John Hewett asked...
Asked by John Hewett - 31/08/09 at 03:08 pmIs democracy still the best form of government?
(kyoo-fahy-ah)
"The quest for philosophical answers"
A modern take on philosophy, exploring the worlds great questions, sociology, and flights of fantasy.
Answer this...
August 31st, 2009 at 7:30 pm
With increases in world populations, democracy would seem to be the most logical and fairest form of governance, however on the same note, the more populations increase, the more difficult it becomes to remain democratic and satisfy the expectations and views of all groups, especially considering the increasingly multi-cultural nature of global societies today. Presently we are in a state of limbo and the future will either see things spiral out of control resulting in conflict and destabilisation, or social evolution will see cultures merge as they evolve over time and develop a more common view based on acceptance. The latter may be accelerated by natural disaster, but in any case the conflict will likely come first.
Democracy is not the ideal, in an ideal world community centered governance would be self regulatory, minimise conflict and ensure sustainable population growth, but the fact is, social evolution has come too far for this to be a realistic prospect, and democracy remains the best option we have.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:37 am
The *concept* of Democracy is still the fairest, most ethically principled of all political tendencies. However, ‘Government’ is precisely where Democracy falls down. Democracy and National Government are, I would argue, mutually incompatible.
I believe that a ‘State’ is not a politically ‘neutral’ body which aims to look after its citizens/subjects with a dispassionate affection, despite what government ministers may say. It is, and always will be the vehicle of a political and civil elite. Even though this elite may change shape over the course of centuries – either by sociological pressures, economic pressures or even outright revolution, it’s aim will remain constant: The self-propagation and continuation of its own authority. This is true of all forms of statist government, whether their legitimacy comes at a ballot box (an election between members of the elite) or from the barrel of a gun (the footsoldiers of the elite).
Now, as to whether democracy – true democracy – is the best form of ‘Governance’; it’s hard to say, as true ‘rule by the people’ is notoriously hard to achieve. However, it is theoretically possible (there have been brief examples of it in places like Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, and other small scale locations). The real question is; ‘Is government the best form of social organisation?’
September 1st, 2009 at 9:41 am
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” – Winston Churchill
September 1st, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Democracy was NEVER the best form of government. In the very cradle of the institution in Ancient Greece the greatest philosophers labelled it the worst form of government only surpassed in evil by tyranny itself.
Think about it in the modern context:
1. Most people are too ill-informed on the issues to cast a meaningful vote
2. Most politicians are in the hands of the non-democratic oligarchies of corporate interests
3. Even if we get a 51% vote in favor of x, it means we have nearly the exact same number of people opposed to x. (that can mean 100s of millions of very unhappy people)
4. It is based on a logical fallacy (consensus gentium) that wrongly places the will of the majority as the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.
Simply put democracy is an easily corrupted and poorly argued system of government that denies objective authority and subjugates truth to the tyranny of the mob.
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:34 am
So what would be the alternative then?
Given points 1, 3, and 4 in the previous answer; that most people are too ill-informed to truly understand the issues, that very often it will be hard to get any kind of consensus of opinion and that the majority isn’t always right, not to mention the practical considerations of giving everyone a say on every issue, it would appear that a truly representative form of government is impossible, not to mention weak.
A despotism would be stronger and more decisive but puts the entire nation at the whims of a single person and exposes it to their failings, plus there is the issue of how to select one. Clearly methods such as “who is the strongest”, “who is the most underhand” and divine right to rule are outdated so they’re no good.
What is needed is some way in which the people can choose a smaller set of people to represent their interests as best as possible, and that smaller group can choose one of their number to have overall control and set the general direction. Which, I think, is pretty much what we have and comes down once again to democracy/republicanism being the least bad option.
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Herbert Spencer’s texts on social evolution are probably one of the most comprehensive and accurate projections of how society works and evolves over time and under different political umbrella’s.
Unfortunately the ideal that can be concluded from his work is a relative impossibility, given the population, and would involve small centralised communities that support and govern themselves to meet the requirements of their localised environment.
Perhaps the next political step would be a technology based political engine, that uses an algorithm to make decisions, based on a consensus entered by the populus.
The problem is that politics is often governed by corruption and greed and a fair and logical system would likely see resistance from those in power.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
“Perhaps the next political step would be a technology based political engine, that uses an algorithm to make decisions, based on a consensus entered by the populus.”
I don’t think too many people would be happy about being governed by a machine, no matter how fair or reflective of their views it is. For a start, who would write it and how could anyone be sure it wasn’t biased towards their views? Secondly, making decisions based upon logic may be “correct”, but is it always “right”? I think that left to its own devices (or indeed guided by a majority) a machine would make a lot of fairly unethical decisions that would make perfect sense from a logical point of view but be completely abhorrent to any normal human being.
September 4th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Democracy would seem to be the best form of Government…unfortunately we live in a democracy led by a capitalist ideology which begs the question…is the Capitalist Democracy the best form of government.
I suggest that it isn’t and i suggest that the fact that The Capatilist Democracy is not a Democracy at all.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:48 am
The concept of government is invalid because it violates the non-aggression principle. In other words, “government” is just another word for gang. The initiation of the use of force can not be right and wrong at the same time. Therefore, since the “government” is an invalid concept, there is no best form of government. The best organization of human beings is in effect, no organization. Anarchy, volunteerism, or whatever you want to call it is the only moral prescription. More information on these ideas can be found at freedomainradio.com.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:33 am
Asking whether democracy is still the best form of government is like asking what you want the color to be of the stick you’re going to be beaten by. Taxes have never been higher, state control is expanding increasingly, the governments have run up such a huge debt that there is no way that this situation will blow over just like that.
At some point when the government increases it’s pervasiveness in the lives of people and demands even more taxes while decreasing the quality of it’s services and thereby our lives, people will see the state for the violent entity that it is. The parasite that lives in our society. There is no logical mathematical way that this can continue, running the deficit up further and further.
It is not until you realize that governments are really just powerful because they have monopolized the popular ideology. Wearing uniforms does not give you the right to steal and initiate violence against others and it does not solve problems. Governments are a unnecessary overhead and a burden in all our lives. There where roads 100 years ago when the taxes where a fraction of what they are now, and the quality has only decreased. Governments have no incentive to better there services, only to increase their prices. The services that it claims to provide are really provided by the market and without the meddling of government, far more efficient. Does the government not hire road companies to build the roads? So we don’t need it for that. Can’t private insurance companies solve all the problems of risk aversion and can’t the free market provide solutions for disputes? The government sure won’t. Yet we continue to pay for these so called ‘essential services’.
But we don’t have to. We don’t have to at all. If we genuinely lived in a ‘free market’, then we would have to be able to say NO to a party which we pay for services and we’re not happy with them. Right??