Does democracy live up to its hype?

Question

I'll be more specific.
My nation had a very strong and effective leader for 32 years before the US tired of him & replaced him with 'democracy'.
Since former President Suharto's forced abdication- all indicators for standard of living have dropped to far below than the worst of the Asian financial crisis (curiously enough exacerbated by following IMF advice to the letter).
Our poor were once ascending- now we have at least 50 million struggling on less than 50 US cents per day. All subsidies enabling them to survive reasonably (cooking fuel, cooking oil, rice, water, health, education) have been slashed (cheers IMF again).
Democracy was heralded as our saviour- but it hasn't delivered.
To me it only benefits the elites to become wealthier than ever and the foolish bourgeois believing they are either helping the lower classes or helping themselves ascending in class- reality is
they are powerless & insignificant

Is democracy a poorer form of governance than monarchistic rule?

Really- I'd prefer to be silent and full than hungry and free. Poverty is the very worst form of imprisonment.

Earl you doofus- not everyone is poor- just like the UK. Our pop is 235 million- maybe 2% are ultra wealthy, 5% wealthy and 15% middle-class.

Sorry Bloody- no-one gives a flying rat-poop about such stone-age primitives in my nation.

Answer 1

I consider your's a serious commentary. It lends credence to the fact that NOTHING in this world is truly one-size-fits-all. My personal experience is that there is no better system to live under than DEMOCRACY, and I can only wish your experience had been like mine. We are allowed to be as successful as our talents, preparations, 'luck ', opportunities, and perseverance will carry us. The sky is the limit. However, there is the flip-side to this equation, where some don't do as well as others. That is a reality. But that is the case in other systems, too, as I'm sure you can attest.

I only know what I know. I can give a "first-person" account to democracy, but none other. I don't desire another. I don't seek your affirmation to my belief. I just wish you happiness within your's. Good luck!
*

Answer 2

"Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the rest" (W. S. Churchill)

Yes, most Indonesians were better off under Suharto. There are two problems with that sort f government though - succession, and minority rights.

Sooner or later the president dies - and the result is always chaos, and usually a much worse ruler follows.

Such a resident may be good for the majority - but there are usually some, generally ethnic or religious minorities, who suffer great hardships.

In the case of Suharto's regime, this was mainly the Timorese, the Papuans and other non-Indonesians who were subjected to invasion and brutal repression by Indonesian troops - its still going on, albeit much reduced since Suharto's fall.

The whole world saw the TV footage of military going to help in Irian Jayra after the tsunami with essential humanitarian supplies - like mortars and land-mines.

Answer 3

I think to answer this you have to lived under a democracy and lived under a dictatorship (monarchy). Most of us who live in our so called democracies in the Western World have no reason to doubt that our democracy gives us a better way of life.

But invariably the masses do not really realise what our democracy gives us, which is, in theory, the power to choose how we live our lives. So many people take this for granted that I wonder if taken away would anyone notice it?

To continue, democracy is faffy - any significant changes aimed at improving society take so long as all the relevant stakeholders have their say, often leading to political gridlock.

So, I suppose to answer your question, monarchistic rule is probably a better form of governance, in terms of 'getting things' done - but as most members of democracies who care enough about it - that freedom is paramount.

Answer 4

this could be an fairly exciting and provocative question to no longer point out well timed given the wars wherein we are presently engaged. it extremely is a grand question via fact it is going to ferret out the full spectrum of know-how and lack of know-how on the importance of democracy. sure, for sure democracy does, can, and could stay as much as its promise. who're the only people who merchandise and disagree with the concepts of Liberty, Freedom, and Justice in a central authority empowered via the folk? answer: Dictators, Tyrants, and non secular followers. Democracy = Civilization Your technology will conflict to stay to tell the tale in case you won't be in a position to collect interior the easy readability of this undeniable actuality.

Answer 5

Consider democracy a growing tree.Its branches are Poverty They can bend the branches a bit but not destroy it.Think on it- the Q&A way.The rise in population one important factor -to come to 50 cents of the dollar a day.Forget not the behavior of the population at democracy- which is not seen in reports said to be on failing democracies!

Answer 6

you are confusing democracy, or self-governance, with capitalism, or the free market...the two do not necessarily co-exist. if you have democracy without capitalism, you have latin style socialism. if you have capitalism without democracy, you get chinese totalitarianism...put the two together however, and you have a free people who make their own way and are much happier for it. this is obviously not the case in your nation.

Answer 7

Democracy does have a lot of problems.

I think a comstitutional monarchy with checks and balances is the best system.

Answer 8

I will take freedom any day. I think the problem lies with the people and the muslim religion. Muslims don't know how to work and prosper.

Answer 9

If your country is so poor, how can you afford a computer??

Answer 10

Welcome to the world of democracy :-) and I agree totally with regerugged....