Democracy: Success or Failure

[Bereta_Eder]

democracy with meritocracy is da best

[Seeker]

LIBERAL democracy.

Democracy without respect for human rights is humbug.

The main question in constitutional liberal democracies is who gets to intrepret, make, and change the constitution? Why and how?

[Verto]

A Vertocracy is the way to go.

[St Leo]

Democracy.

[Nubclear]

I assume we speak of American democracy, where I can say with confidence tha it has completly failed.

[Kirnwaffen]

This question hinges quite heavily on how you define success or failure. To date, I would say democracy in the United States has had many great successes; we have been largely successful in peacefully transfering power from one political party to another and we have succeeded in remaining a sovereign nation. Democracy in the United States also has many great failings; it has failed to solve many social issues effectively, or even adequately, and we have yet to strike that vital balance between freedom and security.

Around the world, democracy has certainly done more for the people than any other form of government yet attempted, and, I think, will continue to do so. In the end, however, a democracy will have the same failings and virtues as it's participants; it will never be any better, or any worse.

[Kuciwalker]

I'd say democracy is a success, as it is the only logically justifiable system of government

Where democracy has failed, it has failed less than any other system would.

[connorkimbro]

i think democracy is OK, as long as you've got a rational populace.

And i mean rational by MY definition of rational.

[Urban Ranger]

I am surprised that nobody asked this question: what is democracy?

[cinch]

I would have to go with the general feeling here and say that Democracy is the best damn failure we've ever had.

Of course, 'in theory', a Philosopher-King Monarchy would be 'the best', but that could really only happen in a world without corruption. HA!

[connorkimbro]

In MY theory, a connorkimbrocracy is the best form of government.

BOW DOWN TO ME!

[Drogue]

Democracy (in the current form) I'm, all for a technocracy, or failing that, a democracy where the term is a lot longer than 4 years. Democracy leads to a situation where nobody can look past or plan past the next election, since all they care about is getting re-elected. Also, with the population voting while most of them do not understand the issues, voting on a whim, I don't think you will get a better leader elected than if you were to appoint one. I'd like it if we either had an elected group of people who do not rule the country, but appoint those who do. Or even an unelected group to do that. While a democracy is better than a police state, or a tyrant, I would prefer a good ruler who was concerned with doing the right thing in the long term, than a good ruler who was concerned with what the people would thing in 4 years time.

[C0ckney]

oh good lord, now we've got someone arguing for 'enlightend' despotism

[Drogue]

Originally posted by cinch
Of course, 'in theory', a Philosopher-King Monarchy would be 'the best', but that could really only happen in a world without corruption.

Very true

[SlowwHand]

Nothing like a stupid question/poll to start the week off right.