When I was young, I thought the concept of democracy (or more accurately the idea of a Republic) was the bestest thing ever. Loved it, couldn't wait until I could vote, everything. Now, I'm as cynical as one can get. I no longer really care what form of government appears in front of me, as long as it promotes stability and general well-being that I can understand how I fit in. i.e. as long as I don't live in a country like Pakistan and I'm good. As long as the leaders are competent, I really don't care about the rest. IMO, those in power will always be able to find ways to manipulate the public perception regardless of the form of government. Even in a Republic like ours or in Europe, politicians will always find be able to divert the public's attention to inane matters. The general population has no clue as to how to run the country, so it's not like they have good opinions on the matter. Having so much information and transparency only makes it so that people can't see what's important hidden among loads of useless information. So what's the difference between hiding things in plain sight, or simply telling the people that they can't look? In the end, I find that structural stability matters most in a country. That at least the people in charge are generally competent and doesn't run the country into the ground. I really don't care how they reach that end, or how much they personally profit from the process.
I think Churchill put it very well. Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the other ones that have been tried. I would actually prefer that there be no governments, but unfortunately there are assholes out there that would keep it from working.
I voted "no." Democracies have happily gone to war with each other over resources and pettier issues. Democracy is a loaded term. To some people it assumes freedom of the press, of political expression, of speech...others a parliamentary procedure, yet others think it implies equality. Democracy inevitably becomes the tyranny of uneducated masses, not unlike a rural school board. I'm not going to rubber stamp a "yes" to a question like that, because if I did, I wouldn't be making an effort to think. I think a Republic is a vastly different animal, and by design, has the ability to scale for larger populations. It's still incredibly flawed. Democracy would never work in the US much less most developing nations without the union inevitably disintegrating into hostile states, IMHO.
This is where I have a problem with the wording of the poll. It doesn't say, "Do you support a democracy?" It asks, "Do you support democracy?" You say that "a Republic is a vastly different animal," but what we live in is a democratic republic, founded on democratic ideas. Flawed, of course, but one of the most successful in history. I don't see this as an "either, or" choice. We have numerous successful democracies in the world, some with a parliamentary form of government, some more similar to our own.
Democracy for all. Ofcourse, democracy is weak without the proper systems, controls, checks and balances. But a corrupt democracy is better than a corrupt dictatorship IMO.
I support liberty. Though not perfect, democracy seems the best available process to attain that. Yes Hitler was voted in democratically. But that we can even GET to vote in this thread is something a democratic process can allow. There's always going to be issues of getting EVERYONE toward a desired outcome. Though DIVERSITY is preached, it seems people have a problem with that and want STANDARDIZATION. When things don't get finalized they way they want, they want throw the process out the window that didnt get their desired outcome for one that will. Why not just accept the diversity and differences among people? I've said that there are too many advocacy groups out there running interference in society trying to shove their agendas down everyone's throats. In part cuz US democracy allows it. But I'd rather debate over headache inducing ideological clashes every day, than be in lockstep under authoritarian rule which doesnt give people options. And do it without having to carry a rifle out on the streets and set myself on fire to ignite change.
Can agree with a lot of that. The people themselves no matter WHAT THE process, are capable of corruption. There really is no corruption-immune method. Then also, people no matter the methodology are capable of being GOOD and fair. So its about whats in the people to begin with. Still in short, having even the slightest faint chance of enacting a "do-over option" within the PEOPLE is just not something worth giving up even if its for a good and fair ruling family. It can be the difference in a couple decades of corruption or a LIFETIME of corruption. Seems to me that some people almost don't mind being coerced and BULLIED into decisions. Its something that the opportunist will feast on. Using a pretty weak example - at work people don't like having meetings to discuss matters. They'd rather the "efficiency" of an alpha manager figure laying down the law solving the matter for them. Not cuz they totally agree with the decision, its cuz they're intellectually lazy and don't want to challenge things to mess up the "stability". Then later months down the line they'll complain. But by then the manager who made the rule feels more empowered and will be more intolerant and non-receptive to change things. Simply because they didnt CHOOSE to CHALLENGE it in the FIRST place. But, everyone at least had the CHOICE to do something. I'll never say cuz you failed in using the democratic process and that the manager let power get to his head that you should have it REVOKED. Or hope that a better manager comes along.
I think you are mistaking the principle of democracy with the practice of it here in the US. I fully agree we have problems with our democracy but that doesn't mean its a bad idea in principle and if you are criticizing the idea of democracy based upon our democracy then you have to consider the alternative which is authoritarianism.
That sounds very similar to what Lee Kwan Yu has said about democracy and human rights, keep in mind that Singapore is technically a democracy. The problem with that reasoning is that how do you hold an incompetent leader accountable if there isn't the power for the people to vote them out of office? Under a democracy you still have the option of choosing to retain a competent leader while voting out an incompetent one. Without it you are stuck with an incompetent leader until you can have a revolution to remove them.
I support freedom. Freedom has generally been expanded more under constitutional democratic republics than other forms of government, but it's not a hard and fast rule. I'd argue that even with less political freedom, Iranians had more personal freedom under the Shah than they do now. Hong Kong is one of the most free places on earth, and isn't very democratic. I chose yes, and I stand by that, but it's not really that simple.
I agree. Democracies work best with an educated electorate and a very strong constitution and bill of rights.
The problem is that this is based on the belief that the people KNOWS who the best leader is. You're basically saying that people vote for the right people, and that they do so based on substance. The public vote on who they like, not who's best qualified to govern.
Why? I guess .. one supports group of cronies and the other supports a PERSON and his group of cronies? Seems like they brother support only a small group . . is have a little bit larger group better . .really? Rocket River
Authoritarianism will always be superior to democracy, as long as the right authorities are in place. For the simple reason that stuff gets done a lot quicker and more efficiently. Of course, the problem is getting the right people into authority to begin with. That's where democracy tends to have a higher success rate (although that itself might be a somewhat subjective viewpoint). Like other posters have said, democracy is just one piece to the puzzle. I favor any system as long as it upholds the essential values of equitable freedom and justice for all people. The United States today represents the great successes and the great failures of democracy, all at the same time. And of course, every system is going to be riddled with faults and weaknesses that vary by principle and by implementation. I often imagine that a large nation with a Chinese-styled government, with value for human rights added, could quickly become the greatest civilization on earth.
People are arguing THE CONCEPT of Democracy. which is fine but in reality . . it is meaningless It is like saying: DO YOU SUPPORT NO MORE RACIAL CONFLICT? yes . . . yes I do HOW ABOUT IF IT IS ACCOMPLISHED BY KILLING OFF ALL BUT ONE RACE? HELL NO!! But in concept . .you are against Racial Conflict ? yea but . . . .with CONDITIONS being PRO Democracy is kewl . . but like others have stated it requires a bunch of conditions . . . Every person being allowed to vote is a democracy but if you limit who they can vote for. . . what's the point? maybe we should start with a bit more details Rocket River
Taking a vote to see who supports democracy. Is that like threatening someone as you demand they support authoritarianism?
