studios commercial enterprise (which made more than 42% of all BBC revenue for the last 12 months). But its voice in the social/political space has been increasingly drowned out by the shouting from the rest of the media space.

In the US, there's PBS and NPR, but the impact of public broadcasters is a shadow of what it was formerly, because of the explosion of viewpoint-driven media options and the gradual erosion of their formerly very wide market exposure. As someone once put it, "It's hard to crave broccoli, when you're being constantly fed chocolate".

US public broadcasters have been under near constant attack by conservative groups for perceived viewpoint bias since the mid 1960s, with subsequent attempts to redress this. See, for instance, the Commission for Public Broadcasting decision to close down National Educational Television in 1970 due to 'controversial' documentaries being made, or the scandal in the mid 2000s about trying to shoehorn conservative commentators into PBS.

FireDragon76 · Aug 13, 2023

The bias thing is there, and perhaps somewhat unavoidable, but PBS does try. They do have David Brooks on PBS news hour, and he's an Evangelical Christian and conservative (just not a Trump fan).

Bradskii · Aug 13, 2023

Occams Barber said:
I suspect the big mistake was putting the question out for a public vote in the first place.

OB

Too right. The government at the time was playing politics with the future of the country.

Robban · Aug 14, 2023

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Does one have a choice within a democracy to seperate oneself from the political? Or is one compelled to participate politically within the system?

If you object to totalitarianism, the problem you face with your own support of democracy is that it has compelled more people Into doing things and participating in the system than many kings have before it.

Are you in principle for absolute freedom or are there things we shouldn't expect to be free from?

The most difficult form of freedom to obtain is freedom from "self".

That is why we must leave our personal Egypt and captivity every day.

Easier said than done. But is true freedom.

"The smaller you make yourself, the easier to escape your cell,
yeast makes a little dough into a big loaf of hot air,

It's the gameplay that imprisons us all."

From the wisdom of the Lubavitcher Rebbe

Robban · Aug 14, 2023

Robban said:
The most difficult form of freedom to obtain is freedom from "self".

That is why we must leave our personal Egypt and captivity every day.

Easier said than done. But is true freedom.

"The smaller you make yourself, the easier to escape your cell,
yeast makes a little dough into a big loaf of hot air,

It's the gameplay that imprisons us all."

From the wisdom of the Lubavitcher Rebbe

Would add though, only with God's help can we achieve it.

The tribe of Efraim left Egypt before all the others and were defeated in battle
om entering the land of Canaan.

Whyayeman · Aug 14, 2023

Bradskii said:
True democracy would be a simple vote on a matter, the majority holding sway. An example of that would be Brexit (although the vote wasn't legally binding, it was accepted as the will of the people by the government).

That was an incredibly complex decision to make with countless implications that the average person in the street could not have been expected to fully comprehend. A great example, in my opinion, where democracy was quite possibly the worst means of determining an action.

I thought this result, close as it was, was a perfect example of the weakness of the referendum in general. Brexit was complex, too complex for a simple once and for all vote. People voted on the issue with a host of conflicting opinions, many for reasons unconnected with EU membership.

The UK is a parliamentary democracy, which means that men and women are sent to Parliament to enact Parliament's sovereign power. Instead they submitted to the referendum decision. I think (I would, being a 'remainer') Parliament dodged their responsibility. There has never been a majority of MPs in favour of leaving the EU.

Government by referendum is not good democracy.

Whyayeman · Aug 14, 2023

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Does one have a choice within a democracy to seperate oneself from the political? Or is one compelled to participate politically within the system?

The answer is obvious. One has a choice. Compulsion is the antithesis of democracy. In Australia (and New Zealand?) voters are required to attend the poll, but not to participate. In the UK voters need not attend. Thjere is no compulsion in any democratic country I can think of democacy.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Aug 14, 2023

Whyayeman said:
The answer is obvious. One has a choice. Compulsion is the antithesis of democracy. In Australia (and New Zealand?) voters are required to attend the poll, but not to participate. In the UK voters need not attend. Thjere is no compulsion in any democratic country I can think of democacy.

No compulsion of anyone in any democratic society? Are you serious?

Whyayeman · Aug 14, 2023

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
No compulsion of anyone in any democratic society? Are you serious?

I really don't know what you are driving at.

Perhaps you could elucidate.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Aug 14, 2023

Whyayeman said:
I really don't know what you are driving at.

Perhaps you could elucidate.

Do you believe democratic countries don't compel their citizens?

Whyayeman · Aug 14, 2023

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Do you believe democratic countries don't compel their citizens?

How is this relevant here?

Ignatius the Kiwi · Aug 14, 2023

Whyayeman said:
How is this relevant here?

You are the one who said there are only 2 choices. Totalitarianism or democracy. Do you believe the latter compels people or not?

Do you want to discuss this with any sincerity or just an ideological frame? If the latter then there's no point continuing.

Bradskii · Aug 14, 2023

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Do you believe democratic countries don't compel their citizens?

The compulsion being discussed is the compulsion to vote. It's a given that the elected government does compel their citizens in many ways. There aren't many governments that suggest that you don't drive at 120kph in a school zone.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Aug 14, 2023

Bradskii said:
The compulsion being discussed is the compulsion to vote. It's a given that the elected government does compel their citizens in many ways. There aren't many governments that suggest that you don't drive at 120kph in a school zone.

Uh, no. Compulsion is compulsion, period. My point is that there is no such thing as a state offers absolute freedom and to say there is either only totalitarianism or democracy is on the face of it absurd. Democratic states can be just as totalitarian as any dictatorship. They aren't special.

Democracy is the worst form of government...

Newbie

Well-Known Member

“The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”​

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

“The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”​

Newbie

Born Imperishable

Dissident

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

-----------

-----------

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Dissident

Similar threads

“The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

“The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”