Democracy, the system of systems?
 

We have been shown many times how democracy is the "least worse of political systems" and its advantages and freedoms compared to the previous systems: despotic monarchies, tyrannic authoritarianisms,... We know its wonders in theory; however, we know its weak points in practice.

We have seen how every four years we are presented two people to vote for; whom we would know nothing about, if it weren't for the party they're members of or the promises they make. We know how peaceful protests and signature gathering has turned a tedious labor no one pays attention to.

It seems that the current democratic system wants a voiceless people. Perhaps that's what we wanted to, a system that won't let us work in the common issues; one that gathers people who will do the hard work for us.

On another side there's the size issue. The larger a democracy is, the smaller the value of a vote or the individual will be. Democracy is supposed to work as in Ancient Greece, in city-States, reduced populations where the people spoke directly.

So, is the current democracy the so called system of systems?

Don't forget how pure democracy is just a fancy way of saying "mob rule". If the people are the sole deciders of their livelihood without a leader, it always leads to anarchy.

So in that sense, I'd say democracy is really one of the worse forms of government. Republics tend to work better.... It did for the Romans until Caesar came.

But if by "current democracy" you mean what we see now (which isn't really pure democracy), then I'd answer, "I don't know." If everyone here (and I've seen many people here already) claims that "democracy is bad" and/or "democracy is why our problems exist", then there's a serious misconception going around, in that it is assumed that because things aren't going right, that automatically means that there's something wrong with the system. But think outside the box for a second: consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the system has always worked, but that those in power are simply bending it to their own will. Perhaps, if bent "properly", it can turn ugly.

After all, fire is a wonderful tool, but it can be dangerous if misused. Does that automatically mean that fire is always bad? No! It means that fire can be bent in favor of those who're using it. And I assert that the "democracy" that currently envelopes Europe and America is being misused... and in some cases, the rules are BROKEN.

Democracy is one of the worst systems , due to it's sideeffect of letting people believe they are free and can make free decisions with writing on a piece of paper who they would rather have for their leader of their country , it makes people carefree .

IMO there is no system that could ever work with the human society and the human mindset , besides you and your people can never be free , no matter what kind of "President" or party is leading your country and giving you rules you have to obey , demoncracy is an insidious, stupidifying process that came over people , with the aim to make them weak-willed within time .

Insulting the concept doesn't make you any more right.

I'm not insulting the concept , the concept is actually quite nice , if they would actually convert it into reality .

Democracy is a great idea... we just need a country that actually has it.

*applauds*

Just to bump the topic, a comment of my father on modern democracy (he works for the Conservative Party here, in the Spanish Parliament):

"Democracy just names the way government is formed. For the rest..."

I personally think representative democracy is useless -if you want real participation for the people, direct democracy or consensus societies would work the best; if you want effectiveness for a large State affairs, put an absolute king or a dictator.

But a 50/50 just doesn't work -it keeps both sides unhappy.

In all honesty the best government system is called communism. It's a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. On paper the theory is beautiful and would be extraordinary. The problem lies in the fact that humans make mistakes and humans have error and greed. Therefor communism is not a practical system of government but on paper its good. Now for the most practical I would go with socialism. combines the benefits of a democratic capitalist society but also the benefits of land being owned by the people which includes some private enterprise and some government enterprise.

With the government wielding almost complete power over everyone? No thanks...

With absolutely no drive so succeed, to improve, to innovate, or indeed to do anything outside of your predefined box?
Communism relies on people being numbers, not individuals.

Indeed...

Yeah -we've got Big Brother here in Europe...

In all honesty, social democracies work -I'd say even better than liberal democracies since it provides education, health care and economic help for people in need through a strong taxation system paid by quite high salaries -this is the situation of France.

Woodsprite: let's not brand systems without knowing what they actually are or how they actually work -specially if all you can bring is a superficial knowledge on just the Soviet Union. Soviet Communism is a small branch of the whole Marxist theory, you know.

But again, it's not power for the people. Real power for the people means I get asked and decide on the matters that affect me -what can't happen in large countries.

I agree with you.

As does each and every way to keep millions and millions of people under the same rules. Communism is not the way to control millions of people, neither is democracy.

We have these in Finland too. But it seems like people are still unhappy no matter what.


I agree with this 100%. There is no way any government could listen to individuals or even small groups in large countries.

Democracy is 50.01% of people making decisions not caring about the 49.99%.

Socialism _would_ be better in this regard, but we know who we are: greedy and ignorant.

By the way...

Why this thing of the numbers and persons sounds familiar to me?

I agree on how smaller democracies would work better. Much better. I think the problems we face with "the system" are natural. This is what happens when the tribe gets too big.

Well, true democracy is anarchy. And I say democracy is better than republics. I have a problem putting people in charge of other people, even if they voted for them. It's a fine line, between having a Jake lead the people and having someone tell what the people can and cannot do.

You are right though, on how democracy can be good or bad. I think the problem with modern democracy is the real lack of choice. Two choices, as said earlier. That's it. But 24 different flavors of ice cream! Keep on rockin' the free world!

I disagree. I think democracy can be good. But like I said, the tribe has gotten too big. Maybe someday we can find a way for "the small people" to have a voice in a large population. (I think the answer to that, in many ways is the responsibility of the small people. In that case, the small people need to stand up for their voice, question everything, and speak up) In short, what HNM said,

Going back to fkeua vrrtep, be careful not to confuse democracy and capitalism. It's getting harder to differentiate the two these days since they have merged into modern society. Anyways, I believe a lot of the lack of choices, limited freedoms, and having no say in government - all come from capitalism. I think of capitalism as a tournament - it starts off as thousands of small businesses. But with every success story, a failure. Soon, few companies are the crown champions, have all the money, and through lobbying have some control of the government. Naturally, as champions of the world, having free, open-minded people with a voice is against their interests.