Is democracy not the future for the western world?

In a democracy the leader that is chosen by an election will need to have certain quallity, especcially charisma, however charisma does not mean that the leader will be any good at running a country, a leader with fantastic ideas and opinions who is a poor public speaker is less likley to become prime minister or president.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where I live, voting is obligatory, everybody of legal age has to vote. If not you wil be fined. The problem is: majority of people don't care or don't know what politics are about. So people which are elected, are the most popular ones and not necessaraly the best ones to do the job. That's one simple reason why democracy fails like you said.

One good(?) thing is that in a democracy noone gets absolute power, which prevents a leader becoming a tyrant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A poor public speaker should not be president, they need to be able to communicate articulately, and this skill is vital in diplomacy. I think people are only temporarily satisfied by charisma, eventually, we wake up to the practical side of governing. Ideally, they should have both.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

perhaps longer terms, that way people get to know their government better. then again, having a screw up in office longer could also be bad.

 

Democracy may indeed be in the future for the Western world. What's sad is that some people actually think that what occurs now is in fact democracy, while in fact oligarchy would be more apt. The question is, what will it take to progress?

 

Well, I think a true democracy is virtually impossible to form in any nation of the world. There are simply too many people to vote on every single issue, not to mention having the time to adequately study those issues.

And ye're right .....most people don't really know what "democracy" really is.

Baron Max

 

If the elected leader is worth his salt he will choose the person with fantastic ideas and opinions to lead his cabinate, in this way the people get a charismatic leader they can see and hear and have a feeling of warmth towards AND a leader with fantastic ideas and opinions via his cabinate

 

And a leader with fantastic ideas and opinions who is a good public speaker, but has no money is not likely to become prime minister or president.

 

Abe Lincoln did it.

Baron Max

 

It used to be different.

 

Yeah, back when there weren't so fuckin' many people!! And when they weren't all living so damned close together. ..especially with people who weren't constantly disagreeing, sometimes violently.

Baron Max

 

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse form the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
~ Alexander Tyler

By that measure, the US is doing pretty well.

 

Democracy has, for the most part, won out in the last century - despite facing totalitarian superpowers which seemed to multiply as more and more nations elected fascist governments or underwent communist revolutions.

Absolute regimes with command economies just don't seem to work in the long run, at least not in an industrialised world, unless they have the patriotic reinforcement of ongoing warfare. Even China, the last great communist power, has a far more free-market style economy now, and the slow but inexorable liberalisation of society which that brings.

Even if the Axis powers had won WWII and extinguished democracy worldwide, the Nazi empire ruled from Germany might eventually have broken up just as the USSR did, with more democratic systems re-emerging thereafter.

 

I like my Republic. Do I really have the time to vote on every law?? Let alone being informed so that I make the right decision.
I'll pass.........

 

At least with a king the buck stops with a "lifelong" leader, and that leader has a 'real' stake in the welfare of the country and the revolting peasants.

With a democracy the leaders come and go, and no reponsibility is ever taken ... if he is no good he is voted out.... leading to candy policies instead of tough decisions.
The democratic leader is an employee that can walk out and let the country collapse.

We must not be fooled by democratic principles, the whole concept relies upon the "good conscience" of the elected..... however corrupting 'self' is right in there, and in many cases dominates the outcomes.

 

Would you then prefer an outright dictatorship, an absolute monarchy with local power given to landowning aristrocrats, or a ruling council which selects its own members from among the heads of industry, science, the armed forces etc?

Each system has a few advantages over democracy, but many disadvantages.

 

Name one governmental system where that is NOT true. Then name a system, (please no dreaming!) that's in operation today that's better than representative democracy.

I'd also like to point out the "dominating" the outcomes in a democracy is ONLY possible if the voters don't give a shit about it. In which case, perhaps that is STILL democracy? Can a democratic people vote and put someone like Saddam Hussy into power?

Baron Max

 

Sure they can. Hitler himself was elected democratically, before shutting down democracy in Germany.

 

As I recall my history lessons, Hitler did NOT win the election by the people of Germany. I'll have to check to see how it was done exactly, but he did NOT get a majority of the votes. So it was NOT a "democratic" election.

Baron Max

 

You're right. Hitler got into power by chipping away at the German power structure, with a pastiche of democracy and nationalism so that the German people would swallow it. There are lessons in that for Americans today.

Here's a summary.