I hate to jump on the bandwagon, but I believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that democracy has proven to be a better form of government, at least in the modern age. Of course, this depends on how you define “better,” which is a semantic quagmire.
Look at the UN Human Development Index and the set of countries which are electoral democracies (as defined by Freedom House).
I notice a significant similarity between the two. Is there absolute, one-to one correspondence between the two? Is the UN HDI the one perfect source for rating “goodness” of a government? Of course not. But I think that provides a reasonable set of evidence to support the assertion that democracy is the government most likely to produce positive living standards and economic growth.
Just because something is the best we’ve tried so far doesn’t mean it’s the best that’s physically possible. If you think we’ve hit the be-all end-all of government, you’re sorely misguided.
And our country only pays lip service to democracy anyway. When was the last time you voted on any federal legislation at all? I didn’t get to approve the Constitution. “Government by the people” doesn’t mean much when those people are 200 years dead.
If democracy has one fatal flaw, it’s the ability of people to screw each other over in a horrible fashion. And representative democracy is even worse, because once someone is elected, they have no incentive to vote on behalf of the populace, only to say the right things while doing whatever the hell the people who give them money want. This country is an oligarchy that derives a lot of its power and corruption from the fact that citizens think they have control, when they don’t. Votes are meaningless.
Yeah, it’s the best form of government we’ve tried, but that’s like saying this is the best dogshit I’ve ever tasted. If you think you’ve hit the pinnacle of fine dining, I feel sorry for you.
The problem with “Representative Democracy” (so called) is that it so far from actual democracy as to hardly merit the title. Like the Holy Roman Empire it is neither representative nor democratic.
I don’t think many people here would be able to say that democracy as we know it is the best system ever, and the final point of human societal evolution. Far from it. It’s riven with major flaws.
But as has been pointed out, it’s the least worst system we have so far devised. It’s least worst because it’s relatively benign when it comes to the security of the person and the security of property, as well as permitting a semblance of popular participation in government.
No other government system that we yet know of has been able to meet, let alone surpass, these necessities.
If at some point in the future some governmental system is devised that is better than what we have at present, I’d be delighted for it to be adopted. But right now, and probably for a good while yet, no other system is forthcoming.
Interesting that you imply a better form of government must replace democracy. Maybe the problems of democracy are inherent in any government, and it is government itself that needs replaced..
Democracy works best when it limits control of the populace. It works worst when, like we see happening today, control and power over individuals is increased. I think the logical extension is that some form of anarchy is ideal. Governments should exist to maximize freedom. When they do, they hardly warrant the term “government”.
And before anyone mentions it, cowering in fear of roving bands of looters and murderers is hardly freedom. At one point in time “democracy” was the unmentionable bogeyman used to scare people into maintaining previous power structures. Just as we rethought democracy, you need to rethink your idea of anarchy. Mad Max wasn’t a documentary. I would say 95% of the rules I follow on a day to day basis do not come from a government. Personal morals, societal decorum, my wife, corporate policy, homeowners associations, SDMB rules, etc. Getting rid of governments doesn’t mean getting rid of rules and order.
