what all will u say if u have to give arguments against democracy?

Answer 1

There is no argument for democracy as far as I'm concerned... you only have to look to America to see that its not working.

Answer 2

Well, as Winston Churchill said:
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

A potential problem with a "true Democracy" (the U.S. is a representative democracy) is that possibility of a tyranny of the majority. With a democracy, you get majority rule - and the majority can over ride the wishes and wants of the majority.

Also, the majority can sometimes fall prey to "group think" or "mob mentality" where they can be whipped into a frenzy over this or that, and can end up doing things they wouldn't normally do as an individual.

For the article on "Democracy" scroll down to the part that says "Liberty versus dangers of democracy"

Hope this helps!

Answer 3

I have no argument against democracy. I just think what we have at the moment is not it.

Democracy means "rule of the (ordinary)people".
Going to vote once every so often, and then being totally without influence unless you have loads of money is NOT the rule of the people.
The greeks had a word for that, too. It was called a plutocracy, the rule of the rich, and that's what we do have.

I think we should try democracy, but not before having dissolved the media cartels.

Answer 4

Dear Aman A,

A few ideas on the subject:

1. Democracy is messy and looks only at the short term. Nowadays we are faced with urgent issues that affect the entire planet, for instance, but they are unlikely ever to be solved because consensus must be sought within our own democracies first and that is next to impossible. Political leaders in democracies look no further than the next election and therefore long-term, constructive solutions to major problems are a rare occurrence.

2. Democracy too often seeks to pander rather than lead. People often do not have the slightest idea of where their best interest is from a wider political standpoint, and even if they do, they are generally too self-centered to consider the welfare of their country at large rather than their own narrow priorities. A true leader is one who can prioritise and critically evaluate these needs rather than merely telling everyone what they want to hear, and democracy does not generally promote such individuals.

3. Democracy encourages the rule of oligarchies which end up oppressing genuine popular will and stifling progress. Due to the poor firewall there exists between high-level public and private sector posts or the lack of legislation on campaign funding, corruption, collusion and influence-peddling are rife in almost all democracies. Vested interest groups and moneyed lobbies are always able to influence policy to the detriment of common sense and public welfare. Genuine democracy is supposed to be about the pursuit of the public interest - but nowadays it is mostly about mere competition in money and influence between privileged elites.

4. Democracy values the views of people who cannot contribute meaningfully to politics. For virtually any function in life, people need qualifications. One would not dream of putting an aeroplane into the hands of someone without a pilot's licence, or assign a litigation to someone without legal experience. Yet no one needs any qualifications to vote, and it so happens that policy-making is a business of great complexity - most people do not have the tools to analyse it properly and as a result vote virtually "blind" without the requisite knowledge necessary to make such decisions.

5. Democracy encourages career-based political leadership. Ironically, the worst sort of politician is one who makes a career out of politics, because he/she will always put self-promotion before service to the country. Thus politicians primarily evaluate decisions according to the influence these will have in their status or reputation. But a true leader is one who places his country above his own interest, which is why a system of "conscription" might be better, i.e. people appointed to political service just as they might have been to military service, and therefore with no vested interest in their own advancement.

Some thoughts for democratic reform, anyway!

Hope this helped,

Answer 5

I assume the first poster is from the UK. Surprise, the UK is structured very much like the U.S. The only difference the UK has is a Queen. They have a political leader (albeit, elected a different way than the U.S.), two houses of Legislature (similiar to U.S.), and a judicial system.

And by the way, Democracy in the U.S. is working very fine, thank you very much. We don't have a Queen to deal with.

Answer 6

I suppose it is nice to have on a country's resume.
It shows that you will allow the people to speak through their muzzles and listen with muffs on(corporate disposition-team person, good listener). It also gives you autocratic rights to invade other nations for their benefit and well being(excellent interpersonal skills in the art of convincing, aggressive in achieving goals).

Answer 7

China

Answer 8

Under autocracy you will die a silent death. In democracy you will scream and die. Atleast you vented out your frustration.

Answer 9

This does not represent a democracy, does it?!...
http://www.global-conspiracies.com/fema_concentration_camps.htm

Answer 10

Every system will have loopholes. Any thing is not the best. The idealogy chages from time to time.