NationStates Jolt Archive

Is a democracy the best political orientation a country can achieve?

The main concept which is crucial to democracy, I think, is the true consent of the governed. But if the masses in a country consent to a dictatorship, which they do at times, or a constitutional monarch, or a Pope or Ayatolla whatever then I say fine. A lot of places still have a lot to work through before they could handle a real democracy.

A dictatorship can be the best form of government, while it can also be the worst. Just depends on the ruler.

The main concept which is crucial to democracy, I think, is the true consent of the governed.
At best Democracy only ensures that at lest 50% of those who voted consent to the government. Real world democracies often don't even do that - in the 2005 UK election, for example, Labour won a large majority in parliament with one 35% of the vote (22% of the electorate).

But still, the majority of those who voted consent to the government. In a sense, if you had to ask "does the country support their government?" the answer would be "more than any other government."

But still, the majority of those who voted consent to the government.
No! Let me repeat the previous statistic: in the 2005 UK election Labour won a large majority in parliament with only 35% of the vote - that's 35% of those who voted, which isn't a majority (and only 22% of the electorate, but that's their fault if they don't bother to vote).

But still, the majority of those who voted consent to the government. In a sense, if you had to ask "does the country support their government?" the answer would be "more than any other government."

They only must have a majority if there are only two choices.

Dictatorship is best. Sadly, humans are rubbish.
One day we'll develop a semi-benevolent AI dictator to rule us, and everybody can live happily ever after.

Dictatorship is best. Sadly, humans are rubbish.
One day we'll develop a semi-benevolent AI dictator to rule us, and everybody can live happily ever after.
I can't wait! We could have a society with robots and flying cars and everything, just like in Magnus, Robot Fighter! :p

Interestingly, many of the ancient Greek philosophers thought democracy was a terrible form of government. Of course, most of them, being educated, came from perhaps the more conservative families.

Dictatorship is best. Sadly, humans are rubbish.
One day we'll develop a semi-benevolent AI dictator to rule us, and everybody can live happily ever after.
Only if it was programmed sufficiently well (even AI systems are constrained by their programming), and given the results of the last 40 years of software development, that seems unlikely.

Interestingly, many of the ancient Greek philosophers thought democracy was a terrible form of government. Of course, most of them, being educated, came from perhaps the more conservative families.
Plus, ancient Greek democracy wasn't actually very democratic.

Is a democracy the best political orientation a country can achieve?

The main concept which is crucial to democracy, I think, is the true consent of the governed. But if the masses in a country consent to a dictatorship, which they do at times, or a constitutional monarch, or a Pope or Ayatolla whatever then I say fine. A lot of places still have a lot to work through before they could handle a real democracy.

Democracy is the highest form of government that can be achieved, primarily in its nobility of purpose. However, this is not to assume that democracy is necessarily the best form of government in any given situation. Often, a dictatorship is the preferred system of government, both because of the appeal of a popular charismatic leader to unite the people and in its efficiency. Indeed, a true democracy in this day and age is virtually impossible considering the number of people in any given state.

that's their fault if they don't bother to vote).

ah but maybe there not voting is a sign that they want a dictatorship? “Hail Blair” and such

I think democracy just like any other government works well in the right conditions (peace and prosperity most likely being that) you can see this by how democracy has drifted to totalitarianism in times of hardship and most importantly war also its important to note that it relies on the people being smart or at least not aggressive which is why democracy in a country like China were the population is very ignorant and with an itch for war wont work

Interestingly, many of the ancient Greek philosophers thought democracy was a terrible form of government. Of course, most of them, being educated, came from perhaps the more conservative families.

Certainly. I know I wouldn't want to live in a society where the a largely ignorant populace was given absolute autonomy over the government. Its institutionalized anarchy, really.

Dictatorship is best. Sadly, humans are rubbish.
One day we'll develop a semi-benevolent AI dictator to rule us, and everybody can live happily ever after.

lets hope it isn't a Mac *runs*

ah but maybe there not voting is a sign that they want a dictatorship? “Hail Blair” and such

I think democracy just like any other government works well in the right conditions (peace and prosperity most likely being that) you can see this by how democracy has drifted to totalitarianism in times of hardship and most importantly war also its important to note that it relies on the people being smart or at least not aggressive which is why democracy in a country like China were the population is very ignorant and with an itch for war wont work

Okay, it depends on what you're referring to as "democracy" here. If by "democracy" you mean a government based on democratic principles, in which a society may vote for representatives, as in the so-called "representative democracy" which is the current basis for government in many Western nations, then I see that as a form of government that could very well work. But pure "democracy" is about as unfeasible as it gets.

Plus, ancient Greek democracy wasn't actually very democratic.
True, I forgot that part.

I like institutionalized anarchy. Wasn't that the name of the former ruling party in Mexico?

Plus, ancient Greek democracy wasn't actually very democratic.

On the contrary, it was far more democratic than modern "democracies."

Only if it was programmed sufficiently well (even AI systems are constrained by their programming), and given the results of the last 40 years of software development, that seems unlikely.
It won't happen this week, no, sadly. Probably it'll wind up being programmed by another computer, which was programmed by a computer, and so on, each time improving. There's only so much complexity humans can program in themselves.

lets hope it isn't a Mac *runs*
Boots to sad face? Everybody has a bad day.

On the contrary, it was far more democratic than modern "democracies."
You couldn't vote if you were 'young' or female. Or a slave, of course...

You couldn't vote if you were 'young' or female. Or a slave, of course...

Yes, that's true. But given the context of society at the time, they weren't needed or viewed as critical to a functioning society. Women were largely used for procreation, little more than slaves themselves. But the actual concept and implementation of Athenian democracy, which provided for virtually unabridged power of the people over the government, was more "democratic" than what we see today. I'm not saying this is better, it was just more "democratic."

Yes, that's true. But given the context of society at the time, they weren't needed or viewed as critical to a functioning society. Women were largely used for procreation, little more than slaves themselves. But the actual concept and implementation of Athenian democracy, which provided for virtually unabridged power of the people over the government, was more "democratic" than what we see today. I'm not saying this is better, it was just more "democratic."
By that argument a psychotic dictatorship is democratic - the electorate consists of the dictator themself, who has total unabridged power over their actions; everyone else isn't critical to a functioning society, and are little more than the dictator's slaves.

By that argument a psychotic dictatorship is democratic - the electorate consists of the dictator themself, who has total unabridged power over their actions; everyone else isn't critical to a functioning society, and are little more than the dictator's slaves.

No. You have to have a functioning voting body comprised "of the people" to be considered a democracy.

No. You have to have a functioning voting body comprised "of the people" to be considered a democracy.
A dictator's a person - how many people does it need to be? You don't seem to regard voting for women and 'young' people (I'll go and look up the age the Greeks used in a while...) as significant. Could it still be a democracy restricting voting to people whose families have been in the country for at least 10 generations? Only people with sufficiently high IQ? Only members of some Electorate Club?

IMO, a representitive republic is the best form of government. But it does have weaknesses, and a big one is apathy. If most people are too lazy to vote, the leaders represent a smaller and more select group.

A dictator's a person - how many people does it need to be? You don't seem to regard voting for women and 'young' people (I'll go and look up the age the Greeks used in a while...) as significant. Could it still be a democracy restricting voting to people whose families have been in the country for at least 10 generations? Only people with sufficiently high IQ? Only members of some Electorate Club?

You're lack of understanding on this topic is astounding. I never said that voting for women and "young" people was insignificant. Let me clarify what I said earlier: In the context of Greek society, only landholding adult males were to be considered in the role of government. In today's society, where we have developed more "equal" definitions within society, it is thereby necessary to include women and citizens in the voting process. But I'm not arguing the fact that certain groups of people were restricted from voting. No, I said the concept and implementation of Athenian democracy, wherein the voting body was vested with the role of voting directly in order to influence the government. Compare that to today, where we vote in "representatives" to "represent" our views in parliament, congress, whatever--even the concept of a president or prime minister is a form of representative democracy. Athens was undeniably more democratic in its implementation than any government today.

Certainly. I know I wouldn't want to live in a society where the a largely ignorant populace was given absolute autonomy over the government. Its institutionalized anarchy, really.

I tend to think that if most people think they are being ruled the right way then they are being ruled the right way.

I tend to think that if most people think they are being ruled the right way then they are being ruled the right way.

I see no reason to disagree with you. Just as long as the "majority" respects the "minority." Remember the old adage "Majority rule, minority rights."

You're lack of understanding on this topic is astounding.
Why thank you.

I never said that voting for women and "young" people was insignificant. Let me clarify what I said earlier: In the context of Greek society, only landholding adult males were to be considered in the role of government. In today's society, where we have developed more "equal" definitions within society, it is thereby necessary to include women and citizens in the voting process. But I'm not arguing the fact that certain groups of people were restricted from voting. No, I said the concept and implementation of Athenian democracy, wherein the voting body was vested with the role of voting directly in order to influence the government. Compare that to today, where we vote in "representatives" to "represent" our views in parliament, congress, whatever--even the concept of a president or prime minister is a form of representative democracy. Athens was undeniably more democratic in its implementation than any government today.
So in other words you're saying that a system with a much more limited electorate can be more democratic provided the electorate has much more direct control over the government? Or are you not counting the definition of the electorate as part of the implementation of a democracy? If I misunderstand you, it is because you haven't made yourself clear.

Is a democracy the best political orientation a country can achieve?

The main concept which is crucial to democracy, I think, is the true consent of the governed. But if the masses in a country consent to a dictatorship, which they do at times, or a constitutional monarch, or a Pope or Ayatolla whatever then I say fine. A lot of places still have a lot to work through before they could handle a real democracy.
the best form of Political Orientation a country can have is one that the people are happy with.

Democratic Republic works for America, but to say that it will work for everyone isn't true. some people may want a dictatorship while others want a true Monarchy.

Why thank you.

You're welcome. Although I may have stepped out of line with that remark; in which case, I offer my apologies.

So in other words you're saying that a system with a much more limited electorate can be more democratic provided the electorate has much more direct control over the government? Or are you not counting the definition of the electorate as part of the implementation of a democracy? If I misunderstand you, it is because you haven't made yourself clear.

Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying. A system is considered more democratic the more direct control an electorate has over its government. The electorate can be expanded according to the definitions inherent in a society, but its direct control through the voting process is the primary concern with regard to a democracy.

I see no reason to disagree with you. Just as long as the "majority" respects the "minority." Remember the old adage "Majority rule, minority rights."
But that's not democracy. The ultimate consequence of democracy is unlimited majority rule.

But that's not democracy. The ultimate consequence of democracy is unlimited majority rule.

The ultimate consequence of pure democracy, yes. But today, in governments based more or less loosely on democratic principles, the rights of the minority are more able to be protected in a majority rule form of government.

A republic is the best form. It has stability as it has some oligarchic tendencies and will not lurch wildly against necessary policies. However, it still allows change from individual desires and keeps people from feeling trampled or disenfranchised. I don't think that progress can really go beyond a republic, otherwise systems become unadaptable, cannot purge themselves of corruption(can't throw the bums out!), and ultimately fail in some regard. Republics are not perfect, but nothing ever is, at the very least they don't for the most part saddle society with some inflexible ideology.

A poll about whether democracy is the best system! :rolleyes: Inherent bias, anyone? For balance, we must also use the dictatorial method and ask the most enlightened and brilliant individual which system is best. To which, I would reply, totalitarian dictatorship under my control. No? Damn.

The ultimate consequence of pure democracy, yes. But today, in governments based more or less loosely on democratic [/I]principles[I], the rights of the minority are more able to be protected in a majority rule form of government.
The most fundmental principle of democracy is that the people choose what the rules of society are. If they don't agree, they vote. And voting necessarily produces majority rule.

well it depend if it is representatieve or direct.
one will become a republic,the other one a wisper

Humans are too stupid to achieve any kind of half-decent government.

What we call "democracy" is analagous to a menu. The people don't rule in the sense of determining what the ingredients are, or how they should be cooked. They just pick the item on the menu that they hate the least.

Humans are too stupid to achieve any kind of half-decent government.


that is because they believe they are stupid ;)
half or not.

that is because they believe they are stupid ;)
half or not.

I wish people did believe they were stupid, then they might do something about it.

I wish people did believe they were stupid, then they might do something about it.
lol.

The highest form of governance is where everyone collectively knows exactly what needs to be done without argument. But, as we all know, that's boring. Thus, democracy.

I still maintain that a direct election for each cabinet position would be a superior method of government to any party system. By having the governing body made up of Specialist ministers, each chosen separately for their intended roles by the people, you are more likely to properly reflect the will of the people in each of those areas.

The best form of government would be one in which the leaders of various agencies (courts for example) were elected by the others in their field. This keeps ignorant voters from ruining the country (and everyone is ignorant of something) and it ensures that the cream of the crop in any given field has risen to the top.

The highest form of governance is where everyone collectively knows exactly what needs to be done without argument. But, as we all know, that's boring. Thus, democracy.

I still maintain that a direct election for each cabinet position would be a superior method of government to any party system. By having the governing body made up of Specialist ministers, each chosen separately for their intended roles by the people, you are more likely to properly reflect the will of the people in each of those areas.


It's not only boring, it's impossible. It would require some sort of enlightenment (not necessarily in the Buddhist sense), and that's something humans are completely incapable of.

It's not only boring, it's impossible. It would require some sort of enlightenment (not necessarily in the Buddhist sense), and that's something humans are completely incapable of.
It could be done through technology and/or isolationist brainwashing if necessary. But nobody wants that precisely because it makes life totally uninteresting for the citizen.

The best form of government would be one in which the leaders of various agencies (courts for example) were elected by the others in their field. This keeps ignorant voters from ruining the country (and everyone is ignorant of something) and it ensures that the cream of the crop in any given field has risen to the top.
I'd say that the problem with that system is the greater tendency for corruption. Others in the field would be more likely to know each other and such an election might come closer to a popularity contest where people vote for buddies. That is why I like a more republican type of government, pure democracy ends up being the majority ruling over the minority as the majority will vote for its interest, but more republican forms of government will likely tend to be competitive and although they will inescapably be corrupt, the corruption of one side is more likely to be thwarted by the self-interest of another group who will accuse them of being evil, etc. Any and every political system will have flaws as they involve people.

It could be done through technology and/or isolationist brainwashing if necessary. But nobody wants that precisely because it makes life totally uninteresting for the citizen.
Actually, I would say that it has nothing to do with boringness and more to do with the idea of human rights and with the lack of adaptability that this system would likely lead to as well as the great expense. Brainwashing is believed by many to be inhumane but even worse than that it would be costly and if there were bad policy tendencies a brainwashed policy would continue with them and keep on screwing themselves over. I am not sure what type of technology you speak of though, I have never heard of anything like that outside of sci-fi.

Democracys dont work well in times of crisis, or war. IN the world wars the British people sacrifised almost all of their freedoms, the House of Commons was virtually silenced. Therre was no 1942 election, etc

DORA allowed the government a free reign to move poeple to seize their property, to pay workers very little, and not recognise unions, ban strikes and protests etc...

Democracys dont work well in times of crisis, or war. IN the world wars the British people sacrifised almost all of their freedoms, the House of Commons was virtually silenced. Therre was no 1942 election, etc

DORA allowed the government a free reign to move poeple to seize their property, to pay workers very little, and not recognise unions, ban strikes and protests etc...

Democracys dont work well in times of crisis, or war. IN the world wars the British people sacrifised almost all of their freedoms, the House of Commons was virtually silenced. Therre was no 1942 election, etc

DORA allowed the government a free reign to move poeple to seize their property, to pay workers very little, and not recognise unions, ban strikes and protests etc...

I am not sure what type of technology you speak of though, I have never heard of anything like that outside of sci-fi.
I was thinking more in terms of handling the ideas through technology rather than controlling the individual with it. It is easier to be told what everyone thinks by a machine who analyses and unifies input ideas automatically than it is to be told it by another person.

A dictatorship can be the best form of government, while it can also be the worst. Just depends on the ruler.

A democracy can be the worse form of government, while it can also be the best. Just depends on the people.

I was thinking more in terms of handling the ideas through technology rather than controlling the individual with it. It is easier to be told what everyone thinks by a machine who analyses and unifies input ideas automatically than it is to be told it by another person.
I can't think of any machine that does that, nor can I really see that as a better system. The only way for that information to be gotten is through some form of survey(voting) and politically minded people will always try to support their cause and make it more popular. Ultimately, because a machine is too stupid to enact policy by itself it will need humans to interpret these human desires and these humans, having their own biases will try to fit their own desires. You can't have politics while removing the humanity behind it, such is not really possible.

Democracys dont work well in times of crisis, or war. IN the world wars the British people sacrifised almost all of their freedoms, the House of Commons was virtually silenced. Therre was no 1942 election, etc

DORA allowed the government a free reign to move poeple to seize their property, to pay workers very little, and not recognise unions, ban strikes and protests etc...
Of course they don't. When we have a major crisis what ends up happening is that freedom must be suppressed to focus our energies and resources to the problem, in peace, we don't have this one problem though, we have many of varying importance and as such we need freedom in order to determine which problem is more important and how far is acceptable to go to solve it.

A democracy can be the worse form of government, while it can also be the best. Just depends on the people.
Well, democracies tend to be rather stable and tend to better outcomes than dictatorships. A dictator can be anywhere from psychotic to benevolent, however a democracy is always bound to serve its voting populace which means that it is more likely to have a better outcome. Ultimately, I view a republic as the best system though because it rarely ends up being a tyranny of the majority, nor is it completely unresponsive to its people.

The highest form of governance is where everyone collectively knows exactly what needs to be done without argument. But, as we all know, that's boring. Thus, democracy.

I still maintain that a direct election for each cabinet position would be a superior method of government to any party system. By having the governing body made up of Specialist ministers, each chosen separately for their intended roles by the people, you are more likely to properly reflect the will of the people in each of those areas.
That puts the people too close to the decisions of governance. The people are dumb: for example, they don't understand macroeconomics well enough to make the nation's financial decisions.

The people will always vote for the guy who tells the most attractive lie.

Is a democracy the best political orientation a country can achieve?
*shudder* NO!

Pure democracy is one of the most oppressive and horrid systems I could imagine.

"Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner."
-Forgot

While democracy is far from perfect, it is quite simply the most reasonable and justified government form implemented thus far.

While dictatorships, monarchies, etc. can be very effective, and popular, the problem is when you come across an ineffective dicatator or monarch. The issue of sucession, or validation of leadership in these scenarios are often catastrophic for the nation. Thus, some 'democracies', are at best a token nod from the people at who the next dictator is going to be.

Democracies provide a non-violent means of conflict resolution among their constituents. This means, that within constitutional guidelines, difficult questions can be decided in a matter that's least disrupting to the majority of the populace.

Again, democracies are far from perfect, but can always be amended, and perfected. It's much harder to change a dictatorship.

That puts the people too close to the decisions of governance. The people are dumb: for example, they don't understand macroeconomics well enough to make the nation's financial decisions.

The people will always vote for the guy who tells the most attractive lie.
True, that is why I don't like government intervention in the economy for the most part. Governments do a worse job than the market for the most part.