Can a democracy be ineffective or inappropriate for a nation?

Answer 1

In the short term, yes. People need to understand what freedom and democracy mean. That is why too many fledgling democracies have failed. The people of those countries have been so held down by their autocratic masters for so long, that they have no idea how to deal with freedom and choice.

They'd rather have someone threaten them and abuse them, because that's what they are used to.

It's like abused housewives who won't leave their husbands. They don't know any better.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't help them see the light though. Believe it or not, there is such a thing as right and wrong, and good and evil. I choose good and right.

Answer 2

The American Founding Fathers knew and understood that the only real advantage which democracy had over non-democratically elected governments is that it provides for a peaceful transition of power when public opinion changes. But they also knew and understood that, historically, democracies whose officials had unlimited political power over people's lives and earnings had been among the most tyrannical and oppressive of all governments.

If they reply that democracy is the American way, tell them that self-rule is the real American way. Self-rule and democracy are incompatible. Either you will make decisions for yourself or you will wait to see what the majority thinks you should do. Either you own your own life or everyone owns a fraction of everyone else, giving each person a claim to the resources of every other person. If that sounds horrendous, that's the logic of democracy.

Those who vote in the minority are stuck with what those in the majority choose. In other words, democracy is that system of political governance in which the ayes have it and the nays get it.

he reason was twofold. First, the American people in 1787 didn't trust government officials with political power, not even their own elected representatives. The second reason was more important. The American people knew that democracy did not constitute freedom and that historically democracy was often an enormous threat to freedom.

Please read the full articles associated with each paragraph above by using the links in the source list below. 1st paragraph-first web reference and so on. Lots of teriffic reading.

Answer 3

Absolutely. Thankfully we don't live in one. In a true democracy everyone has a say in how everything is ran. Sounds very inefficient if you ask me. The United States is a Representative Republic, which means that we elect people for the various tiers of government to make decisions, ideally based upon their campaign platforms and constituent input. Sadly this is rarely the case, not that most people would notice due ot the fact that they do not study in detail their entire platform. What seems to be the norm is voting based on their stance on a single issue such as their stance on abortion or some other divisive topic that they feel passionate about ignoring the rest of their platform such as banning the wearing of pink fuzzy bunny slippers or they simply like the party they belong to or dislike the party that they are voting against. I personally believe that a Representative Republic is the best way to go for a well educated and informed citizenry. A non-educated and uniformed public will get the totalitarianism that they deserve IMO whether they want it or not.

Answer 4

Plato said that the only true government is a wise tyrant. Democracy, he said, led to what we'd call a popularity contest, where all the "candidates" just pander to the will of the masses. For a democracy to work, the people need to be intelligent, well-informed and capable of making their own decisions. Unfortunately, this does not happen naturally. People need to be taught and trained how to behave in a democracy. Whether Plato's "Philosopher King" is the best form of government or not, he had one thing right, governments develop on their own according to the will of the people. We cannot force a government upon a people who are not ready.

Answer 5

Democracy, like any other political form of government, could fail or succeed depending on the current culture of a nation. It is not a cure-all pill. Democracy is not for everyone. The form of goverment, ideally, is dictated by culture and not the other way around. In the old nations, democracy would've failed because the culture neccessitated monarchy or emperial types. In nations where the goverment is thoroughly tied to religion as in some middle east countries, democracy can't thrive. Like the US can't adapt the Arab form of government. But the bottom line is, whatever form of goverment a nation is under, VALUES will ultimately dictate its success or failure.

Answer 6

look at the history of all the great nations.The roman empire is a good example. every nation that has turned to democracy has fell. the United States was not founded as a democracy but as a republic. If you compare the U, S. to the roman empire you will find that we are going down the same path. America the babalon , a melting pot of many nations.

Answer 7

Democracy is a broad term. The US is a democracy in name only. The US is a republic. There is no direct vote by the individual for the laws we enact and the leaders we put in power. We have representatives to interpret our will and an electoral college to decide who will lead us. There is no direct vote it those areas.

I think Switzerland probably has what would be the closest thing to a true democracy at this period of time.

Answer 8

Of course.

Nothing is perfect and governments are good examples.

In a dictatorship there is only ONE way to do things and that is how the BOSS wants it to be.

In a democracy, since the people are ruling themselves, there can be hundreds of ways to do things and they can be ways that are inappropriate and ineffective.

Answer 9

Yes. Where there are no systems, democracy ends up being domination of the masses by an elite as it happens in many African countries. These elite dicatate the nation's agenda which usually is not in the best interests of the masses. In my opinion one man one vote is the way to go with appropriate protection of minorities.

Answer 10

Yes it can. Look at Iraq right now. When a country is under a dictatorship such as they were sometimes tensions can arise afterward that are amount to violence of enormous proportions (such as the battle between the shiites and the sunnis in Iraq). Peter Katel cites Amy Chua, a law professor at Yale, this in his essay "Exporting Democracy." I will give you a link to my source but I doubt you will be able to access it because I got it off of a subscription database (CQ Researcher).