It hasn’t proved to be significantly better than other systems, it may in fact proven otherwise. Yet it is not politically correct to say anything about it that isn’t a superlative.
I’m not saying that I’m anti-democratic, especially since today representative democracies are barely democracies at all, although I’m not pro-direct democracy either, since I believe it doesn’t really matter who answers the questions as much as who asks them.
It hasn’t? Outside your personal opinion what do you base that on?
As you said it’s only my opinion. I don’t want argue about it (I might, but that’s not the point). I want answer to my question. I said what I said to avoid answers like “because it’s best form of government” which is like you pointed out only an opinion and not actual answer to my question.
Who says it’s sacred? I hear people mocking democracy all the time. But you have to admit, the idea of “one person, one vote”, does have a certain - what’s that thing you can only say in French? - that the other systems don’t have. What do you think is better?
You do understand you placed this in Great Debates, right? :dubious:
Then why did you put it in Great Debates?
Actually, and this may seem unusual, it has always been so. The Republic of Rome and the Democracy of Athens were not merely convenient forms of government, but sacred obligations. Abstractions, yes, but abstractions worth living and dying over. Even the small republics of medeival Italy would, as their ancestors did, revolt and fight for their ancient institutions, just as Machiavelli wrote.
I consider this hilarious ironic. It is monarchy and dictatorship which are simply efficient solutions to the problem of self-government. They might be endowed with savred authority, but we must make myths of them being endowed with sacred authority by the people. However, the popular forms of government come with that baked-in, as it were. They quite obviously derive their authority form the sacred rights of the people.
Now, I should point out that I follow the old tradition which does endow humans with divine writ, rather than the more cynical and materialist modern tradition. I cannot help but admit the status of so many ancient cities as holy cities (and from the beginning, not merely a later add-on) to note that sacredness, and the authority of the people together, were a powerful force, from Babylon to Rome to all of China.
Well, except that it has. The most successful governments in history also happen to have democracy in one form or another incorporated in. As Grey says, what are you basing this assertion above on?
Sez who? People think democracy is flawed, but it also works. You know, the whole ‘it’s the worst system out there, except everything else’ kind of thingy.
Why are representative democracies ‘barely democracies at all’? What system do you think has had better results, historically? As for people having issues and problems with democracy, you need to get out more. Go to a local bar and just listen to people complaining and pontificating on how they know how to solve all our problems. 
If you need examples, simply do a search on that XT guy…
-XT
What’s two plus two…and “four” is not an acceptable answer…
Democracy is demonstrably better than every other form of government ever devised.
Why is it sacred? Many reasons. For one, it’s traditional for cultures to enshrine their own values. Motherhood is sacred. The flag is sacred. This is basically just emotional game-playing.
Another reason: it is fervently desired by hundreds of millions of people who don’t have it. It’s sacred for being in scarce supply. If water were as rare as democracy, it would be sacred also.
Another reason: it emphasizes the importance of the individual, and raises the value of the common man to the level of sovereign. It respects you; it gives you at least a thin slice of control over the functioning of government at the highest level. It is the unique Oracle that listens to us!
Nobody is fool enough to think it’s perfect. But it’s pretty doggone good.
I’m not one to give it such a status. Even if I think it’s the best we’ve found so far, I can imagine what I think would be better systems. What I think makes it better isn’t so much the results, but the means.
Imagine these this scenario. You’re driving on a curvy road in less than perfect conditions, you feel a little uneasy about it so you decide to drive 25 MPH to safely navigate it and you make it to the other end just fine. Now imagine you get to the same road, but there’s a giant sign threatening you with a fine if you exceed 25 MPH, so to avoid getting the fine, you drive that speed, navigate to the end safely, and pass by the policeman standing there waiting to give out fines to anyone who didn’t listen. In both cases, you have the exact same result, where you drive the same speed and reach the end safely, but the way that that result was reached was different. Personally, I would feel much better in the first circumstance.
And so, the difference that democracy brings isn’t necessarily better results but that we are relying on ourselves to determine what is best for us rather than simply doing as we’re told under fear of force. And when democracies make mistakes, its the fault of the people and a lesson to be learned and, hopefully, we can improve the system over time through that.
Ah well then since it’s merely your opinion with no supporting evidence, the answer to your question is that your question is crap.
Judging democracy by its track record is not strictly relevant. Democracy is not a theory of good government, it is a theory of legitimate government. Democracy as such has only one purpose, which is to make the state do what the people want it to do – wise or unwise, just or unjust. It is based on, as H.L. Mencken put it, “the idea that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” If the people’s chosen government governs well, so much the better.
They aren’t efficient; just simple. A functioning democracy is more complicated to set up than “I’m in charge, do what you are told”. That’s one reason why militaries are still to this day such top down authoritarian organizations even in democracies; being simpler, they are easier to reconstruct on the fly when large portions of them have been killed.
Because in other people’s experience, it has been better.
Therefore, it is the tendency for even the virtuous and wise, once they gain power, to be tempted to use their power for unworthy ends. So it tends to work out better to distribute the power as widely as possible, so that the corruption of the few does not work to the detriment of the many.
This is not to say that the many are above reproach. But the majority tends to act as a check on the various factions that are generally a minority in the larger society.
For a democracy to work, you need a large middle class - the bourgeoisie that Marx talked about. As long as the majority identifies itself with the culture around it, it tends to shape or re-shape the society to preserve their values and interests. And thus the greatest good of the greatest number tends to create further identification with the society, and people will act to preserve and protect what they see as their interests.
That’s why people vote. My individual vote means almost nothing. But the fact that so many people believe as I do, in the preservation of the society, means that we act as a group.
I don’t mean voting for one party or another. I mean commitment to a Constitutional republic, where the accepted method of reform is to vote for candidates and not, for example, armed revolution.
And people can see the historical record. That’s part of what is meant by America being an example to the world. The French had a revolution, and wound up with Napoleon Bonaparte. The American revolution wound up with George Washington.
People figure out that democracy works better than self-serving ideas like the divine right of kings, or theocracy, or any of the other modes of government that have been tried over the centuries. It’s not inevitable that democracy wins out, but that is the trend of history.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think it is irrelevant. See what I said about the historical record.
That’s an interesting point!
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t see how we can discuss why democracy is worse before we’ve established that it is worse, let alone without choosing any standards to judge it better or worse.
Try again, Qwertol.
Well, that’s democracy as such, which is not the same thing as constitutional government or the rule of law, which have different purposes; though they all seem to go together well enough, with a few friction points.
What do you see as the purpose of constitutional government that is distinct from that of democracy? I would say both rely on the consent of the governed. Is there something else?
Like I said, I think you made an interesting point, and I would like to hear more.
My apologies if that is a hijack. And, if it is not clear, I am not trying to be snarky.
Regards,
Shodan
I think Democracy is to government what free market capitalism is to economics. In both cases you have wonderful theory that supposes perfectly informed voters/consumers and shows that each person acting in his own interest maximizes happiness/value. In reality these assumptions don’t hold, and so a modified version of the system actually works a little better, constitutional republicanism in the case of democracy, and a somewhat externally regulated economy in terms of the free market system. Still the reality isn’t that far from the theory and so it works better than the alternative.
Nonsense. Just off the top of my head, the Chinese Empire, Roman Empire, Mughal Empire, Ottoman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Egyptian Pharaohnate, Babylonian Priest-Kings, French Monarchy, English Monarchy (before it lost its power), Persian Empire, all prospered mightily and lasted longer than any democracy ever has. I think the record for a democracy of any real size and power is now just over 230 years, and it seems already to have become effectively ungovernable.