Topic: IS DEMOCRACY THE BEST OPTION FOR GOVERNANCE? (Read 749 times)

Best option is self-governance and not being someones subservient.
Voting for somebody who then votes against you is not a democracy, that is a scam.


Peru government tells its people to 'Disappear'! (if you not take the clot shot)
https://youtu.be/MerDJ5PwiT4

My answer is no because we are taught the definition of democracy as government of the people, by the people and for the people, but in our country is defined as government of government, by the government and for the government. Democracy give citizens power to elect good, credible candidate for the various positions. In other words they decided to use power against their people and force them to do what they don't want to do that is buying their Votes.

Truly democracy is not the best for my country and in my own opinion the best  option is sheria law.

The democratic leaders are the representatives of people who have chosen them as their representatives by a democratic process. They should also act in accordance with what they are selected for. Yes, I do believe that mostly they don't comply with the oath and responsibilities they are designated for but it doesn't mean that democracy itself can be blamed. There are good and bad people in every aspect of life. So this can be denoted as the act of an unused leader and not the democracy.

Time to take the USA States, and let them permanently adopt the tenets of the US Constitution, and then shut down the US Government.

Covid very much has proven that democracy is a failed (expensive) experiment. A bunch of corrupt officials dictate what a professor of medicine has to do or anyone who seeks to obtain expert advice from him. No in a democracy i select from who i take advice.

   Democracy is a good option for the government but only just people are abused and do not listen and obey the rules of the community so more crimes happen in the community. Having a law democracy in our community it's very great so we're able to do anything in our life and no one dictates us to do something or become a slave we're very lucky to have a Democratic law.

Demon- crazy, like I fondly call it is not the best option for governance. Matter of fact, it gives room to nuisance. It breeds corruption. Democracy is a game of numbers and as such, the best may not always win which may give room to mediocre getting to power. For me, I detest it.

No matter the rate of corruption, the democratic system of government is still remain the best option for now. The citizens have some level of freedom that is not obtainable in other system of government.

The advocacy and thrilling idea for this system of governance is always desired for every nation becuase, an idea governance is one that should be centerd on the people and that's what democracy presents but the issue is, the people in a democratic government. These guys have evolved or learnt not to be democratic yet, they operate and are protected by the rule of law that is constituted in democrac. Democracy is like a wolf in sheep clothing where, the name is the sheep and the politicians as the wolf.

Swearing in of a new prime minister in modern democracy is akin to a rivaling sports team arriving (riot police, whistles and such ).....
Only two people not wearing mask, who they might be?
Public vs politician
https://youtu.be/gZf4dB7hZwc

Plain and simple highway robbery. First take most with tax then levies, fines, fees, tolls, (fixed) charges, what left they simply rob.
https://youtu.be/MkeS_0NQUZs

Democracy is no longer as it used to be,things have changed,the leaders no longer value the masses and the people that elected them in office.
The worst thing that happens is that the opinion of the public are now silenced,no longer used.Before,before a democratic government takes a stand on an issue,he must consider the feelings of the public,seek for their opinions on matters before making any final decree,and that was what made democracy to be government of the people,for the people and by the people.

Democracy from onset has been a government of the middle class.

IS DEMOCRACY THE BEST OPTION FOR GOVERNANCE?


Family is best. Look at all the trouble the mafia's of the world make for the rest of us.

IMHO, the concept of democracy is pleasing, but in practice, what is being practiced by some countries presently under the disguise of democracy is not democracy, but a few individuals circling power around themselves. To me, a good model for governance will be the old traditional system of governance that was practiced in eastern Nigeria were a few selected individuals called "chiefs" had equal power to collectively decided on a decision regarding the people. That way, in its purest form if practiced, no individual feels more entitled to power and decisions that reflect selfish interests were less made.

Democracy is a failed experiment, and it's the bitter truth not so many in this modern society will accept. If you don't agree with me, just pick up one of the international News channels, watch it for a week and see how messed up the world is.

Riots, abuse of human right by the so-called security agencies, corruption, coups because certain people disagree with the ruling government etc

I think all the problems arose when Europeans tried to colonize different parts of the world and partition them into different small zones called Countries. They brought along with them their modern political structure, which have failed to work to this date in most of those colonies.

In your village of 3 people the major and his spaced out wife just declared you a monstrous fool by 2 to 1 vote. But fear not next election his wife will be major and form a working coalition with the husband. All the best looking forward to a truly spaced out term, fool.

She knows
https://youtu.be/GtnGntLmPRE?t=37

Yes, "DEMOCRACY THE BEST OPTION FOR GOVERNANCE"
Many systems were practised in the world, but they failed like a dictatorship, Communism, imperialism, socialism, martial law etc but they could not get success. Democracy is the Government of people by people and for the people. This system of rule has the moral support of the people. People in this system are satisfied and favour their representative GOVT.
In a democratic system, Govt has a limited period to work. If they will not work according to the expectations of the people. In the next term, They will be rejected.

It is normal for male to have longer ring finger.  Females have longer index finger. A small dingle dong
On the right side my ring finger challenges the middle finger for length on a good day and the little is almost as long as index
Lots of studies done on 2D:4D ratio and it is over 90% accurate.
Here is another one
https://www.webmd.com/men/news/20110705/study-penis-size-linked-to-length-of-fingers

Smart they aren't
https://rumble.com/vq8y87-mark-drakeford-caught-on-hotmic.html
Waiting for (govenment) handout:)

Democracy they say is a government control by its member or a government where supreme power is placed on them citizens and members and implemented directly on their elected representative.

But lately, all of this doesn't really count's and matters, citizens can no longer show and express their power through their rep's,they nothing but scum's and embarrassing creeps and punk.

It's normal for ring finger to be longer than index finger. Is your index finger longer?
There have been some interesting studies on this. Longer index finger correlates with smaller penis size, for example.

Nostradamus predicted the end of the so called "democracy" (someone voting on my behalf is not democratic)

NOSTRADAMUS

https://biblehub.com/revelation/17-4.htm


Hang on why is that ring finger longer as index?
Index/ring finger. (2D:4D ratio) human anatomy
https://h2d4d.blogspot.com/2016/11/measuring-2d4d-ratio.html
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28208851/

Yes we know democracy is no longer how it used to be,it has changed,but it's still better than military,where every action will be decided by the government.Sometimes,the masses seeks to speak with the government,and they grant them their voice,and are given fair hearing.
Government also sometimes seek for  public opinion and will at the end do the mimds of the masses.

Democracy would have been the best, but Democracy has changed. Democracy is not what it used to be as before. Sometimes looking at Democracy, it's not favourable to all, with Democracy some people can't speak up for themselves. Government still intimidate with power.
True Democracy is when every man in the society have equal right, no intimidation towards common citizens.

Capitalist democracy is probably the least bad option.

One problem with most systems of government is that they can be exploited. Some people still defend communism by saying that 'communism in theory' hasn't yet been tried, because the various implementations we've seen so far are corrupt. But this isn't a problem of implementation, it's the nature of the system itself. Communism is easy to exploit. Those in charge can do whatever they like, and make themselves unaccountable. At the other end of the scale, laissez-faire capitalism is bad for the same reason, it's too easy for the rich and powerful to entrench their own advantage.

I believe the best system to be one where two forces oppose one another, and so work to maintain a balance. In short, a capitalist democracy with a left-of-centre government.

No of course not.
Two school drop-outs will tell the medical professor whats best for his health, with a 2/3 majority vote. He can never get elected because he is the weird one out and does not speak the lingo.

Just check my sig of current issue with corrupt officials at conflicting opinion to scientist.

An unmotivated electorate is a feature, not a flaw. I don't want idiots to vote, and many people are morons that couldn't distinguish up from down. So if a politician comes along and convinces enough idiots to vote for him/her, they get elected even though the sane minority may not want them in power.

If the electorate were wise, then high participation is what's best. And you can count on your hand the number of societies that are educated enough to want the majority to vote.

It would have been the best form of government. But the elected, through this platform never support the system that brought them to power. Rather become dictator

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

in the field of democracy work is very difficult to implement, as we know now those who have a lot of money will win everything. need renovation in a messy government, but all that is not easy and cannot be as fast as we expected.
start from ourselves first ... apply democracy in our lives.

in my opinion, democracy, as we have seen it for the last 20 years, is rather an average show. Everywhere in the world, events are extremely harmful to entire nations and countries, and these processes are called "democratic transformations." The word "democracy" - to become abusive, vivid adherents of the ideas of democracy noticeably lose the electorate and conscience, but zealously hold on to power.

You are hoping for a benevolent dictator - sounds nice until he executes you and your family.

Democracy is bad, but it is the best form of governance we have at the moment.

Absolute power to a single entity will be always wrong - checks & balances is needed until humans themself change (which probaly wont happen).

Yeah, when the majority of your people can't read and they're taught hate and violence, it's not going to go well.

Democracy requires a some-what educated, literate, peaceful population.

It's pretty scary how certain nations, like Mauritania, have literally outlawed atheism (punishable by death).

I really wish that Universal Declaration of Human Rights actually applied to all nations of this world. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf

Democracy is definitely not for everyone and am talking about the Arabs here, these people need a firm hand or else they tend to misbehave as is evidence to when Saddam Hussein was in power and when he ousted. The country is in total chaos.

Democracy is not the government of the United States. But that's okay. Those of us who know how and why Libertarianism is the government of the USA, are happy that there are others who do not know.

It kinda works like this. People who believe in Democracy, allow crooks and criminals to run all over them and steal their property. Libertarians would like to have more property, but being libertarians keeps them from taking the property of others. So, what can the libertarians do? Use the libertarian laws of government to give them the property taken from those who like Democracy.

This way, libertarians can remain faithful to their libertarianism, believers in democracy become poorer in their democracy, and the libertarians wind up with the wealth of the democracy believers.

How does this work? It works through the laws of private property and right to contract. If you really want to know, watch the Karl Lentz videos here https://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos.

Democracy, both representative and direct are flawed in their own fundamental ways. Propaganda can drastically affect a democracy. If your citizens are idiots, your leaders will be idiots in a representative democracy.

Direct democracy doesn't really scale.

Liquid democracy is an interesting concept (combine direct democracy + representative democracy).

What's the other options for government?

Feudalism doesn't work.

Monarchy doesn't work.

Dictatorships don't work.

I should an anarcho-syndicate could work, where the elected leaders are the top of industrial fields, such as doctors, engineers, and other professions. But next we'll be talking about communism and democracy.

Apples and oranges.  Democracy does not imply freedom of speech in theory or in practice.  At best it says that if people vote to limit, say, 'hate speech' then the government has the full authority to implement such censorship.

Most 'normal' people can be easily convinced that it is wrong/bad/dangerous to speak out against the actions of their government and will gladly vote for political parties who champion such limitations.  The U.S. itself is swirling down the drain here.  Of course no thinking person believes that the U.S. was ever really a democracy and it certainly is not now, so mine is a bit of a flawed argument.  That said, we did have unusually strong rights to freedom of speech, but as I say, they are slipping away at an exponential rate just over the last year alone.

Yes Democracy is the best form of governance. I have seen many people prefer dictatoship but they need to know that in dictatorship, you can't question the ruler freely when he is taking a bad step. In democracy, you have complete freedom to question anyone regarding anything.

Churchill was right. Democracy is majority rule. What does that mean? It means that there are slaves that are ruled over... the minority. But it gets worse.

When Democracy has representation in the form of a few leader-officials in government, those leaders become a dictatorship over both, the majority and the minority.

The best form of government is small "l" libertarianism. Why? Because then the government only does two things. It sorts out real harm or damage among its citizens, and corrects it, and, it fights foreign enemies. That's it. Period. If there is no harm or damage, no enforcing of laws is needed. Laws become guides so that people know when they might be getting close to harming someone.

What is the result? The people are free... at least until one of them arms someone else. Then he is punished according to the harm he did.

No other government is as good as this one. It's a government of freedom where people have responsibility for their own actions.

As Churchill said “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

We all know that every form of government has advantages and disadvantages just like democracy, but for me democracy is the best option for governance since this kind of government give us freedom and we are not deprived on our rights as a human and as a member of our country..but this kind of government has a disadvantage also because other people abuse their freedom and power.. I can say that it will become the best depend on the political leaders who govern us and our country..

According to Abraham Lincoin, Democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Democracy is simply the option of government because power is centralized among members. In democratic system of government, every citizen have right to vote and to be voted for without compromise.

The solution to that problem is relatively simple; be more of a benefit to the target state than a hindrance if you wish to move there.  Unfortunately this is easier said than done for the majority of people.

The fall-back is to work to make the state you are stuck in be more close to the state you like.  Or move to a state who will have you (and others like you), and where such an evolution is a realistic possibility.

This may sound like 'open borders' from a mile-high viewpoint, but it not.  The basic goal of 'open borders' is to make all states the same and eventually glue them into a single uniform entity.  Such a thing will be very much more easy and very much less expensive to control and manipulate.

Well this is actually never going to happen, if you would have 10,000 states, I find really hard to believe those will allow freedom of movement. The main trend would be populism and being constantly afraid of people coming in and "stealing our women and jobs"

With the kinds of people that rose to seats of power in democratic countries in recent years, democracy is losing its appeal.

Looking at it more broadly, "governance" does not have to just mean running a country. This thread reminds me of the ideals behind blockchain technology. Connecting decentralisation and democracy in my head also conjure up a creeping shadow: It makes me worry of the possibility that even an ecosystem or platform built based on blockchain can be corrupted. I found a discussion at Researchgate about this.

Now, about monarchy. Here's something I can share some opinion on.


I live in an absolute monarchy. As you said, the good thing is there is a guiding vision, and the monarch has a stake in the country's well-being, because it reflects his/her personal capability as the nation's leader + his/her heir will live in that country in the years to come. A monarch have to rely on a bunch of people to run the country though, so that's where issues like nepotism and corruption crops up. The silver lining is that big daddy can smack your ass and throw you out if you aren't a good boy.

Fortunately, I live at a time when my country is led by a good monarch who listens to the people. He made sudden visits to check on how his people live, and how well-run government departments are. This is a by-product of a system where government officials pander to one royal family in order to keep their position. Now, whether or not its good depends on one's perspective...

When it comes to federal budget, the country's treasury and the monarch's pocket is most likely connected. In this respect, should the monarch decides on a more involved government (more socialism than capitalism), the people stands to benefit from this pocket-treasury binding. My country is currently emphasising free medical care and education, even at the expense of the monarch's personal stash. But I can easily imagine how things would turn sour too.

If you have a monarchy, you can put all the nurture and care to a smaller group of individuals. Place your hope, future, dream, in one basket and make sure that basket is the most compassionate and competent basket the world has ever seen. There's always two sides of a coin, like you said.

As I understand it the U.S. was conceive of as a 'constitutional republic'.  This means that in certain things (namely those in the constitution) even if 99% of the people voted one way they still could not get what they wanted...or think they wanted.  They would have to change the constitution.  The 'republic' part means that there are a bunch of smaller 'democracies' and what people want (and thus vote for) in one area is not necessarily the same in another area.

This lack of control drives some people crazy.  They find it cumbersome to get their way, and they are bent on destroying it.  One way of destroying the U.S. is to make it more of a straight 'democracy'...especially if mass migration is engineered.  Unfortunately these attackers have the modern-day 'liberals' on their side in this effort.

These are my understandings.  I'm not saying I 'know' them to be 'correct.'


Some recent 'academic' work I was reading classified the U.S. currently as an 'oligarchy.'  I would not disagree with this.

A democracy and a monarchy are equally capable of increasing the size of the state or refraining from doing so. If the members of the US congress all agreed to do so, they could turn the US into a communistic system where everyone was employed by the state. A monarch could, on the other hand, keep his government very limited. Just because a government is democratic doesn't limit its ability to grow, and in fact democratic institutions have a natural propensity to expand over time.

Democracy is rule by majority. If 51% of the people want something, then the 49% must obey.

The thing that is interesting is, the U.S. government is not a democracy. Even if the people voted like a democracy, governing people are set in place. These governing people do not obey what the majority wants, or what the minority wants.

This means that the U.S. is a dictatorship by a small group of people rather than by one person.

The best way is to allow everybody to do anything he wants as long as he doesn't harm anybody or his property. That's freedom.

Let government do only one thing: prosecute people who harm other people.

Interesting enough, that is the way the U.S. government is set up pertaining to individual people in America. The jury has the right and duty to judge everything about a case. For example, if you get pulled over for doing 120 in a 25 zone, but you haven't harmed anybody... and in your trial-by-jury, the jury says you have the right to drive 120 in that particular 25 zone, the jury rules. And if they say that government must pay you $120,000 dollars for pestering you, the jury rules. You win... if you can get the jury to judge in your favor.

I don't consider "democracy" to exist until equality of education can be established. In theory, yes it is the best option for governance, but it has yet to be achieved.

there is no such thing as absolute best, it always depends on more factors.

Clearly, with the existence of so many different interests, generations, cultures, customs, opinions and so on, there can never be one system which is fair for everyone.

I still think democracy is the way to go to face this heterogeneity, maybe applied on a more local level, within a similar cultural setting. Everyone should be able to take part in political decisions. It is the obligation of the leaders and expert to inform and influence us (stupid) correctly.

In this matter, there should also be more independent organizations rating political material and statements. Blockchain will hopefully help designing more transparent and less corrupt frameworks.

Furthermore, we should turn our back on the classic group "party-thinking" and focus more on the substance.

I'd say you're cotnradicting yourself a bit theymos... Monarchy is a system that gives way too much power into hands of one person, which is a danger in itself. As we know, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Then you say limiting the government is good, but a monarch would be able to rebuild the control with much more ease than democratically chosen government.

Democracy is great, but it works way better in educated societies, such where not much power is in hands of the federal govt but instead in hands of the smaller, and much more reliable states.
A great example of this is how decentralized and well-rounded the Swiss system is, they have frequent referendums, their states compete for people etc. It's all working great, and i think that's how a government should be ran - as close to the citizens as possible. Federal govt can't rule well, considering the size and differences in the country - which brings us back to a monarch, who would be obviously much worse than that.
Decentralization is the name of the game.

I'm sure if I listed every form of government, you could pick faults with all of them. I guess the main thing to think about is, Is democracy the best option out of the current choices we have?

I'm not clued up on the ins and outs of a lot of the other forms and what I do know could well be biased due to actually living in a democracy, but giving the power of choice to the citizens is a far better choice than say, a dictatorship.

On the other hand, Democracy is beginning to show it's weaknesses a lot more in recent times with the freedom of information that is available through the internet. You've all seen people who think the world is flat or that evolution is real and a lot of this has come from people "researching" questionable "facts" via google and Youtube. Should these people really be able to influence the running of a legitimate country? Just look at Brexit or the Donald Trump election.

I don't care if people like Trump or his policies, you cannot deny that a lot of the people that voted for him did so due to being ill informed about the issues currently facing America and the Brexit vote was exactly the same for the UK.

Maybe it would be better if Democracy was a bit less democratic.

Based on what I'm expeiencing under a democratic form of government, I think it is not the best option. Although we can get the freedom we all should have, but the system sucks in here. Well, we can't really conclude about that because I also believe that the effectiveness of it is also determined by the persons regulating the entire country. If there are people who does unrighteous things in their position, then we can expect a worst effect of the government. There's really no best government, the way we manage that form of goverment would really matter to say that it is the best and in our case, there's really a problem.

I think that democratic elections are very good, because such a government will be restrained and not dictatorial. I think the most terrible thing is authoritarianism!

No form of government today matches the exact dictionary definition of it. Politicians/rulers often bend laws and concepts to suit their purposes. My point? there is no true democracy, dictatorship, capitalist, socialist, communist state in the world. NO. some come close, others are further away, that's what we take from it.
That said, which system furthers governance the most? Democracy. Simple; checks and balances, separation of powers, freedom of speech and expression allow for more transparency.

Democracy on the surface sounds really great. But in its true practice, a lot of loopholes begin to surface. It is not the democracy that is described in theory that is practiced in reality. Democracy claims to be the kind of government that has the masses involved in the governance of the state. But the true situation is that it is still a certain group of people that get to run the way things are. Democracy, because of its "all-in" nature, results in a very slow process of development and decision making. Procedures that could take way less time to be executed take forever because of the politicking and bureaucracy. The annoying thing is how some countries insist that all countries and governments must be run by democracy. What works for some might not work for others.

Democracy sucks. Very few people are knowledgeable about important issues because:
1. A ton of people are just overall stupid to begin with.
2. Even smart people don't have much incentive to become knowledgeable about issues because they know that their vote is almost meaningless.

This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that referenda on raising the minimum wage almost always pass overwhelmingly, despite the fact that virtually every economist says that minimum wage laws are counter-productive.

Usually what you get in the end is a big mess of special-interest-backed laws which don't make any sense, hurt liberty, and drag down the economy. Example: A sugar company will gain $1 million per year from a sugar tariff. Every citizen will lose $0.01 per year due to slightly increased prices from that same tariff, for a total country-wide loss of $3 million per year. Most people won't know that this issue even exists because they are not sufficiently knowledgeable and don't have any incentive to become knowledgeable. For people who do know, it's still usually not rational to spend time and money trying to defeat this measure when you're only going to lose $0.01 per year. Whereas it is rational for the sugar company to spend money trying to get the tariff enacted. (The same sort of thing applies to niche ideological positions, too, not just money.) So these special-interest-backed initiatives often pass (there is in fact a sugar tariff in the US), and they accumulate over time.

The US founding fathers tried to set up the government such that it was more-or-less ruled by an elite set of intellectuals with democracy as only a distant check on possible tyranny, but it clearly didn't work, and nowadays democracy mostly prevails. I suspect that any mixed system of this sort will eventually fail. (Also see my post here.)

I've gone back and forth, but at the moment I tend toward thinking that monarchy would be better than democracy, even though monarchy is clearly also very flawed. At least the monarch can have some sort of guiding vision rather than the total schizophrenia we often see in democracies, and they have more personal skin in the game, since the state's success is their success, for their entire lifetime and extending through the lifetimes of their heirs. But I've never lived in an absolute monarchy, and maybe I'd think differently if I did.

In any case, it'd be better to:
 - Limit government involvement in everything. A government with little power can't do as much harm, even if it constantly makes poor decisions.
 - Have many smaller states rather than a few big ones. If there were 10,000 states and a worldwide culture of allowing freedom of movement, then you wouldn't have to worry so much about your state falling to tyranny or mob rule, since at least one of the other ones should still be OK.
 - Not brainwash people into thinking that democracy or absolutism is by definition good. I've met a lot of people who think that if a majority agrees to something, then that's the end of discussion: the thing agreed to is absolutely moral and correct. This is very stupid.
 - Not treat the law as your god, using it a comfortable shortcut for moral and/or utilitarian thinking.

Democracy as it's known the government of the people, by the people and for the people. In contrast to this simply definition, one begins to doubt if truly it’s the best option for governance.

The governments that supposed to protect the people, uphold the oath and defend the nation are the same contradicting the democratic acts of serving the people and the nation at large. The supposed servant becomes the master to the electorates, thinking the position is his inheritance. Where are the morals of the "so call" leaders, what a pity!

The geographical restructuring of the country, prudent management of national resources and providing for the people properly, the list been enormous, promised are better ideas to be imagine than been implemented.

Therefore, is democracy been truly practice?