Democracy: Success or Failure

Whaleboy · December 14, 2003, 18:55

An area on which I am undecided. I know democracy to have major problems yet it seems to be the best system available at the moment (though a technocracy sounds cool). Its also done a lot for us. So on balance? I say a bit of both. Discuss!!!

Whaleboy · December 14, 2003, 18:58

Damn.. thats supposed to be success or failure. Thought I'd insult your intelligences by pointing that out....

C0ckney · December 14, 2003, 19:04

'democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others' - winston churchill

and as for success, well look at democratic countries and then look at those which aren't...

Dis · December 14, 2003, 19:05

exactly what is a technocracy? I fail to see how radically different that goverment would be.

Dis · December 14, 2003, 19:07

I think democracy is the best form of goverment.

but it slowly degrades as the citizens stop paying attention to their goverment and become ignorant of the world they live in. They trust the goverment to handle all of their problems for them. Eventually this would lead to trouble, you would think.

Thorn · December 14, 2003, 19:07

The Matrix is a technocracy.

Whoha · December 14, 2003, 19:14

Wait about 50 years, and we will know the answer.

Spiffor · December 14, 2003, 19:16

A bit of both

Success in the meaning that democracies do something that has been historically nearly never heard of: that the rulers do not consider their people as mere tools for their grand schemes. Democracies do respect human rights (although there are always some shadowy corners), and democracies do consider that the rulers are serving the nation, not the other way around.

However, it's a failure in the meaning our modern democracies cannot fulfill the dreams and expectations the Enlightenment had for them. Our modern democracies do not give power to the people. They give power to a political elite the people have the right to keep or oust every now and then. The process of political decision is entirely in the hands of this political caste.
The people is not at the wheel. The people only sets the limits in which the wheel should be stirred.

Dis · December 14, 2003, 19:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Thorn
The Matrix is a technocracy.

the Matrix isn't real

Spiffor · December 14, 2003, 19:27

Diss:
Technocracy is a regime where unelected people get to power through passing tests. What is required is not being elected by the people, but to have the skills deemed necessary to rule a country.

Technocracy is not necessarily a police state. As a matter of fact, the only blatant technocracy that I'm aware of (the EU) is stringent on human rights. It simply doesn't associate the people at all in the political process. The actors of the political process are those the most skilled for it, according to their view.

Dis · December 14, 2003, 19:28

sounds elitist to me

C0ckney · December 14, 2003, 19:29

the EU is the best arguement against a technocracy i can think of

Spiffor · December 14, 2003, 19:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
sounds elitist to me

you bet.

But maybe whaleboy defines "technocracy" differently, a system that concentrates heavily on technology, rather than my understanding that lies on the techné (know-how)

Spiffor · December 14, 2003, 19:33

Quote:

Originally posted by C0ckney
the EU is the best arguement against a technocracy i can think of

That's because it's not a pure technocracy though.

The member-states are constantly bickering and take years to agree on what was fundamentally the proposal of the technocrats, and there's still the Parliament that messes things up even more

Sava · December 14, 2003, 19:36

democracy

some forms of it are better than others, however... I think Canada's form of Democracy is better than America's. Don't give me that Republic BS, a Republic is still representative democracy.

Bereta_Eder · December 14, 2003, 19:43

democracy with meritocracy is da best

Seeker · December 14, 2003, 20:04

LIBERAL democracy.

Democracy without respect for human rights is humbug.

The main question in constitutional liberal democracies is who gets to intrepret, make, and change the constitution? Why and how?

Verto · December 14, 2003, 22:15

A Vertocracy is the way to go.

St Leo · December 14, 2003, 22:52

Democracy.

Nubclear · December 14, 2003, 23:32

I assume we speak of American democracy, where I can say with confidence tha it has completly failed.

Kirnwaffen · December 14, 2003, 23:38

This question hinges quite heavily on how you define success or failure. To date, I would say democracy in the United States has had many great successes; we have been largely successful in peacefully transfering power from one political party to another and we have succeeded in remaining a sovereign nation. Democracy in the United States also has many great failings; it has failed to solve many social issues effectively, or even adequately, and we have yet to strike that vital balance between freedom and security.

Around the world, democracy has certainly done more for the people than any other form of government yet attempted, and, I think, will continue to do so. In the end, however, a democracy will have the same failings and virtues as it's participants; it will never be any better, or any worse.

Kuciwalker · December 14, 2003, 23:51

I'd say democracy is a success, as it is the only logically justifiable system of government

Where democracy has failed, it has failed less than any other system would.

connorkimbro · December 15, 2003, 01:38

i think democracy is OK, as long as you've got a rational populace.

And i mean rational by MY definition of rational.

Urban Ranger · December 15, 2003, 01:39

I am surprised that nobody asked this question: what is democracy?

cinch · December 15, 2003, 01:42

I would have to go with the general feeling here and say that Democracy is the best damn failure we've ever had.

Of course, 'in theory', a Philosopher-King Monarchy would be 'the best', but that could really only happen in a world without corruption. HA!

connorkimbro · December 15, 2003, 01:44

In MY theory, a connorkimbrocracy is the best form of government.

BOW DOWN TO ME!

Drogue · December 15, 2003, 10:43

Democracy

(in the current form) I'm, all for a technocracy, or failing that, a democracy where the term is a lot longer than 4 years. Democracy leads to a situation where nobody can look past or plan past the next election, since all they care about is getting re-elected. Also, with the population voting while most of them do not understand the issues, voting on a whim, I don't think you will get a better leader elected than if you were to appoint one. I'd like it if we either had an elected group of people who do not rule the country, but appoint those who do. Or even an unelected group to do that. While a democracy is better than a police state, or a tyrant, I would prefer a good ruler who was concerned with doing the right thing in the long term, than a good ruler who was concerned with what the people would thing in 4 years time.

C0ckney · December 15, 2003, 10:47

oh good lord, now we've got someone arguing for 'enlightend' despotism

Drogue · December 15, 2003, 10:49

Quote:

Originally posted by cinch
Of course, 'in theory', a Philosopher-King Monarchy would be 'the best', but that could really only happen in a world without corruption.

Very true

SlowwHand · December 15, 2003, 10:49

Nothing like a stupid question/poll to start the week off right.