I have done. Please see my previous post.
So you miss the part where I said democracy is not the best type for government for all different society on earth?
Where I said forcing democratic system on nations that are not ready will end in disaster?
Where I said, maybe authoritarian government with the ability to rapid change and reform might be better fit for some nations than grid lock governments?
There is no developed society on Earth for which plural democracy shouldn’t be the goal. Where (i.e. which ‘society’) do think is a bad fit for democracy?
History teaches us that there isn’t a society on Earth which hasn’t fought for democracy from either a plutocracy, absolute monarchy or despotism. There is no feasible alternative to democracy in a civilian context.
And how did that work out for Nasser’s/Sadat’s/Mubaraks’s Egypt?
Even those countries which habitually suffer coalition govt’s (e.g Israel, Belgium, et al) are better off than being under an authoritarian gov’t. So what if they take longer to reach consensus (and hence legislation and policy) - at least they extend universal suffrage and the people get their say in who governs them.
[QUOTE=stardave]
How about the Roman empire?
[/QUOTE]
Well, how about it? Which period of the Roman Empire are we talking here? Should I list all of the Emperors who were horrible, lunatics, ran the empire into the ground, etc etc? That’s the thing…you might get a good Emperor, followed by a mediocre one, followed by a series of lunatics or by periods of internal civil war as various parties attempt to wrest control of the empire for their own ends. If THIS is your candidate for a superior system to democracy then I have to question what your criteria actually is.
WHICH dynasty? You do know that there were several Chinese dynasties, right? But really, it’s the same answer as for the Romans…you could get a good Emperor followed by not so good or insane, or civil war or one that simply runs the country into the ground. What, exactly, are the criteria you are using here to judge ‘best’, and what, specific examples do you give that proves your point? You can’t just say ‘Chinese dynasty’ because that’s a non-sense reply.
Wonder why that might be? 
Feel free to use modern China if you want, but you might want to catch up on current events. All is not goodness and light in modern day China. Even if you just look at the surface, however, I’m not seeing specific examples that make it ‘best’, so feel free to fill those in.
Let me ask you something. Throughout history, have there been more failed democracies or more failed monarchies? More failed despotic governments or more failed democracies? More failed theocracies or more failed democracies. If you answered ‘democracies’ to any of the above, then I’ll ask you to justify that answer. Thought it doesn’t really matter…you are asking about ‘best’, not ‘most successful’.
Feel free to do so. Lets see your argument. And also why things like ‘a free market’ don’t work equally well for other forms of government.
-XT
Ah you use the word “developed” society, noticed I said all different culture and society, but yet our promotion for democracy all around the world like we are offering some kind of secret receipt that solves all your woos. And it often does not work.
[QUOTE=]
History teaches us that there isn’t a society on Earth which hasn’t fought for democracy from either a plutocracy, absolute monarchy or despotism. There is no feasible alternative to democracy in a civilian context.
[/QUOTE]
Agree somewhat, however it doe backfire from time to time, most of the time when people are fighting their repressive government has much to do with their desire to overthrown the corrupted government in charge than the desire to achieve a true democracy. And sometime it does backfire, for example after the Soviet Union went down after WW2, the people indeed received democracy, but the democratic government was in unpopular because it can’t provide for the people, that people actively wants a strongman to take charge, thus come in Vladimir Putin. Or do you remember after the French revolution, the killing, the chaos that it followed until Napoleon became the sole leader? Or how many modern democratic government has utterly failed to provide for it is citizen until a strong man takes over?
[QUOTE=]
And how did that work out for Nasser’s/Sadat’s/Mubaraks’s Egypt?
Even those countries which habitually suffer coalition govt’s (e.g Israel, Belgium, et al) are better off than being under an authoritarian gov’t. So what if they take longer to reach consensus (and hence legislation and policy) - at least they extend universal suffrage and the people get their say in who governs them.
[/QUOTE]
This goes directly to the 2nd point in this reply, people are angry at them has as much to do with the government’s ineffective rule than people wants actual democracy, you can look at the example of China, where authoritarian government is actually wildly supported by the majority of population, I know this is NOT what you are hearing from Fox News, but it is true though.
Oh and the saga of Middle East is not over yet, we don’t know how will it all turn out, so keep your finger crossed.
btw. I’m glad you actually replied with some substances rather than focus on grammar.
Representative democracy has created the best outcomes in terms of freedom, prosperity, and humanity. This doesn’t mean that its the best in every situation. I don’t think democracy should be “forced” from without. These things seem to have a knack for ironing themselves out in the long run.
Well I would say overall Roman empire is actually a improvement over Roman republic, it had more land, more wealth, more prestige, And the argument goes both ways just as there was good bad, there were also good emperor that governed well. But overall the Roman empire was far more successful as a political entity than all that come after in Europe, until recently maybe.
But I don’t think it is possible to compare this, because we are talking about modern 19th-21th century government.
[QUOTE=]
WHICH dynasty? You do know that there were several Chinese dynasties, right? But really, it’s the same answer as for the Romans…you could get a good Emperor followed by not so good or insane, or civil war or one that simply runs the country into the ground. What, exactly, are the criteria you are using here to judge ‘best’, and what, specific examples do you give that proves your point? You can’t just say ‘Chinese dynasty’ because that’s a non-sense reply.
[/QUOTE]
Which Dynasy? Well let me see, Han dynasty, Tang Dynasty, Song Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, all of them were strictly monarchical and authoritarian and all of them with the exception of Song, utterly dominated Asia landscape when they were in power, and all of them had higher GDP than any other nation on earth at the same time, all of them brought new heights for the Chinese civilization. And yes, just as there was good Empiors there was also bad ones, but overall, they were extremely successful.
[QUOTE=]
Wonder why that might be? Feel free to use modern China if you want, but you might want to catch up on current events. All is not goodness and light in modern day China. Even if you just look at the surface, however, I’m not seeing specific examples that make it ‘best’, so feel free to fill those in.
[/QUOTE]
Go ahead read that long post of mine, where I listed some good examples, then replies to me
[QUOTE=]
Let me ask you something. Throughout history, have there been more failed democracies or more failed monarchies? More failed despotic governments or more failed democracies? More failed theocracies or more failed democracies. If you answered ‘democracies’ to any of the above, then I’ll ask you to justify that answer. Thought it doesn’t really matter…you are asking about ‘best’, not ‘most successful’.
[/QUOTE]
If you want to look at ALL of recorded human history, where 99% of all governments are monarchism, then yeah, they all have fallen in the end, but that is not really fair is it? You want to argue ancient history? I can start another topic of Greek city states vs Chinese Warring states and compare achievements.
But let us look at all the modern 21th century government shall we? Let us look at the near 7 billion population on earth, how many of them lacks basic necessities and living in so call “democracies”, hint hint, India alone accounts for 1/3 of them, then you got almost all of Africa, large part of Latin American, large part of South East Asia. I mean this is not surprising is it? Vast majority of nation on earth are democracies, and vast majorty of them are doing a bad job to caring for it is own people.
[QUOTE=]
Feel free to do so. Lets see your argument. And also why things like ‘a free market’ don’t work equally well for other forms of government.
What?
-XT
[/QUOTE]
No. A ‘society’ which isn’t developed is termed a tribe - cf. those found in the Amazon and PNG. Where tribalism reigns, you don’t have democracy - cf. any number of African countries, where tribal chiefs still dispatch ‘justice’, based on tribal tradition.
Those claiming to be ‘developed’, e.g. Saudi Arabia, and most Middle Eastern monarchies, are not actually developed. They might be rich (at least at the upper echelons), but democratically developed they are not.
The Soviet Union actually imploded in 1991, not after WW2.
That’s invariably a subjective position - the GOP would have us believe that Obama has been a disaster for the US - but it’s merely their opinion, and not supported by fact.
I’m actually in the Middle East at the moment - I spend a lot of my time here. I was here for 28 of the 32 days of the last Israeli-Lebanon war of 2006.
My apologies for my previous post. I should not use ad hominem replies.
I’m afraid we have a misunderstanding, by developed I mean, please see post #46 on this trend. I don’t mean naked Africans by any means.
[QUOTE=]
The Soviet Union actually imploded in 1991, not after WW2.
[/QUOTE]
Oops sorry, yes, that’s what I mean after cold war, not WW2, did you know Russia suffer a economic depression that was far worse than the one we suffered in 1930s. Until Putin come online, I’m not saying he did everything right, he did some thing right, but he was also very lucky as well, which contributed to his popularity.
[QUOTE=]
That’s invariably a subjective position - the GOP would have us believe that Obama has been a disaster for the US - but it’s merely their opinion, and not supported by fact.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah I am not talking about Obama or US politics at all, I am actually talking about people are angry because of food price increase, or loss of prestige, the government failing to provide very basic services.
[QUOTE=]
I’m actually in the Middle East at the moment - I spend a lot of my time here. I was here for 28 of the 32 days of the last Israeli-Lebanon war of 2006.
[/QUOTE]
Well good for you, this is the year 2012, keep a watch out for the development in the middle east, it will be interesting for sure. I am actually extremely curious to see how the Islamist will do when they achieve political power through democratic process… the process which most of them opposed strongly not so long ago.
[QUOTE=]
My apologies for my previous post. I should not use ad hominem replies.
[/QUOTE]
no problem.
Most of the poorest countries in the world are not democracies at all or democracies in name only. And its not as if countries like North Korea or Zimbabwe are better off. :rolleyes: India is doing quite well actually, far better than its far more unstable and authoritarian neighbour Pakistan.
You see, when you say things like that, what does it mean? They all have a democratic system, the leaders get elected by voting, but yet, they still fail to provide for it is own people. So does that still make them democratic? If they are utterly fail to provide for it is people?
And yes if you want to compare to lowest common denominator, then next to the worst nation on earth, everyone is doing ok I guess, but it still does not excuse India’s 32% of population that survives on less than 1 dollar a day does it?
Oh and Pakistan is also a democracy.
India is actually the world’s largest democracy (a fact lost on most Americans who insist that the US is). India even got rid (at least in legislative terms, if not in practice) of its caste system. Their economy, in growth, foreign reserves and diversity, puts the West’s to shame.
Pakistan is a failed state in all but name. Corruption is rife at every level.
Are you freaking serious? Their economy puts West’s to shame? 1/3 of all Indians can barely eat everyday. Their caste system is still very much alive and in effect, even if not officially in effect.
Feel free to read this 2 article from beginning to end.
I’m out for today, write up all your best arguments and I’ll respond tomorrow.
Pakistan’s system is incredibly unstable with regular coups, assasinations, and revolts. And India started from an incredibly low base in 1947 yet they have as noted above successfully fought the Caste system and in addition made starvation a thing of the past.
Who’s going to teach them how to rule a nation? Surely not the rulers. They’re busy.
The OP is “Is Democracy the best form of government?”
This begs the question (as has been noted above by more worthy posters) of what do we mean by ‘best form of government’.
If we mean ‘the most efficient’ then a technocratic form of fascism would probably fit the bill.
If we mean ‘the most individual expression of will’ then simple anarchy works nicely and has, arguably, for tens of thousands of years.
If we mean ‘the most good for the most people’ then some forms of representative democracy, notably the republican form defined in the US Constitution, appears to be a good fit, as well.
It is not just that the members of the citizens of such a form of government are allowed to select their representatives by voting, it is also that their ability to ‘petition the Government for a redress of grievances’ is an inalienable right of the people and may not be abridged by any law other than a constitutional amendment. This is supposed to establish the sovereignty of the populace over their representatives. This is, of course, honored more in the breach than in the observance now, but it is important to remember the ideals of the Republic occasionally if only in its mourning.
So, in my opinion, I agree with Mr. Churchill when he said, “[n]o one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
It can be like an apprenticeship. The youngsters are in the background to watch how it goes, and step up to participate from time to time to learn the ropes.
“Hey, come up here, Little Jimmy, and see how I sign a death warrant. Consummate 'v’s, I always say. You see how my John Hancock is more somberly written than when I’m approving the budget for this year’s Worship the President-for-Life Festival. Here, why don’t you sign the next few? That’s it! Well done! That’ll be one more rabble-rousing rapscallion who’ll never again blaspheme against his holy fatherland, I dare say.”
Hell, what do we mean by “democracy”? It is an overly broad term for this.
East Germany used to be called (in most of our lifetimes) the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik or DDR). North Korea’s proper name is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. I am pretty sure no one here would describe either as “democratic” in any meaningful sense. Hell, the Soviets had elections and again I doubt anyone would say they were a democratic government.
So where do you draw the line? There are dozens, over a hundred even, variations on democratic governments. Which one is the best in that list and how close do they adhere to some notional ideal of a democracy?
Hell, a “pure” democracy (e.g. something that follows a textbook philosophical definition of a democracy) does not even exist nor could it on this planet. A “pure” democracy is wholly unworkable which is why we have so many bastardized versions of it.
As has been noted several times saying democracy (or what passes for it) is the “best” form of government is NOT the same thing as saying it is a good form of government. It merely means all the rest are worse and democracy is the least worst so far.
Certainly any form of government yet devised by man has their good and bad points. Democracy, in any of its forms, is far from perfect.
Stardave, is English your first language? I’m not trying to be a dick, I’m genuinely just curious.