democracy, is it practical?

Question

Is democracy REALLY practical or is it just a stepping stone to popularity and better life. I see as if political leaders are too hungry for power

Answer 1

Democracy provides many people to fight for the leadership unlike in a monarchical and dictatorial. Thus, democracy is not sometimes good since people have freedom that they used to violate.

Answer 2

The Ancient Greeks believed that Democracy always led to Tyranny and the world's move to Democracy pretty much proves that. Hitler and Saddam were both elected under Democracies. America went from a Small Government Constitutional Republic to a Big Government Democracy where the Constitution is a "piece of paper" in the words of our president.

The most important role of a government, if one exists, is to protect liberty and the people should alter or abolish it if it fails to do that (John Locke's theory of the social contract and right to revolution that was referenced in the Declaration of Independence). A Democracy often fails because people go after unpopular targets (the wealthy, certain industries, minority groups or in more recent times majority groups). Its other problem is that special interests dominate government (people want a government program or a subsidy to help themselves, but those programs hurt everybody else whenever implemented). Governments also tend to waste money on Pork Barrel Projects under Democracies.

There's a reason why only male property owners could vote at first in America and the state legislatures chose the senators. By limiting the vote to property owners and letting the states choose the senate and president (the electoral college was appointed by state legislatures at first), small government was almost assured. When the Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton started pushing for Big Government in the late 1790s, the states just voted Thomas Jefferson president and never let the Federalists back into the White House. When such requirements had eroded, the country ended up in a Civil War (the Democrats warned the country in 1856 that the Republicans were an extreme party that would cause a Civil War, which turned out to be right, though that advice wasn't heeded) and small government disappeared. Then the Income Tax, Direct Election of Senators, and the Federal Reserve helped to speed up big government. The states are basically powerless nowadays, though the revolt against the Real ID (which is a truly bipartisan affair) may bring back federalism in America.

The sad thing is that people don't value what they have until its gone, possibly forever. Nobody defends a Republic while it exists, because they want a Democracy (or a Monarchy in Rome's case). The French Revolution's motto was "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," but they failed to realize that all 3 are exclusive. Under liberty, you're going to have "social injustices" and "income inequality," but you have freedom. Under equality, you will have equal income but no freedom (as in Communism). Under fraternity, you'll have a society divided into classes and with no freedom (fascism). Democracy is an enemy of freedom because it upholds whatever is voted for by the majority, rather than freedom.

Answer 3

Is it practical...well considering our other options i don't really think you can ask that question. Democratic representation by the people is the one way to make sure that the people are not abused. The essence of democracy has nothing to do with popularity. What deals with popularity and what gets perverted is the election process. It is set up in a way that money gets you elected, which has nothing to do with who the best candidate is. Democracy is a great idea it just need to be carried out in a responsible way where $ doesn't = power

I've always believed that you should not vote for the person who appears to want the position more than all other candidates. This is because they are after personal power and success, and are not so much concerned for the people. This goes for every party.

Answer 4

Democracy is an ideal, It is a mistake to think that the countries in Europe or the USA and other countries that claim democracy actually have very democratic institutions or governments.

A 'true' democracy for example would engage the opinion of 'every' member of society on every decision.

Since this would be impossible in most cases (even with technology) and impractical in all but a few instances we end up with hybrid systems that call themselves democracies based on the intent of the 'creators'.

I am not sure I would see them as a stepping stone, this assumes that they are a route to somewhere. At best I see them as a halfway house between ideals and practicalities.

Having said that I would rather live in a flawed attempt at 'democracy' than a state where you are arrested, tortured and murdered if you don't happen to agree with the current King pin.

I agree with your assessment of most politicians, but then unless you want power and have the ego to think you can exercise it better than others why would you become a politician?

I would rather have them exposed as they are, where we have some chance of seeing what they are up to and homing in on the mistakes that reveal their 'dirty secrets'. The alternative of even the little we see of other systems has no appeal for me.

Answer 5

It's just a stepping stone to popularity and better life. Any of the 3 options, Democracy and Dictatorship are both practical. Only monarchies aren't. Look at this country, we get given the chance to vote every 4 years but then after our work is done it's "what the politicians say goes." It's a Democratic Dictatorship run no different to how Cuba's run by Fidel Castro. We might aswell have an Adolf Hitler incharge, inforcing laws that we have to abide by, If we disagree he'll get us killed. Democracy is no different to Dictatorships. Look at Russia. Vladimir Putin has been democratically elected twice now but yet is responsible for Dictator like tendencies. E.G. The murder of a female journalist and a close friend of her's, Alexander Litvinenko. Because they both opposed him.

Answer 6

I am with Plato on this one. There will be no peace on Earth until kings are philosophers and philosophers King. I work in a school and it makes me shudder to think that some of the pupils and parents I deal with on a regular basis will have or already DO have the power to influence the political destiny of this country. Frankly, if we gave the people what they wanted the winner of Big Brother would be head of state, we'd have the death penalty for shoplifters, sex offenders would receive public castration, children would be served Turkey Twizzlers in between being beaten to bring back good old fashioned educational values! No...Democracy only work when the people making the decisions have enough intellect to make sensible choices. So I say, Benevolent Dictatorship is the way forward.

Answer 7

The true ideal of democracy is not really practical, or rather democracy doesn't really work. Rather than having a government elected of the people, by the people, for the people, you have a government elected from candidates chosen and backed by big businesses, voted for by a bunch of people, most of whom don't really care or even know what the issues at stake are. So, quite frankly, though it may not be a popular viewpoint, a government chosen through a revolution is far more representative of the people's wishes than an elected government, as if people are willing to fight for a government, then that is truly who they want in charge.

Answer 8

In one way it is practical: everybody in the same bag.
The poor, the analphabet, the criminal, the famous scientist, the bishop, the executive, the medic, the lawyer, the community leader, the who does absolutely nothing for the community and the one who does a lot.
Everyone has a vote.
It could be fair..or not.
But surely, its not the best way to have reliable political leaders.

What about the QUALITY of the votes?

Electing a county representant is not the same task as picking up a president.

If a bigger part of the people is not qualified to choose a president, how can we expect anything good for the country?
Isn´t it a lottery?

Blog: http://marlotte.reallife.com

Answer 9

Pure democracy as it was defined by the ancient Greeks probably is not practical. However the modified form practiced in America and the variations in Europe and elsewhere do work and are very practical.

Some political leaders are likely power-hungry but others just want the power they need to do their jobs and fulfil their responsibilities.

Answer 10

Democracy is not as good for politicians as it is for citizens of those democratic states.

The richest states in antiquity, Athens and Rome were democracies.

Today's richest countries became so after adopting democracy.... England, United States, Canada, Europe, Japan, Korea, Australia

Corruption is the biggest threat to democracy - Russia, Latin America, Africa.

Countries that are becoming more democratic - India, China - are becoming richer.

Democracy is very practical and is the natural state of existence for people of the world.

Richest countries are democratic and relatively corruption-free.




.

Answer 11

It is just a stepping stone...

I say a stepping stone because whether or not the ppl choose to use that stone to advance their society completely is up to them. Democracy is just a tool providing the means to a fair and equal society; but when the ppl choose not to educate themselves on the issues, not to vote and are easily swayed by propaganda, democracy means nothing.