Well, I survived the Reagan and Bush administrations, gritting my teeth for 16 years, and I still wouldn’t trade in democracy for anything. On the plus side, we got Obama, so that kind of makes up for the rotten years.
I survived Carter and Clinton, and I only have to grit my teeth through two more years of Obama. There were some shenanigans in the 2012 election, but the evidence indicates that most of the votes are still being counted honestly. So I will stick with democracy.
Yes, that’s what Aquinas said: monarchy (for which I’d substitute ‘authoritarianism’, I’m not a fan of the hereditary principle) offers both the possibility for the best and worst governments, democracies tend to be mediocre.
Yeah, succession is the big Achilles’ heel of nondemocratic governments, I will concede that. The classic example in modern times is how Yugoslavia- which under Tito was an advanced, successful market-communist, religiously pluralist state and a focus of admiration for a lot of people both in the East and West, including a Western political philosopher as esteemed as Michael Walzer- collapsed into primitive ethnic nationalism in the 1990s.
It’s possible if they had tweaked their system a little bit, though, you could have gotten a Tito without a Milosevic.
I survived the Bush years; it’s not the end of the world. Did very well economically, still it didn’t make me like any better because I didn’t do too bad under Clinton or Obama either. I’m pretty sure that Obama haters are going to live and prosper as well no matter how much they cry. Yes, I’ll take democracy every time; at least you have the right to complain.
I voted for an unlikable democracy. The thing is, no matter how much I think my preferences are best, they’re really only best for me (and even then, only as far as I know). I’m not willing to throw a bunch of other people under the bus just so I can get what I want. If everyone has a voice, then the people who want to be heard will work to make it happen, and they’re more likely to do it through non-violent means. I know our system isn’t perfect, and it currently gives more power to the wealthy, but I’m not ok with a system where the only means of dissent is a revolution.
Also, this may be nitpicking and not in the spirit of the question, but my opinions and values change over time. Is this likable dictatorship always going to reflect my immediate values? Or would I just be happy for a few years and then need to participate in a revolution in order to change anything? Even if the dictatorship did stay in sync with my desires, what if I’m a minority view and I’m happy for a little while before the disgruntled masses rise up and install a new dictatorship I don’t agree with?
That, and the assumption that the Good Leader will institute policies that are in line with their political and ideological beliefs.
I’ll go with the dictatorship that imposes my point of view. Every. Damn. Time. I get all the benefit, and none of the hassle of having to be the leader.
I don’t believe we live under anything like a representative government anyway, I’m all for removing the veil of lies.
And the flip side of that is that democratic governments will eventually change. Look at Texas; state politics are currently absurdly conservative, but in time, they will change, due to changes in demographics and changes in opinions.
Far better to have that for another decade or so, than some benevolently autocratic system that won’t change along with the will of the people, and that has unpredictable and overwhelming changes.
The OP hypothetical, though, is that the democracy **won’t **change.
So basically, you’re offering the choice of living in Texas, versus living in Ankh-Morpork?* (Or living in Sweden, if you’re a conservative).
Yep, I’ll go with the democracy. Jeebus knows, it’s like pulling teeth to get the many-headed to change, and we’re all too ready to elect a George W. Bush or a Rick Perry (shudder), but, however slowly, change can come. Exempli grati: You no longer see the"Colored" water fountains and restrooms my dad grew up with. LGBT Americans can marry in thirty-nine, and by the summer, possibly fifty, states. Oregonians and Coloradans can legally smoke marijuana recreationally. Not all the changes are good, and not all of them are equally important - I’d class the Voting Rights Act and the 19th Amendment as more important than legal weed - but the changes can come, and from the people.
*For those of you who haven’t read Terry Pratchett, Ankh-Morpork is a city where most of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld novels are set. It’s ruled by Lord Vetinari, an enlightened despot who firmly holds to the principle of One Man, One Vote - he’s the Man, and he’s got the Vote. Also, why haven’t you read Terry Pratchett? He’s a living treasure, for heaven’s sake!
Again, the OP hypothetical is that the democracy **won’t **change.
The changes that come, though, might not be any improvement.
Consider, for example, the popular will of the people as expressed in the German referendum of 1934. If you were Jewish or liberal or belonged to one of the other groups the Nazis hated, would you have rather lived in Germany, where you could vote in the election, or in one of the British colonies where most residents did not have the franchise?
“Democracy” doesn’t necessarily mean “modern western-style democracy with a well-developed respect for individual civil liberties.”
It’s encouraging to note that 35% of Dopers don’t fall for the “purple fingers are the be-all and end-all of governance” gibberish.
Yes. In some advanced democracies many voters base their voting decisions almost entirely on well-developed and respectful wisdom such as the fact that “dem liberulls is cumming for my guns.”
FWIW, Thailand is playing out the experiment described in OP right now. Improvements in governance and crackdowns on corruption are tangible where I live. I see that Thailand and Egypt are the two large countries with hefty improvements in their corruption index between 2013 and 2014. (I don’t follow Egypt’s politics, but I think their new constitution was designed to curb the excesses of purple-fingerism.)
Yes, I don’t think people are getting that.
I’m going democracy for one primary reason: Democracies have a mechanism for stable change built in thanks to the voting system. If I’m living in a democracy I don’t like, it’s because the people around me do like it (at least enough to keep voting the way they do), and if we decide to change things, we should have the ability to set up a new party and get the ball rolling.
If it can’t be changed through voting, as some people are suggesting, then I’m going to say it’s not really a democracy. Voting for a dictator, or for the party’s one allowed candidate doesn’t make it a democracy either.
Even something like the United States Constitution is not entirely immune to change. I’d even tolerate a democracy that didn’t allow everyone to vote, such as the old Athenian system where only male land owners could vote. Heck, even in 1930’s Germany, the really bad stuff didn’t happen until after they stopped being a democracy.
Looking at the dictatorship side of things… I just don’t know that I trust an individual to do it right for long. People go crazy. Or they die and their crazy kids inherit it. Or they die when a blood-thirsty rival kills them and takes over.
:rolleyes: I already addressed this - I’m right because democracy is good for other reasons, not because of the dead and the scars. The dead and the scars are why I’ll be vocal about being right even when the democratic process temporarily installs shitheads. So read the whole thread before replying, maybe?
At least you’re proud to admit it.
Yes, most people are sheep - you act as though I don’t know this?
I beg to differ, and the history of my country begs to differ.
There is no natural moral law, unless you mean “the strong eat the weak; and who breeds, wins” both of which are abhorrent principles to base a society on.