English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

It seems that in a democracy you have to advertise and sell yourself to get into a position of power, so the people who get in are always people who like to talk rather than to listen, not people of wisdom. I can see them running good businesses, but not good for the countries.

Surely there is a way to choose people who are good leaders because of there ability to lead, not because of their ability to do something unrelated.

My favourite political system is the star trek one where people are tested in school for what they would be good at and then trained for it, and given a job in it, so leaders are always people with a natural ability and training - not just someone who wants the job.

2007-03-28 07:59:43 · 3 answers · asked by Eyebright 3 in Politics & Government Government

3 answers

I like your thinking, but I have to disagree with your assumption that business leaders would not make good leaders of a country. The United States is one big business...and it needs to be run as such. I am all for a brilliant business mind who knows how to run a business profitably. Those people also understand how to lead effectively and maintain 'buy in' from the employees.

Charismatic leaders are important for unifying a country...but the country requires far more than unification.

2007-03-28 08:14:45 · answer #1 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 0 0

Well, actually, since we don't have a democracy (we're a republic) it's kind of a moot point. In a democracy, it's a one person, one vote and we certainly don't do that!*

Our form of government actually works fairly well -- for us (granted there are things that could be fixed - nothing's perfect). However, it's when we try to force it on others that we get into problems.

Russia is a great example. We naturally assumed that when the Communist government fell, Russians would fall all over themselves wanting to be like America.

But wait! They didn't know how! Russians have lived under totalitarianism since the country existed. Why should we expect them to "convert" to a democracy (or Republic?). Actually, I think a constitutional monarchy bringing back the Romanovs would have been a much better solution.

Now, we are looking at the same thing in Iraq. Why should we expect a new country (it's only been a country since after WWI **) who has never experienced our form of government to want it?

We always assume that our form of government is the best and should be inflicted upon everyone. We fail to realize that our form of government evolved along with our culture and that it is NOT suited for all.

Now, having said all that I DO believe that every person is entitled to certain freedoms and rights, but I also believe that the form that takes is NOT necessarily our form of government.

2007-03-28 16:20:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

There are many forms of government, and many possible abuses. I'm all for the benevolent despot/philosopher king. Unfortunately good men and great leaders someday will die and who will replace them. Certainly education is important. If the educational system is corrupt the society will become corrupt. Don't think there aren't people out there right now trying to make that happen. Eternal vigilance is the price of democracy.

2007-03-28 15:09:46 · answer #3 · answered by traveler 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers