Every form of government so far has been deprecated after something better comes along. Ruling by strong man was a great system for a while. Hereditary kingdoms removed the power struggle and provided stability and continuity. The princes could be trained to rule in their father's place too.
So what is next after democracy? I think a hierarchical system of qualified democratically generated nominations combined with a lottery. This works because there are so many qualified people in an educated society. The lottery addition helps remove the party-machine's power that choses the party candidates we vote for. Also it is harder to put corrupted people in at the beginning. Repeated voting followed by a lottery until there are two left. I would flip a coin, this would help stop partisan disappointment's.
2007-12-02 14:35:35
·
answer #1
·
answered by Ron H 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
It really is such an expansive question but I would say most emphatically yes. Many people have laid down their lives for the liberties that we hold dear today, the very fact that you are able to express your thoughts on this forum and question the status quo is a testament to it!
It is an ongoing struggle and we must keep fighting to preserve our freedoms because people prosper and flourish in a democratic world. It's written in the American declaration of independence 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. This was a triumph of democracy.
It is written in the UN charter, the Geneva convention, the cessation of the slave trade, the suffragettes and the vote for women, the ending of apartheid, the unification of East and West Germany. These have been some of our finest hours as a species, when injustice and tyranny and autocracy have been fought by the impassioned people, united in their convictions.
Criticising democracy as an ideal would belittle these strides we have taken and the alternative is a dictatorship whereby our society is forcibly oppressed by the powers that be. If you believe social democracy has failed then for God;s sake man don't turn to cynicism and apathy because that is precisely what some powers in this world want you to be. Malleable, disaffected and disenfranchised.
To paraphrase an eminent socialist called Tony Benn, the human race is stranded on a lifeboat and they have one loaf of bread between them. They can distribute the loaf in one of three ways, sell it to the rich so that they gobble it up, fight for it so only the strongest survives, or share it and that is the basis of democracy. If we are to enact real social change and reform to be represented, by the people for the people, then pontification and cynicism is not the answer. Stand up and be counted, sir.
2007-12-02 13:56:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by mickey_lindsay 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well for the most part, I'll say "ditto my answer to your last question." Yes there are a lot of idiot voters out there, but there are also even a higher percentage of idiot politicians, not to mention corrupt or with illusions of grandeur. An elected politician at least has a chance of being sent home eventually; an unelected dictator can, for the most part, only be removed by force.
As I elaborated on in my last answer, the best protection against an ill-informed (or even capricious) electorate is to have strict and well-defined limits on gov't power. Check out the "On alternative forms of representative gov't" articles at the blog site below for more.
2007-12-02 14:51:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
You are asking if democracy is a good thing. Can you name anything better where dummies, idiots and geniuses can have a little say in how and by whom they are governed? It can be frustrating at times when the liberal press or other media lauds a potential candidate for president who has made no contributions to her constituency or to the country she supposedly represents; then rebukes almost every move our president makes, but will quote every word published or spoken by our sworn enemy, Osama Bin Ladin.Now isn't that a fine kettle of fish?
2007-12-02 14:06:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by googie 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
We have yet to realize true democracy. If people had the ability to directly vote on issues, perhaps the motivation to be educated about those issues will increase. As it stands, people are content to elect people to make their decisions for them, while they remain in the comfortable bliss of ignorance.
2007-12-02 13:47:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by Sophrosyne 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
so show me something better.. oh and by the way.. just because others don't vote the way you think they should.. they are not idiots..unless of course they don't know how to punch a chad all the way out..
2007-12-02 13:55:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by J. W. H 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
30% of the population is educated and votes, the people you mention that don't know what they are voting for, don't vote.
2007-12-02 13:40:10
·
answer #7
·
answered by jordan_0_0_7 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Democracy creates corruption and has problems. ALL forms of governments do.
2007-12-02 13:42:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by lufiabuu 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
i think so. otherwise their is a chance greedy pigs will be the only ones with a say and even educated voters can't do much
2007-12-02 13:38:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by Mila 2
·
1⤊
0⤋