Is democracy overrated? Do your worst dakka.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Mr. Burning**

Something i found interesting from the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23607302

A Nice, Sunday, wall o text below.

Democracy is championed as a universal good by the West, but we over-estimate its power to guarantee personal and political freedom, argues Roger Scruton.

For some time, the leading Western nations have acted upon the assumption that democracy is the solution to political conflict, and that the ultimate goal of foreign policy must be to encourage the emergence of democracy in countries which have not yet enjoyed its benefits. And they continue to adhere to this assumption, even when considering events in the Middle East today. We can easily sympathise with it. For democracies do not, in general, go to war with each other, and do not, in general experience, civil war within their borders. Where the people can choose their government, there is a safety valve that prevents conflicts from over-heating. Unpopular governments are rejected without violence.

The championship of democracy has therefore become a settled feature of Western foreign policy. In retrospect, the Cold War has been seen as a conflict between democracy and totalitarianism, in which democracy finally triumphed. And with democracy came the liberation of the people of the former communist states. Where there had been tyranny and oppression, there was now freedom and human rights. And if we study the words of Western politicians, we will constantly find that the three ideas - democracy, freedom and human rights - are spoken of in one breath, and assumed in all circumstances to coincide. That, for many of our political leaders, is the lesson to be drawn from the Cold War and the final collapse of the Soviet empire.

In my view, the idea that there is a single, one-size-fits-all solution to social and political conflict around the world, and that democracy is the name of it, is based on a disregard of historical and cultural conditions, and a failure to see that democracy is only made possible by other and more deeply hidden institutions. And while we are willing to accept that democracy goes hand in hand with individual freedom and the protection of human rights, we often fail to realise that these three things are three things, not one, and that it is only under certain conditions that they coincide.

Democracy was introduced into Russia without any adequate protection for human rights. And many human rights were protected in 19th Century Britain long before the emergence of anything that we would call democracy. In the Middle East today, we find parties standing for election, like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which regards an electoral victory as the opportunity to crush dissent and impose a way of life that for many citizens is simply unacceptable. In such circumstances democracy is a threat to human rights and not a way of protecting them.

I had the opportunity to study some of these issues during the 1980s, when visiting friends and colleagues who were attempting to plant the seeds of opposition in the communist countries. These were public-spirited citizens, who ran the risk of arrest and imprisonment for activities which you and I would regard as entirely innocent. They ran classes for young people who had been deprived of an education on account of their parents' political profile. They established support networks for writers, scholars, musicians and artists who were banned from presenting their work. They smuggled medicines, bibles, religious symbols and textbooks. And because charities were illegal under communism and religious institutions were controlled by the Communist Party, all this work had to be conducted in secret.

The totalitarian system, I learned, endures not simply by getting rid of democratic elections and imposing a one-party state. It endures by abolishing the distinction between civil society and the state, and by allowing nothing significant to occur which is not controlled by the Party. By studying the situation in Eastern Europe, I came quickly to see that political freedom depends upon a delicate network of institutions, which my friends were striving to understand and if possible to resuscitate.

So what are these institutions? First among them is judicial independence. In every case where the Communist Party had an interest, the judge was under instructions to deliver the verdict that the Party required. It didn't matter that there was no law that the victim had breached. If necessary, a law could be invented at the last moment. If the Party wanted someone to be in prison, then the judge had to put that person in prison. If he refused, then he would end up in prison himself, if he was lucky. In such circumstances the rule of law was a complete fiction: law was simply a mask worn by the Party, as it dictated its decisions to the people.

Then there is the institution of property rights. Normal people in the communist state had virtually nothing to their name - nothing legal, that is. Their houses or flats were owned by the state, their few personal possessions could not be freely traded in the market, and their salary and pension depended on their political conformity and could be removed at any time. In these circumstances the entire economy went underground. No court of law would enforce the contracts that people needed if they were to get on with their lives. You might have a deal with your neighbour to exchange vegetables for maths lessons. But if one of you defected and the other took the dispute to law, the only result would be that both of you went to prison for conducting an illegal business. All transactions therefore depended upon personal trust, in a situation in which trust was in shorter and shorter supply. Hence society was riven by conflicts and suspicions, which neither law nor politics could remedy. And the Communist Party rejoiced in this situation, since it prevented people from combining against it.

Then there is freedom of speech and opinion. The freedom to entertain and express opinions, however offensive to others, has been regarded since Locke in the 17th Century as the pre-condition of a political society. This freedom was enshrined in the US constitution, defended in the face of the Victorian moralists by John Stuart Mill, and upheld in our time by my dissident friends. We take this freedom so much for granted that we regard it as the default position of humanity - the position to which we return, if all oppressive powers are removed from us. But my experience of communist Europe convinced me of the opposite. Orthodoxy, conformity and the hounding of the dissident define the default position of mankind, and there is no reason to think that democracies are any different in this respect from Islamic theocracies or one-party totalitarian states.

Of course, the opinions that are suppressed change from one form of society to another, as do the methods of suppression. But we should be clear that to guarantee freedom of opinion goes against the grain of social life, and imposes risks that people may be reluctant to take. For in criticising orthodoxy, you are not just questioning a belief - you are threatening the social order that has been built on it. Also, orthodoxies are the more fiercely protected the more vulnerable they are.

Both those principles are surely obvious from the reaction of Islamists to criticisms directed at their religion. Just as it was in the wars of religion that ravaged Europe in the 17th Century, it is precisely what is most absurd that is most protected. And critics are not treated merely as people with an intellectual difficulty. They are a threat, the enemies of society and, for the believer, the enemies of God. So it was too under communism, in which a system of government had been built on theories that may have looked plausible in the early days of the industrial revolution but which in the post-war economy of Europe were palpably ridiculous. For that very reason it was the greatest heresy to criticise them.

Finally, there is legitimate opposition. This was perhaps the greatest casualty of communism as it afflicted Europe. When Lenin imposed the communist system on Russia it was in the form of a top-down dictatorship, in which orders were passed down to the ranks below. It was a kind of military government, and opposition could no more unite against it than soldiers in the ranks can unite against their commanders. In times of emergency this kind of discipline is perhaps necessary. But it is the opposite of civilised government.

It has been assumed in this country from the time of the Anglo-Saxons that political decisions are taken in council, after hearing all sides to the question, and taking note of the many interests that must be reconciled. Long before the advent of democracy, our parliament divided into government and opposition, and except in stressful periods during the 16th and 17th Centuries it was acknowledged that government without opposition is without any corrective when things go wrong. That is what we saw in the Soviet Union and its empire - a system of government without a reverse gear, which continued headlong towards the brick wall of the future.

In the underground universities of communist Europe, my friends and colleagues studied those things, and prepared themselves for the hoped-for day when the Communist Party, having starved itself of every rational input, would finally give up the ghost. And the lessons that they learned need to be learned again today, as our politicians lead us forth under the banner of democracy, without pausing to examine what democracy actually requires.

I particularly liked this quote from alongside the article.

Clement Atlee: "Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking"

**ThePrimordial**

Mr. Burning wrote:
Something i found interesting from the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23607302

A Nice, Sunday, wall o text below.

Democracy is championed as a universal good by the West, but we over-estimate its power to guarantee personal and political freedom, argues Roger Scruton.

For some time, the leading Western nations have acted upon the assumption that democracy is the solution to political conflict, and that the ultimate goal of foreign policy must be to encourage the emergence of democracy in countries which have not yet enjoyed its benefits. And they continue to adhere to this assumption, even when considering events in the Middle East today. We can easily sympathise with it. For democracies do not, in general, go to war with each other, and do not, in general experience, civil war within their borders. Where the people can choose their government, there is a safety valve that prevents conflicts from over-heating. Unpopular governments are rejected without violence.

The championship of democracy has therefore become a settled feature of Western foreign policy. In retrospect, the Cold War has been seen as a conflict between democracy and totalitarianism, in which democracy finally triumphed. And with democracy came the liberation of the people of the former communist states. Where there had been tyranny and oppression, there was now freedom and human rights. And if we study the words of Western politicians, we will constantly find that the three ideas - democracy, freedom and human rights - are spoken of in one breath, and assumed in all circumstances to coincide. That, for many of our political leaders, is the lesson to be drawn from the Cold War and the final collapse of the Soviet empire.

In my view, the idea that there is a single, one-size-fits-all solution to social and political conflict around the world, and that democracy is the name of it, is based on a disregard of historical and cultural conditions, and a failure to see that democracy is only made possible by other and more deeply hidden institutions. And while we are willing to accept that democracy goes hand in hand with individual freedom and the protection of human rights, we often fail to realise that these three things are three things, not one, and that it is only under certain conditions that they coincide.

Democracy was introduced into Russia without any adequate protection for human rights. And many human rights were protected in 19th Century Britain long before the emergence of anything that we would call democracy. In the Middle East today, we find parties standing for election, like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which regards an electoral victory as the opportunity to crush dissent and impose a way of life that for many citizens is simply unacceptable. In such circumstances democracy is a threat to human rights and not a way of protecting them.

I had the opportunity to study some of these issues during the 1980s, when visiting friends and colleagues who were attempting to plant the seeds of opposition in the communist countries. These were public-spirited citizens, who ran the risk of arrest and imprisonment for activities which you and I would regard as entirely innocent. They ran classes for young people who had been deprived of an education on account of their parents' political profile. They established support networks for writers, scholars, musicians and artists who were banned from presenting their work. They smuggled medicines, bibles, religious symbols and textbooks. And because charities were illegal under communism and religious institutions were controlled by the Communist Party, all this work had to be conducted in secret.

The totalitarian system, I learned, endures not simply by getting rid of democratic elections and imposing a one-party state. It endures by abolishing the distinction between civil society and the state, and by allowing nothing significant to occur which is not controlled by the Party. By studying the situation in Eastern Europe, I came quickly to see that political freedom depends upon a delicate network of institutions, which my friends were striving to understand and if possible to resuscitate.

So what are these institutions? First among them is judicial independence. In every case where the Communist Party had an interest, the judge was under instructions to deliver the verdict that the Party required. It didn't matter that there was no law that the victim had breached. If necessary, a law could be invented at the last moment. If the Party wanted someone to be in prison, then the judge had to put that person in prison. If he refused, then he would end up in prison himself, if he was lucky. In such circumstances the rule of law was a complete fiction: law was simply a mask worn by the Party, as it dictated its decisions to the people.

Then there is the institution of property rights. Normal people in the communist state had virtually nothing to their name - nothing legal, that is. Their houses or flats were owned by the state, their few personal possessions could not be freely traded in the market, and their salary and pension depended on their political conformity and could be removed at any time. In these circumstances the entire economy went underground. No court of law would enforce the contracts that people needed if they were to get on with their lives. You might have a deal with your neighbour to exchange vegetables for maths lessons. But if one of you defected and the other took the dispute to law, the only result would be that both of you went to prison for conducting an illegal business. All transactions therefore depended upon personal trust, in a situation in which trust was in shorter and shorter supply. Hence society was riven by conflicts and suspicions, which neither law nor politics could remedy. And the Communist Party rejoiced in this situation, since it prevented people from combining against it.

Then there is freedom of speech and opinion. The freedom to entertain and express opinions, however offensive to others, has been regarded since Locke in the 17th Century as the pre-condition of a political society. This freedom was enshrined in the US constitution, defended in the face of the Victorian moralists by John Stuart Mill, and upheld in our time by my dissident friends. We take this freedom so much for granted that we regard it as the default position of humanity - the position to which we return, if all oppressive powers are removed from us. But my experience of communist Europe convinced me of the opposite. Orthodoxy, conformity and the hounding of the dissident define the default position of mankind, and there is no reason to think that democracies are any different in this respect from Islamic theocracies or one-party totalitarian states.

Of course, the opinions that are suppressed change from one form of society to another, as do the methods of suppression. But we should be clear that to guarantee freedom of opinion goes against the grain of social life, and imposes risks that people may be reluctant to take. For in criticising orthodoxy, you are not just questioning a belief - you are threatening the social order that has been built on it. Also, orthodoxies are the more fiercely protected the more vulnerable they are.

Both those principles are surely obvious from the reaction of Islamists to criticisms directed at their religion. Just as it was in the wars of religion that ravaged Europe in the 17th Century, it is precisely what is most absurd that is most protected. And critics are not treated merely as people with an intellectual difficulty. They are a threat, the enemies of society and, for the believer, the enemies of God. So it was too under communism, in which a system of government had been built on theories that may have looked plausible in the early days of the industrial revolution but which in the post-war economy of Europe were palpably ridiculous. For that very reason it was the greatest heresy to criticise them.

Finally, there is legitimate opposition. This was perhaps the greatest casualty of communism as it afflicted Europe. When Lenin imposed the communist system on Russia it was in the form of a top-down dictatorship, in which orders were passed down to the ranks below. It was a kind of military government, and opposition could no more unite against it than soldiers in the ranks can unite against their commanders. In times of emergency this kind of discipline is perhaps necessary. But it is the opposite of civilised government.

It has been assumed in this country from the time of the Anglo-Saxons that political decisions are taken in council, after hearing all sides to the question, and taking note of the many interests that must be reconciled. Long before the advent of democracy, our parliament divided into government and opposition, and except in stressful periods during the 16th and 17th Centuries it was acknowledged that government without opposition is without any corrective when things go wrong. That is what we saw in the Soviet Union and its empire - a system of government without a reverse gear, which continued headlong towards the brick wall of the future.

In the underground universities of communist Europe, my friends and colleagues studied those things, and prepared themselves for the hoped-for day when the Communist Party, having starved itself of every rational input, would finally give up the ghost. And the lessons that they learned need to be learned again today, as our politicians lead us forth under the banner of democracy, without pausing to examine what democracy actually requires.

I particularly liked this quote from alongside the article.

Clement Atlee: "Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking"

There's no such thing as true Democracy anymore because Democracy never works well. Socrates proved this to be the case when the people put him to death and the government had no say.
I believe you're confusing true Democracy with a Republic which can actually work correctly. It's well known true Democracy doesn't work well.
Dude seriously this is from sophomore history...

**LordofHats**

I prefer myself a good old fashioned Oligarchy masquerading as a Democratic Republic myself

**Mr. Burning**

LordofHats wrote:
I prefer myself a good old fashioned Oligarchy masquerading as a Democratic Republic myself

I dunno.

Anything where I can denounce my neighbours seems a good bet.

**ThePrimordial**

LordofHats wrote:
I prefer myself a good old fashioned Oligarchy masquerading as a Democratic Republic myself

This is comparable to a lot of governments in first world countries.
In most first world countires the top 1% of said countries controls the majority of wealth.

**Cheesecat**

The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.

**LordofHats**

There's no such thing as true Democracy anymore because Democracy never works well. Socrates proved this to be the case when the people put him to death and the government had no say.

Actually that would be an example of a democracy working XD The people with a vote wanted a guy dead so he died. Democracy, in action!

**whembly**

ThePrimordial wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
I prefer myself a good old fashioned Oligarchy masquerading as a Democratic Republic myself

This is comparable to a lot of governments in first world countries.
In most first world countires the top 1% of said countries controls the majority of wealth.

Yep... that's true. In case of US, it isn't even a Republican vs Democrat thing...

One of the biggest "culprit" is the bajiillion-word tax code that was created at the behest of influential interest groups that tenaciously defends the status-quo. Which is why any tax reform would really be political reform... writing lucrative loopholes into the code is one of the primary ways the political class confers favors. Furthermore, “targeted” tax cuts is government’s tool to implement "social engineering" mindsets... ie, "do what we want you to do and you can keep more of your money". Tax (political) reform would reduce the opportunities for the political class to throw its weight around. That's why it won't happen anytime soon, short of a "National Convention".

In other words... deal with it.

**ThePrimordial**

LordofHats wrote:
There's no such thing as true Democracy anymore because Democracy never works well. Socrates proved this to be the case when the people put him to death and the government had no say.

Actually that would be an example of a democracy working XD The people with a vote wanted a guy dead so he died. Democracy, in action!

I think that might have been a bad call......

**LordofHats**

Well no system is perfect

**whitedragon**

LordofHats wrote:
Well no system is perfect

Democracy is only perfect when everyone votes the way you want them to!

**Flashman**

The main problem with (UK) democracy is that probably only 30-40% of the country voted for you, which means that the vast majority of the population are always going to be hacked off with whatever you're trying to do.

EDIT - And that's ignoring the sizeable chunk of people who can't be arsed to vote.

**loki old fart**

Cheesecat wrote:
The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.

Incorrect England in debt America in debt, Europe in debt,

Saudi Arabia, Dubai etc doing very nicely thank you.

**George Spiggott**

Flashman wrote:
The main problem with (UK) democracy is that probably only 30-40% of the country voted for you, which means that the vast majority of the population are always going to be hacked off with whatever you're trying to do.

It wouldn't be so bad if we had a better system of allocating those votes.

**rothrich**

Is being able to ask that question over rated?

**Monster Rain**

loki old fart wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.

Incorrect England in debt America in debt, Europe in debt,

Saudi Arabia, Dubai etc doing very nicely thank you.

I can think of a few areas where they could use some improvement.

**Krellnus**

Democracy only truly works if you make one assumption, that people aren't idiots, which is just untrue.

Some form of totalitarian meritocracy that isn't run by power hungry jerks, would likely be the best, but by no means would it be perfect.

**Monster Rain**

Krellnus wrote:
Some form of totalitarian meritocracy that isn't run by power hungry jerks...

With a parliament of unicorns!

**LordofHats**

Monster Rain wrote:
Krellnus wrote:
Some form of totalitarian meritocracy that isn't run by power hungry jerks...

With a parliament of unicorns!

Clearly we should turn to the lizard men for good governance.

Oh course, totalitarian meritocracy. I think,

**Monster Rain**

Reptilians are really hit-and-miss as leaders, though. I mean, Bill Clinton and Reagan were pretty good presidents, but Jimmy Carter and Dubya were significantly less so.

Katy Perry seems nice, though. If we have to have a reptilian overlord it might as well be easy on the eyes.

**Krellnus**

Monster Rain wrote:
Krellnus wrote:
Some form of totalitarian meritocracy that isn't run by power hungry jerks...

With a parliament of unicorns!

Yes.

**Trasvi**

loki old fart wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.

Incorrect England in debt America in debt, Europe in debt,
Saudi Arabia, Dubai etc doing very nicely thank you.

There's nothing wrong with a little debt. Debt is actually a great thing: I could never buy a house if I couldn't get a mortgage. Debt for a country can mean they are spending heavily on infrastructure.
Debt + budget deficit (ie, going into more debt every year) is the bad thing.
However, Cheesecat seems to have confused 'capitalist' with 'democracy' - AFAIK all current democratic states have a free market to some extent, but they don't necessarily need to go together.

As for 'is democracy overrated'?
The author is probably right that we conflate 'democracy' together with 'freedom', 'civil rights' and (as above) 'free market'.
Democracy means, 'rule of the people'. As opposed to 'oligarchy' (by the few), 'plutocracy' (by the rich), 'autocracy' (by one), 'theocracy' (by religion).
That is all it means.

In most societies, that means a rule by majority, by the 51%. Or less, depending on your voting mechanics. The majority can still be tyrannical against the majority; which to be sure is better than the majority being suppressed, but still isn't a perfect outcome.
The 'problem' with modern democracies stems from the size of modern nations necessitating representative democracies. Voting on every single issue with multiple millions of people is logistically impossible. So we elect representatives.
Representatives are supposed to, as their name implies, represent the will of the people. But by necessity in modern democracies they become career politicians. They come from the upper class, are educated as lawyers or similar. They get divorced from the people they are supposed to represent. Because politics is their career, they get focused on retaining their job. Because they are a single person representing a the power of millions of people in the nation, lobbying of individual politicians becomes a more cost effective way for special interest groups to sway votes, as opposed to lobbying a hundred thousand people to convince them of the same thing. If you look at your houses of government, are they an accurate reflection of society? Are there 51% female, 15% black, 11% gay?

Then you apply bad voting mechanisms which worsens the problem. In the US, 'first past the post' voting is used which is objectively, mathematically, terrible. No voting system is perfect (the a mathematical fact sense of the word), but there are many better systems for representing the will of the people than FPTP. Runoff or instant-runoff voting is superior and used in many other democratic nations. Schulze voting is probably the best, but can't be easily explained to the average voter. Gerrymandering (redistributing of districts to change election results compared to if the districts were a different shape) is another problem.
Proportional representation is a good way to fix this problem as well. Some countries use it, but most are still hanging on to the 'this is your personal representative' idea when I believe society has progressed past needing that.

Then, when you actually have elected the government, how do they make decisions? Should 51% of the vote be sufficient to enact legislation? What if 51% of people are moderately in support of a new law, but 49% of people are vehemently against it? How about if it is 99% vs 1%? Where is the line?

Is the solution demarchy: A jury-duty like system where representatives are randomly selected from the general populace? I don't think so. We choose career politicians for a reason, because the are (supposedly) good at navigating the complex bureaucracy at the upper levels of the country, and are at least a little bit educated in Law and/or economics. A great deal of people don't understand why the government can't just print money to pay off their debts - I certainly don't want them making policy decisions.

This is getting ranty and rambling, so I'll just cut off and say 'TLDR: Democracy is hard' and leave with one more thought:

In an election with 8 people voting and 4 candidates, these are people's preferences (each voter on a separate line, most preferred on the left)
ABCD
ABCD
ABCD
BCDA
CBDA
CBDA
DBCA
DBCA

Who should win the election? A would win in a FPTP election, but 5/8 people think A is the *worst* choice. C would win in an IRV election. B would lose in most electoral systems, yet everyone seems to like B quite a bit. What do you think should be the outcome?

**Jimsolo**

I support an instant-runoff system, but that's just me. (I think C should win.)

I've never heard of Schulze voting.

**Cheesecat**

Trasvi wrote:
loki old fart wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.

Incorrect England in debt America in debt, Europe in debt,
Saudi Arabia, Dubai etc doing very nicely thank you.

There's nothing wrong with a little debt. Debt is actually a great thing: I could never buy a house if I couldn't get a mortgage. Debt for a country can mean they are spending heavily on infrastructure.
Debt + budget deficit (ie, going into more debt every year) is the bad thing.
However, Cheesecat seems to have confused 'capitalist' with 'democracy' - AFAIK all current democratic states have a free market to some extent, but they don't necessarily need to go together.

No, I meant democracy I don't think Canada, USA, France, Sweden, Australia, Japan, Britain, etc would have had such a high standard of living if it weren't for the fact the people had some contribution to the leadership of their country but that's not to say capitalism doesn't help either (cause

it does).

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Capitalism doesn't get you universal healthcare, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, right to education, etc.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

loki old fart wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.

Incorrect England in debt America in debt, Europe in debt,

Saudi Arabia, Dubai etc doing very nicely thank you.

Considering how Saudi Arabia handles humans rights and it's income inequality, I don't think I'm missing out on much.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

One of the biggest "culprit" is the bajiillion-word tax code that was created at the behest of influential interest groups that tenaciously defends the status-quo.

So, the tax code was created by democratic process, and is defended by the same method?

Bear in mind that an "influential interest group" isn't necessarily composed of people within the !%, nor does it necessarily represent them.

whembly wrote:

Tax (political) reform would reduce the opportunities for the political class to throw its weight around. That's why it won't happen anytime soon, short of a "National Convention".

Tax reform and political reform are only the same thing if you are discussing the power of a given body to levy taxes.

**SilverMK2**

loki old fart wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.

Incorrect England in debt America in debt, Europe in debt,

Saudi Arabia, Dubai etc doing very nicely thank you.

Possibly due to the vast quantities of oil they are sitting on?

**commisar rhodes**

loki old fart wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:
The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.

Incorrect England in debt America in debt, Europe in debt,

Saudi Arabia, Dubai etc doing very nicely thank you.

Possibly due to the vast quantities of oil they are sitting on?

And once that oil runs out or we find a new energy solution Dubai will probably go all Mad Max style.

**LuciusAR**

Too much democracy is probably a bad thing. True democracy for example is one where 51% of the population could vote for the other 49% to be shot. Admittedly that’s an extreme example, but democracy can in its own way by tyrannical.

Representative democracies as we tend to have are essentially a least worse option. But even that are susceptible to becoming a tyranny of the majority.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". - Winston Churchill

**SilverMK2**

Benign dictatorship is probably the best you can hope for.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Krellnus wrote:

Some form of totalitarian meritocracy that isn't run by power hungry jerks, would likely be the best, but by no means would it be perfect.

Guess that means we need to call on the daleks to rule for us!