h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What with all the tedious speeches going on about 'Democracy' (note the capital 'D') going on in the world, I often find myself wondering whether democracy is necessarily the ultimate system of government. Because it seems to me that's what certain people (not mentioning any names ) are saying: you *must* begin the process of democratisation or you are bad people.

Where is it written that democracy is the best way to govern? I happen to think it's a pretty good way to govern, but my confidence in it isn't such that I would say every country in the world *has to be* a democracy.

To give an example of something that could not have happened in a democracy, the Brazilian city of Curitiba underwent a radical overhaul to improve the whole of the urban fabric: transport, housing, environment and the overall happiness of its citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curitiba#Urban_Planning
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/fellows/brazil1203/

Apologies for the links, but it was a big project, too big to really detail here. But my main point is that some of the things required for Curitiba to become a better city (nearly all its citizens agree that it has) could not have happened under a democracy. At that time Brazil was under military dictatorship and the people had little chance to oppose the development, which included the pedestrianisation of a large area of the city centre in a mere 72 hours (so shop owners could not register a complaint). These radical changes would not have been possible in the style of democracy we currently live in (I say 'style' because there are undoubtedly other democratic systems than the one we are used to).

I listened to Radio 4's 'From Our Own Correspondent' not long ago. They were talking to an Iraqi university graduate, who said that a common saying among Iraqis at present was: 'be nice to the Americans or they will punish you with democracy.'

So basically, is democracy always the answer? Is it inherently the 'best' option in any circumstance? Is it all that effective in its goals?

(Sorry to have gone on a bit, but I've been thinking about this for a long time and I'd like to know what others think.)

Ah crap, sorry about messing up the title .

Ok, so you're saying that democracy doesn't necessarily give people what's best for them?

I think the point is that, its for people to decide what's best for themselves. Otherwise, even with the best intentions, you just end up giving people what they don't want and then getting annoyed when they get uppity at you.

So...democracy is about letting people make their own mistakes.

Whether modern parliamentary systems work like that is another matter.

Point two, democracy should be more flexible, so if you end up with the wrong lot then you can change them for the slightly better lot, all without chopping anyone's extremeties off.

There are people who prefer to be told what to do, who likes not having any responsibility. Democracy would not be ideal for them. But it gives you a chance to control your own destiny that other forms of goverment doesn´t. But to paraphrase someone else, democracy doesn´t give you the goverment you want, it gives you the goverment you deserve.

Democracy is the dictatorship of the majority.

Are you really happy with that idea ?

yes

Actually lets start refining that 'majority' a little.

Its a majority of the people who are entitled to vote and choose to do so.

In many cases its not even a majority - we break it up by electoral regions - so there's loads of people whose vote is wasted because they voted for a candidate who won by a large ammount, or they voted for a candidate who lost.

In fact its a pretty selective majority.

And even then are we getting what we want ?

On the basis of votes cast , isn't 'our' democracy actually ule by the minority?

Novo

I think the general consensus is that the theoretically 'best' form of government is benign dictatorship. The only problem being that guaranteeing the benevolence of the dictator is something of a problem, given the kind of people who would covet the position...

So leaving that option aside, democracy is usually touted as the 'least worst' form of government.

One pretty simple way to gauge how good it is as a system of government is this: measure the flow of refugees and illegal immigrants. By and large, do illegal immigrants and refugees flow TO, or FROM, democracies? Just try and compile a list of functioning democracies from which there is a measureable flow of refugees and illegal immigrants. I think it would be a pretty short list. Then consider how many western democracies are swamped with people pouring in from various Bod-forsaken, NON-democratic countries. Why are they coming here? It's sure as shit not for the weather...

SoRB

To quote Winston Churchill "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Enlightened despotism was another well-meaning attempt to impose change from above. Joesph II (Hapsburg Emperor) was the only ruler who took it seriously but it was a miserable failure.

Representative democracy is good, as it puts a damper on the knee-jerk reactions of the people. I´d say that helps to avoid tyranny by the majority.

Rule by benevolent dictator is not so good because even if he is benevolent he can't personally involve himself in every decision at every level, and his underlings may not be benevolent. Rule by benevolent omniscient dictator on the other hand... It's just a shame that god doesn't choose to micromanage our affairs for us.

<> (SoRB)

Or indeed even the 'benevolence' of anyone who wants to be the leader of a democratic government. I've always thought that anyone who wanted to be the leader of a world power had to have a few screws loose to want the job in the first place. Who the hell wants that sort of power?

az

The best thing about democracy is that it allows for a bloodless coup d'etat by the voters every 4 to 5 years. It's built into the system. Any country that messes around with this right isn't a democracy any more.

Some politicians are actually motivated by patriotism rather than personal greed Azahar. I think painting them all with the same brush is one of the things that gives problems.
Even a benevolent dictator can become corrupt by the power. Alexander the Great seems to have had that problem in his later days.

<>

Was I painting them all with the same brush by wondering why they wanted the job, Xanatic? I'm quite sure that politicians have a mix of motivations for doing what they do. But once they've achieved a certain level of power it seems very few are satisfied until they have even more power. This is just my personal opinion.

Would you call George Bush or Tony Blair 'benevolent'?

az

<<"Some politicians are actually motivated by patriotism rather than personal greed">>

I'm sure a lot of politicians are motivated by well-intentioned ideologies of one sort or another. That doesn't mean its not a quest for personal power: its still an example of "I know best, I should be in charge".

"Would you call George Bush or Tony Blair 'benevolent'?"

I wouldn't call Bush benevolent at all. He really does come across as actively hostile towards anyone whose description doesn't include the letters "illionaire".

Blair, on the other hand, actually does come across as wanting to do the right thing, but seems frustrated that we don't all agree with him about what the right thing is. After ten years being glad we've got him as PM rather than any of the alternatives, I can honestly say I regard him as generally benevolent. History will record his greatest error as Iraq, and I think that's terribly unfair. He's not long for No. 10 now, and when you look back at the last decade and what's been achieved, it seems a shame that Iraq is likely to be the thing people remember him for most.

Devolved government in Northern Ireland starts *today*, Ian Paisley laughing and joking with his deputy, Martin McGuinness. That's a sentence that would have been simply inconceivable ten years ago, and its a Blair government achievement. That's about peace and security RIGHT HERE, at home, not in some far off Bod-forsaken hole full of sand. We have devolved government in Wales and Scotland, low inflation, low interest rates (we're worried it might break six percent. The Tories had it in double figures for ages!), a minimum wage, low unemployment, the list goes on. Sure, we also have other stuff, but fundamentally new labour have done alright under Blair. At least, that's what I think.

SoRB

Well, I´m not sure either Bush or Blair are examples of ideological politicians.
"...its still an example of "I know best, I should be in charge"."
Well, would you prefer a politician who was just wringing his hands alll the time being unsure of what to do?

I dunno if democracy is any good. Maybe we should try it some time.

Taking figures from the recent Scottish election as a guideline:

2/5 of the population are entitled to vote, that's 24 million. Only about half bother. Down to 12 million. The winning party will get about 30% of the votes. So that's 4 million. So the party who receive votes from around 6% of the total population get five years to do what they want.

You vote for someone to represent you in parliament. But in most cases they don't. They represent the party they work for. They will be told how to vote, when to vote, what to wear and what they are allowed to say. All parties employ people called "whips" who will bully, cajole, bribe and threaten MPs into toeing the party line.

Policy may not actually be decided by people you vote for. The important decisions are made with the help of the Prime Minister's "special friends", who are unelected and accountable to no one but their bank balances.

Actually, majority opinion counts for very little in this country and the politicians are terrified of letting the majority have any say. Which is why referendums are a dirty word. In most polls, the majority of people want the return of the death penalty. There is a body of opinion that suggests the majority want out of the EU, an end to the Iraq war, a moratorium on immigration, free school meals for all etc etc etc. None of these things will ever be put to the vote.

To paraphrase Churchill again, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."