Democracy is the worst form of government...

[Whyayeman]

Electors are already well educated

All of them? Well enough? I agree that most of the electorate have a reasonably good general education, and yet, many of the political institutions here (in the UK) are poorly understood. I think civics is not much taught here and our electors are under-equipped as a result.

I want to see an electorate that is robust enough to resist the pressures the media can apply. Here as in America the press is far from neutral. In my view this necessitates a public wise to the power of propaganda and the ways influence can work upon them. This requires the development of the critical faculty. I am not sure that educators pay this enough attention.

 

[JSRG]

He was? Where did he say that?

As I brought up earlier, it doesn't seem Churchill ever said that.

 

[rjs330]

As I brought up earlier, it doesn't seem Churchill ever said that.

Ah.. I missed that post.

 

[timewerx]

You can come from a humble background and attend a quality university. Hawke I mentioned earlier. Working class background but smart enough to get to Oxford.

I did put an "OR" in my sentence so I did also mean that you can come from an Ivy league school without privileged upbringing.

Yet my point is they're still coming from the same mold. People who have been "winning" all their lives. Success at every step. Never broken long enough. They could not understand what a broken man or woman feels. Trying to fix a problem you never had. It's going to be futile.

The candidate choices are limited only to people who only knows how to serve the elites in our society and thus keeping most of the power and wealth to only small % of population.

I think what we really have is a hybrid of democracy and autocracy. With our politicians coming from the same mold, thinks the same, has the same agendas. It's like virtually controlled by one person and if they all agree on the fundamentals then what they have is absolute power. Many people acting as one with absolute power is the same as autocracy only disguised as democracy.

 

[FireDragon76]

I did put an "OR" in my sentence so I did also mean that you can come from an Ivy league school without privileged upbringing.

Yet my point is they're still coming from the same mold. People who have been "winning" all their lives. Success at every step. Never broken long enough. They could not understand what a broken man or woman feels. Trying to fix a problem you never had. It's going to be futile.

The candidate choices are limited only to people who only knows how to serve the elites in our society and thus keeping most of the power and wealth to only small % of population.

I think that's a more salient problem in the US than in the UK or Australia. In the US, there's a long tradition of the brahmins buying their way or getting legacy admissions to prestigious colleges. It's the dirty little secret of our "meritocracy".

 

[timewerx]

I think that's a more salient problem in the US than in the UK or Australia. In the US, there's a long tradition of the brahmins buying their way or getting legacy admissions to prestigious colleges. It's the dirty little secret of our "meritocracy".

Often they don't have to buy into their status. They just need to become a member of a fraternity and often fraternities would uphold "brotherhood" over sound moral principles.

The system these fraternities have is much closer to autocracy than democracy. And members will uphold the brotherhood over democracy itself.

You can see where this is going.

 

[FireDragon76]

Often they don't have to buy into their status. They just need to become a member of a fraternity and often fraternities would uphold "brotherhood" over sound moral principles.

The system these fraternities have is much closer to autocracy than democracy. And members will uphold the brotherhood over democracy itself.

You can see where this is going.

Well, fraternities have more to do with what happens after college, and very little to do with who gets admitted.

 

[timewerx]

Well, fraternities have more to do with what happens after college

That's what I meant. What happens after college. It is the main reason why people get into fraternities to broaden their opportunities in life.

So they can get into positions they may not be qualified for nor the best person available for the job.

Their allegiance to the brotherhood supersedes reason. In essence, they only care about the needs of brotherhood and nobody else. They cannot defy the brotherhood so what we have is autocracy within democracy.

 

[Whyayeman]

With our politicians coming from the same mold,

How true is this really?

The Wikipedia records of the Presidents in the Twentieth Century show that your presidents come from a variety of backgrounds and locations as well as a range of education, from entering family businesses to scholarships to Ivy League Universities and just about everything in between.

 

[Bradskii]

The candidate choices are limited only to people who only knows how to serve the elites in our society and thus keeping most of the power and wealth to only small % of population.

Well, if your candidate choices are that limited then that's a good argument for change. As I said earlier, the Australian system as regards a federal election is very different to the US one. You vote for (generally) one of two, who in turn were selected by either of the two parties. We have a much more varied and diverse field, some of whom, in each electorate, are just everyday citizens who want their voice to be heard. A few years ago for example my son-in-law was on the ballot.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

‘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.

You've probably heard of this quote from Andrew Breitbart: "Politics is downstream from culture, culture is downstream from religion." There is no "best" form of government, only the most suitable form of government for each individual nation according to their own religion. Democracy works in a small, homogenous community, but for a large, diverse population like the Israelites in the wilderness, the answer is in the Torah - a top-down aristocracy.

Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God will be with you: Stand before God for the people, so that you may bring the difficulties to God. And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do. Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And let them judge the people at all times. Then it will be that every great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they themselves shall judge. So it will be easier for you, for they will bear the burden with you. If you do this thing, and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all this people will also go to their place in peace.”So Moses heeded the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said. And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people: rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. So they judged the people at all times; the hard cases they brought to Moses, but they judged every small case themselves. (Exodus 18:19-26)

 

[Bradskii]

You've probably heard of this quote from Andrew Breitbart: "Politics is downstream from culture, culture is downstream from religion." There is no "best" form of government, only the most suitable form of government for each individual nation according to their own religion. Democracy works in a small, homogenous community, but for a large, diverse population like the Israelites in the wilderness, the answer is in the Torah - a top-down aristocracy.

That's true. True democracy works if there's half a dozen of you. Even up to a few thousand as was the case in ancient Athens. But the bigger you get, the more cumbersome it becomes.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

That's true. True democracy works if there's half a dozen of you. Even up to a few thousand as was the case in ancient Athens. But the bigger you get, the more cumbersome it becomes.

Regardless of population size and composition, there are at least three fatal flaws in democracy: first, voters can vote the nation's wealth out of federal treasury by electing a communist, you get the typical "tax the rich" policies, which end up destroying the middle class, the most productive group first and foremost;

Second, in a monarchy, oligarchy or aristocracy, when things go south, only the elites to make policies are held accountable, and there's a chance to have the mistakes fixed by replacing one or all of them, either peacefully or violently; in a democracy, however, the rulers in the government are representatives of their constituents, they can say that they make bad policies in response to their constituents' demands, therefore the blame can be shifted to all of their constituents.

Third, a democracy can be hijacked by special interest groups, the real powers that be who are running the nation behind the false front of those supposedly elected representatives. Those bad policies are bad because they are made for the best interest of those special interest groups, not their constituents. Even if you vote the current leader out of office, their successor is still under the same influence, and there won't be any fundamental changes, because the whole system is corrupt. Today's government is not only corrupt, but weaponized against anybody they don't like, including people of faith.

 

[Bradskii]

Regardless of population size and composition, there are at least three fatal flaws in democracy: first, voters can vote the nation's wealth out of federal treasury by electing a communist.

The purpose of the thread is to see what is the best way to rule in the best interests of the people. Saying that those voted into power by democratic means are doing exactly what the people wanted is a plus in favour for democracy, irrespective of the politics of the voters. It's disingenuous to declare a system to be a bad one if it results in policies that you don't like and a good one if you do like the policies.

Second, in a monarchy, oligarchy or aristocracy, when things go south, only the elites to make policies are held accountable, and there's a chance to have the mistakes fixed by replacing one or all of them, either peacefully or violently; in a democracy, however, the rulers in the government are representatives of their constituents, they can say that they make bad policies in response to their constituents' demands, therefore the blame can be shifted to all of their constituents.

If they give the people what they want and it all goes pear shaped then the constituents are indeed at fault. You can't demand that someone implements the policies that you want and then blame them if they don't work.

Third, a democracy can be hijacked by special interest groups...

That would be true for any system. Except for a dictatorship when the special interest group is the one running the whole show.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

The purpose of the thread is to see what is the best way to rule in the best interests of the people. Saying that those voted into power by democratic means are doing exactly what the people wanted is a plus in favour for democracy, irrespective of the politics of the voters. It's disingenuous to declare a system to be a bad one if it results in policies that you don't like and a good one if you do like the policies.

Well mathematically it doesn't even cover the majority of the people. Usually voter turnout rate is 50%-60% for a presidential election, which means only 50%-60% of the eligible voters have actually voted, so the winner only represent 25%-30% of all voters, and that percentage is even lower if you take the kids and other ineligible people into account. For small local office positions, this turnout rate could be as low as 10%-20%, some run without opponent, so these local leaders only represent a small portion of people, and yet they usually have more power and authority than the federal government in their jurisdictions. So whether it is the best way or not, at least the void of a leader is not really the voice of the people.

If they give the people what they want and it all goes pear shaped then the constituents are indeed at fault. You can't demand that someone implements the policies that you want and then blame them if they don't work.

That would be true for any system. Except for a dictatorship when the special interest group is the one running the whole show.

Different people always have different demands, there's no "what the people want", 'cause you can't please everyone, those who try to please everyone often end up pleasing no one. Also, didn't I mention those special interest groups? What they want and what the constituents want do not align, their best interest is often contrary to the constituents' best interest, and yet the elected officials still pretend that's what the people want, that's blaming the victim.

 

[Whyayeman]

there are at least three fatal flaws in democracy

Only three?

I agree that there are weaknesses in democracy. The Churchill quote which kicked off this discussion acknowledged that. So having this common ground, what suggestions for strengthening democratic processes are available?

The self-interest of voters is not in itself a flaw. Voters should take their own interests into account. They are not just about the money. There is trhe question of equality of opportunity, a corner-stone of democracy. How do the children of the poorest obtain an education without some kind of redistributive taxation?

I would say that in a democracy the electorate should bear responsibility for the mistakes of their representatives, and recognising that they have fallen short, replace them. This seems a self-evident fact for any democracy.

Special interest groups are actually healthy for democracy. what else are the political parties? However, blaming mistakes on some hidden power - 'the real powers that be who are running the nation behind the false front' - sounds a bit paranoid to me. The British 'establishment' is one such power but its influence can be exaggerated because it is not monolithic. These dark forces are best countered by shining the light of public knowledge on them. That is the role of the media.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Only three?

“At least.”

 

[Whyayeman]

“At least.”

Agreed. The thread is not to pick out the flaws merely; what are the possible remedies for the various weaknesses of democratic systems?

Here are a couple to mull:

A thorough civic education which explores the roots of government and explains the workings of democratic institutions and states;

Regulation of capitalism - a workable legal framework which allows enterprise but protects the weak and the poor from capitalist excesses.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Agreed. The thread is not to pick out the flaws merely; what are the possible remedies for the various weaknesses of democratic systems?

Here are a couple to mull:

A thorough civic education which explores the roots of government and explains the workings of democratic institutions and states;

Regulation of capitalism - a workable legal framework which allows enterprise but protects the weak and the poor from capitalist excesses.

Regardless of all its flaws, at least we deserve a legitimate democracy, not a rigged one. There’s a long history of election fraud, it’s not just 2020, that’s a whole big can of worms I’m not gonna touch, but you know what I’m getting at, *wink wink nudge nudge*.

 

[Whyayeman]

There’s a long history of election fraud, it’s not just 2020, that’s a whole big can of worms I’m not gonna touch, but you know what I’m getting at, *wink wink nudge nudge*.

I am afraid I don't know about 'your long history of election fraud'. You'll have to be specific if you want to pursue this line.

The recent history of American Presidential elections is not one of fraud. Al Gore was pipped to the post by his near miss in Florida, but there was no widespread or systematic fraud as far as I know. Trump lost by a landslide last time round despite his unfounded allegations. (Just so you know where I stand on that issue.)

I woulds rather read comments on ways to improve democratic processes. That could include safeguarding elections but that has already been well aired elsewhere.