Democracy is the worst form of government

"Democracy is the worst form of government.."
Winston Churchill said that.

So is democracy such a good thing, when it can result in the election of people that some would argue shouldn’t be allowed to rule?

For example it is argued that the German people at first elected Hitler into power?

At other times people have justified the overthrow of an elected political party or government because they believed the people didn’t understand the nefarious nature of the power they had elected.

For example the military coup in Algeria where the Islamic fundamentalists gained a majority.

A quoted attributed to Henry Kissinger eloquently makes the case for this ideas in regard to the US backed coup in Chile 1973– "'I don't see why we have to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves"

However to quote Winston in full "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

So maybe what is at fault, is not the idea of democracy but the form of democracy?

**

 

I think it all depends on what you mean by democracy.

 

I think that the idea of democracy is good. I think it is capitalism that has ruined our government. What we have in America, for example, is not a true democracy. Our whole idea of democracy is just screwed up.

 

Perhaps it can allow for people who shouldn't be elected to be elected, but if that is the will of the people, is it wrong? Can you truly say they shouldn't be elected, if the majority of people want them to be?

 

No where in the world have we ever seen a real democracy.

Direct democracy now =p.

 

Well there was anceint Athens, as long as you were a male.

 

Not to be a dick, but the quote was "Democracy is the worse from government, but better than all the others" or something like that....

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

And a property owner. Only the upper class really participated in Athenian democracy. So this isn't really a democracy at all.

 

If I remember my history correctly, the Nazi party couldn't quite obtain an absolute majority in the Reichstag. I think the best they could do was something like 38% of the vote in 1932. They were still the largest party at the time, and were a disruptive force not only in their parliament but in society as well. Reichs President Hindenburg, in order to quiet things down and believing Hitler somehow could be controlled, appointed Hitler as Chancellor in Jan. 1933. After Hindenburg had died, the Nazi controlled Reichstag gave the Government dictatorial powers called the Enabling Act.
The bottom line is Hitler never won the Chancellorship during an election. He was appointed.

If there inherent weakness in deliberative bodies such as Congress (U.S.), Parlaimentary systems, is they can be bullied into submission by a strong willed chief executive. Pres. Johnson, by the force of his will, the size of his popularity at the time, and knowing how the apply pressure to obdurate Congressmen forced the Civil Rights and the War on Poverty bills through to passage, support for increasing involvement in Vietnam.

Saddam Hussien and Joseph Stalin, at the start of their dictitorial career, exhibited nothing less than sheer ruthlessness with any possible opposition within thier respective Parliaments.
Video tape of Saddam's takeover has been shown in the last couple of years on American TV. Saddam was on a stage reading names of attendees of the Congress. I can't remember the exact number of names called out, maybe 50, out of an audience of 300-500. Those who were called out were imeadiatley arrested as traitors. Most were shot within hours of the broadcast. Only a couple were allowed to live to speak of the torture and instill fear of the new regime in anyone who would listen. Those who were left, cheered Saddam's name and codemmed their innocent recent colleagues. There were even examples of Congressmen cheering Saddam on until their own name were called out. The strategy worked well.

Ancient Rome, during the height of the Ceasars, had a Senate. They were fearfull of their own lives and financial wellbeing to challenge the Emperor in any serious manner.

When the Congress/Parliamentary members become fearfull of loosing their personal prestige and power, they become ineffectual. They are no longer up to challenge facing true threats to the state and can be bullied into submission. The true weakness of any Parliamentary system reveals itself during these times.

 

The USA is a not technically a democracy anyway, it's a representative repbulic. It could've been the best attempt at democracy we've ever seen, until ruthless capitalism and corporate-interests had to come along and fuck everything up, sending this country on the verge of becoming a fascist plutocracy.

 

Capitalism has always been at the head of our country, in fact I'd say it has less power then ever compared to in the past.

 

My fault, what I meant to say was ruthless capitalists, robber barons and the like.

 

are you serious? While I agree capitalism has throughout our history been a source of power and corruption, I completely disagree with the above statement.

 

Hitler was appointed chancellor by an elected president, if I remember correctly.

I dunno, democracy is pretty good, it's so far the best way to avoid oppression. If the leaders aren't responsible to the people and can use force to keep them down, then the situation is ripe for totalitarianism. The problem is when the people are careless, or when they collectively intend "evil" in the sense that you can have a tyranny of the majority. Might doesn't make right, and popularity doesn't either. All government is flawed though, and democracy is better than most or all of the other ideas out there, based on what I know.

 

It seems that Democracy always deteriorates into dictatorship.

 

There is always that risk. Rome begun as a Democracy of sorts evolving over the centuries into a Dictatorship.
The Founding Fathers understood this natural inclination of humanity's desire of acquirring power. They purposely wrote the Constitution as an instrument to diffuse power not only within the national level but also sent a large chunk of it to the State level. The "Bill of Rights" are limits imposed upon the Federal Government by the Constitution.
This scheme may not block totally the gradually acquisition of authority by one group or governmental department, it will slow it down considerably.

 

You completely misunderstood his quote. He means all forms of of government are not that great, but democracy is the best. You have to understand that Churchill inserted comedy into his everyday speech to make points.

 

**

Old Goat

Rome began as a kingdom, then became a Republic, the franchise was limited and was in effect an Oligarchy (the struggle between patricians and plebeians) and then the money from acquiring an empire caused a tension between the ruling rich and the poor citizen soldiers. The soldiers wanted the reassurance that they would be rewarded for their services in land and the ruling elite did not want to share (the many land reform acts, the tension between boni and populi). It can be argued that it was a class struggle that brought down the Republic.

**

 

**


Humans have always sort the best ways to be governed, from simply leaving it up to the village elders to complex written constitutions, and that political journey goes hand in hand with the one that asks what it means to be human.

What do people want? Do we desire freedom with all the risks or crave security with all the constraints? Do people need guiding or controlling? What are we as a group aiming to achieve?

As Winston was making clear we haven’t yet achieved that perfect form of governance, maybe it is impossible?

What I’m wondering is should we try and if so what can we do to improve things?

**

 

Don't mess with success.

Capitalist democracies have brought the greatest freedom and prosperity in human history.

The problem is that neither were theories, they were natural evolutions of human societies, and thus cannot compare with the theoretical utopias people casually throw around in here (green anarchy anyone?).

Interestingly, Marx (contrary to what the teen rebel communists in this forum seem to believe) recognised the impressive results achieved by capitalist democracies - but thought communism was also a natural evolution of society once capitalism reached its limits. Problem is, his expectations and theories that capitalism would die of its own contradictions have proved utterly false.

Long live capitalism and democracy.