Democracy is best defined as government of the people, by the people. In the West, especially after ideological conflicts such as the Cold War, we can tend to assume that democracy is the only valid form of government. However, this assumption must be justified. The classical example of a democracy is that of Ancient Athens, where the whole populace would meet in the marketplace to vote on decisions. It can be argued form this position that modern ‘democracies’ are not in fact democratic.
Some might say that real, effective leadership must come from above and not from below. The people as a mass are capable of being manipulated, and are unlikely to possess skills or training in confronting problems a state might face. As such, expecting them to elect the ‘best tools for the job’ is unrealistic. Government from above can see, by virtue of its position and advantages, what is better for the people than the people can. For example, the abolition of the death penalty was at first deeply unpopular with the British public when it was pushed through by the government, but is now broadly supported as correct and humane.
Modern democracy (as opposed to classical, Athenian democracy) is a facade. ‘True’ democracy can only be practised on a very small scale. In Britain for example, whilst people may vote every five years, they have no input into decision beyond this. This is the desirable state of things, but it is not democracy. Our current state of government would be far more effective if it abandoned its pretences at representativity.
Such devices are intended not to bring government closer to the people, but to give undemocratic government a veneer of democratic respectability. Real power is still with the elites, who decide who will stand for which seats, and thus who is guaranteed to be elected via ‘safe’ seats. In Britain, there is an undemocratic second chamber, the House of Lords, which is able to interfere substantially with the process of passing laws. These Lords are appointed directly by the political parties. ‘True democracy’, again, is an unworkable system on the scale of a country, and we should abandon pretences at it for a more practical system.
The ‘will of the people’ is likewise a sham. In actual fact, very little public opinion is arrived at independently, by rational application of logic to facts. Public opinion is controlled, directed and inflamed by the gutter press, whose content is controlled ultimately by newspaper barons belonging to the very elite that controls the country. Some might say that this is the way a country must be governed - an elite who provided firm and effective leadership, and directs the public in the ways best for them.
Modern liberal democracy is the best thing on the market. It's not perfect, and there are many times when democratically enacted decisions need to be set aside in the interest of higher values (for example when the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws.) Very often the public elects real goons to the legislature and executive branches and they need to be kept in check. Mencken was perfectly right on that score. But on the whole, most people have a better shot under a basically democratic system than under any other.
There is not a single system of government that I would rather have than a democracy (or, rather, a republic, since that's what we supposedly have). Although it's not free of its faults, I'd say it's the best.
I would venture to say that one of it's greatest flaws would be the fact that it cannot account for ignorance. Mencken once said, "Democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." I'm inclined to agree with him, but I don't think democracy is at fault as much as, say, the media or the population itself is. It's the media's job to present people as many facts as possible and keep them well-informed and well-educated on current events and future possibilities. If people in the media fail to do their job, then the responsibility and consequence falls on their back, not the government's; however, sometimes, the government must withhold classified information due to security concerns, but when people believe that some things the government hides is suspect, it isn't the actual form of government's fault--it's the politicians' or, at least, the people of the administration's fault.
In addition to the media, people also bear the responsibility of keeping themselves informed on what's happening. The media can be there, but if no one reads it, or if people catch the news in a superficial manner, then of course the population is going to turn out ignorant. What people need to do is sit down and read a damn newspaper. So, I think, rather than complaining about or criticizing the form of government we have, people ought to emphasize information sharing and open discussion. If anyone's to criticize, it's the idiots (see Greek definition of the word idiotes) of our society.
Democracy is great because it does (at least to a degree, since ours isn't a true blue form of democracy) account for popular opinions, and it at least doesn't condemn people when they act on their First Amendment freedoms. Totalitarian systems of any kind, on the other hand, seem to enjoy stamping out everyone's opinions, and they don't allow for many innovations. Democracy, although it can be abused like any other form of government, allows progress nicely.
I do think there's some kind of problem with the electoral college system. We've had a few occasions where the popular vote for President just did not match the electoral college's vote. It would be nice if it were practical just to have the popular vote, but that'd be an impossible task, and both people and computers would make mistakes in trying to calculate who won. Plus, if we were to have such a system, it'd eventually turn into mob rule, which also isn't proper. That's probably the biggest hole I see in our system.
The one type of government I would consider best is a benevolent dictatorship. But, of course, I resign myself to the fact that power ultimately corrupts, so I deem it pretty much impossible and almost never mention it. I guess the next best thing after that would be a monarchy with a benevolent monarch, but it has the same flaw.
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
"Freedom of press is limited to those who own one."
H. L. Mencken
I just found out that points you suggested were the same points that Richard Mott suggested.
(Idebate.org)
I must say that when looking at it through a historical context, democracy is the best form of government. At least ideologically, right? It does incorporate people, but like everything in this world, it has its flaws. I think the person who has the best analysis on the different forms of government and the best choice is Descartes. He wrote about it. I read it this past year and it was pretty good. I don't remember the name of it but I could find it and post it later.
"I disaprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire
- Rufus V. Barner III
I must say that when looking at it through a historical context, democracy is the best form of government. At least ideologically, right? It does incorporate people, but like everything in this world, it has its flaws. I think the person who has the best analysis on the different forms of government and the best choice is Descartes. He wrote about it. I read it this past year and it was pretty good. I don't remember the name of it but I could find it and post it later.
"I disaprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire
- Rufus V. Barner III
Suppose that a majority voted to murder half the population? or to enslave all brown-eyed people? or discard the rights of black people? or to implement total ism-social (not sure if the automatic censors still block that :-/ )? All these things are possible under absolute democracy (which is mobocracy, or ochlocracy(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobocracy), under which all law is thrown to the subjectivity of numbers.
I think it's more accurate to say that we live under something that is only -close- to a constitutional republic.
Constitutional republics are supposed to be pretty hard-and-fast and unchangeable. But presently, basic constitutional tenets have been ripped apart and discarded, not in small part because of the terrible, nebulous, quivering and deceptive phrase in the document, 'promote the general welfare'. For instance, there is an income tax, government snooping into our lives is permitted, private land that the government can seize is expanded to mean absolutely anything, all these among so, so many other instances of sacrilege, all of which come from this empty idea of viewing society or government as anything but a number of individuals*.
So, absolute Democracy is a terrible idea. American Independence from Britain was a minority movement. Those who supported racial segregation and the neglect of Blacks' rights were in the majority. Presently, there are more poor people than rich people; if there was an absolute democracy, nothing would be in place to prevent the people from voting themselves permission to steal as much of the rich's earnings as they wish--which means, to implement ism-social, which we all know is spiritual, philosophical, physical, mental suicide.
My point is that a Constitutional Republic should be upheld more strongly; yes, that is to say that there should be less democracy--BUT, I of course don't mean government proceedings should not be voted upon by a majority. I mean that basic human rights--those to property, freedom, and life--should always, ALYWAYS remain untouchable, and should never be at risk of being compromised through a system like absolute democracy.
*what I intend to indicate is that it's not the gvt which is taking from a person, or limiting his rights. The truth is that -an individual- is taking from or enslaving -another individual-. To view such acts' responsibility as dispersed through a non-entity like the government is the collectivization of responsibility, the scattering of blame among millions, so that no wrongfulness or responsibility can be sought, found, or acted on. if there is no accountability, any crime can be pursued freely, and this is what happens.
Michael Allen Yarbrough (PBUH)
We don't live in a true Democracy - we live in a Constitutional Republic and practice democracy.
Democracy involves "majority rules" - meaning put it up to a vote, whoever gets the most votes wins. While we use that for elections, we do not use that for every thing. We believe in *individual* freedom, which means in most cases minority rules. Therein lies the difference. If one person believes abortion should be legal - then abortion is legal because other wise her rights are infringed upon. If ten people follow one particular religion, they cannot be denied that because their rights would be infringed upon. Doesn't matter what the majority thinks in cases of freedom and rights.
-----
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org