NationStates Jolt Archive

havent we gone far enough in our evolutionaly epoch for us to cast aside democracy and rest power in the hands of one ruler who rules with fear and oppression which will garentee that a quick and desisive action will be taken when needed instead of debating the situation in a comitee. therefore if power rests with one person the country will thrive and the people will be better off. TOO MUCH FREEDOM CAUSES DISCONTENT AND LEADS TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE GOVERNMENT AND OF THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE :twisted:

Democracy is impractical, inefficient, and unwise. My nation has over a billion people. If I was a democratic nation, I'd have a billion voices screaming at me to please them. It just doesn't work.

True democracy is an unattainable ideal.
Too often it is espoused by those who in fact practice oligarchy, which is the de facto operating model for most systems.
We prefer tribal consensus. Organize society into small tribes, each of which operates by consensus. Not much gets done, but active governments are a threat to order and peaceful living anyway. What does get done has automatic 100% approval.

Democracy is the worst of the best systems.

Actually some call it an ideal. But it can be described as well as a state where the original strength has been sucked out of a nation and extreem concessions to the public needed to not make them revolt.

About the size of the nation, I don't think that matters that much. First of all, you need only 50%, and they are only going to vote on the candidates that are on tv. And heck, they are not voting for if you make them happy, they are voting for if they like you face ;).

On the bright side, it gives a stronger mandate to the government. It can say it actually has the backing of the government. However if the goverment then does bad things, the public can not really be concidered innocent civilians either, because heck they voted for that government.

But the main advantage is that the government is forced to listen. (and is in the mean time stuck with a big smile, not much else person). I guess a dictatorship that listens just as much to the people would do fine as well. However, dictators have a tendency to not listen that often. I guess it is just to troublesome for then :P.

Democracy may only be a few steps removed from anarchy, but it is queiter.

I lvoe democracy. It allows all these great people to get into office: George Bush Jr., Adolf Hitler, Mugabe, Joseph Estrada, Ferdinand Marcos, Margaret Thatcher, and that Australian MP Hanson (she wasn't prime minister but did hold a high office).

Democracy sucks, it's inefficient, slow and it allows the stupid people to make the most noise. However it is much better than a communist system or such.

We feel that democracy is a necessary <i>principle</i> of government, but that it must applied in an intelligent and balanced fashion. Government is two nearly antithetical things: it is absolutely necessary, and it is mortally dangerous. The trick is to obtain the benefits of governments without being consumed by it. We feel that by balancing the elective principle (democracy) with the hereditary principle (monarchy) we can obtain the kind of government that serves the people's needs without trampling on their rights.

I'd like to make a distinction that I believe is important here.

On the one hand is the general principle of "democratic government", in the sense of government where "the people" at large, as opposed to an entrenched select few, are the center of political power. Although we realize that this is an ideal which can never be perfectly achieved, we believe that it is incontrovertible that it is an ideal worth striving towards, and condemn any nation which does not strive towards it.

*Once* a nation has decided to pursue a democratic path, there is a further issue to decide: "The people" do not, in fact, all agree about every issue facing a country, or indeed, about practically *any* issue facing a country. How these disputes are to be resolved--whether by simple "majority rule," a single representative elected by a plurality, a parliamentary system of representation, any of the above limited by a constitution that requires a large supermajority to change, or even a "tribal consensus" system like the one Collaboration uses--is a much more difficult question. We believe that each of these paths, though each has its problems, deserves to be described as "democratic," and we are prima facie inclined to treat such nations as having, at the least, political legitimacy (though we may disagree strongly with their policies).

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

I lvoe democracy. It allows all these great people to get into office: George Bush Jr., Adolf Hitler, Mugabe, Joseph Estrada, Ferdinand Marcos, Margaret Thatcher, and that Australian MP Hanson (she wasn't prime minister but did hold a high office).

Pauline Hanson did not hold all that high an office. She simply led a small political party, that happened to be very vocal, and she got one or two seats in parliament.

Robert Mugabe isn't really that good an example, because he has rigged at least one election, so he simply voted himself back in.

Adolf Hitler isn't a great example either, because the German people weren't exactly given a lot of choice: The Communist party, or the Nazi party.

For those people who say that we have too much democracy they are complete fools and have no idea how to run a country what so ever.You see what makes a country great is the people.If your not ready to take that burden on your shoulders to take care of your country then either resign or abdicate.