Democracy - the best form of government?
Winston Churchill is to have said that "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Democracy does have its imperfections and issues, that political philosophers and theorists have presented different solutions to, yet it is in the Western political sphere regarded as the best (and only?) form of government.
Is that really so? Or can it be that under certain circumstances, other forms of government are better?
Winston Churchill was one of my favorite politicians and he wasn't incorrect by saying that or believing it. So many political systems have been tried and virtually failed because they're not structured properly and do not have the best interests of the people in mind. It is possible, however, that Democracy does not work in every situation nor for everyone.
What comes to mind are tribal areas where all they've ever known is their Chieftain and are happy to live within those parameters. These are areas that bring no industry to the world at large and do not need our way of life to be successful! This, of course, cannot be the case in larger areas that do produce some of the worlds necessities. There is where you'll need structure of some kind.
I am for Democracy with a bit of Socialism thrown in for people who must live without necessary things such as medical help and medicine. No person should be without that as well as shelter and food. If a Democracy cannot provide these things, then in my opinion, it too has failed.
| Side: Worst except for the others
I think you're confusing form of government with type of economy when you mention socialism. You can have a purely socialist and purely democratic nation because the two are somewhat unrelated. I agree that we need a mix between socialistic and capitalist systems in our country, but once again that has to do with economy not government.
.it is a spiritualized conception, itself the result of the general reaction of modern times against the flabby materialistic positivism of the nineteenth century. Anti-positivistic, but positive: not skeptical, nor agnostic, nor pessimistic, nor passively optimistic, as are, in general, the doctrines (all negative) that put the center of life outside man, who with his free will can and must create his own world. Fascism desires an active man, one engaged in activity with all his energies: it desires a man virilely conscious of the difficulties that exist in action and ready to face them. It conceives of life as a struggle, considering that it behooves man to conquer for himself that life truly worthy of him, creating first of all in himself the instrument (physical, moral, intellectual) in order to construct it.
well, we should take ideals from other form of governments to try and form the most free (but not anarchic) form of government.
we can take forms of older facism in that we allow the people the right to private property NO MATTER WHAT, and we can take ideals from anarchism in that people can do w/e they want to their own bodies, and can live any way they want no matter who it offends.
we take Democracy in that the people decide on what the government should do on certain issues that are too vague to consider personal liberties (such as government spending programs). and, of course, take ideas on a republic where the people vote in representatives for the most harshest of issues (war, bail outs, etc.)
Democracy killed Socrates and banished Plato. Plato's Republic was an elitist government where the elite "represent" the people. Communism banished personal liberties and any way of progression. also banished private property... and allowed the government to take in political prisoners.
Facism gave power to an individual who could take in political prisoners. Nazism... well, do i have to explain why that government sucks?
the USA is not a democracy, it is a Democratic-Republic. We vote in our representative and the states have the ability to vote on propositions and amendments. I wouldn't say it's as good as we can make it, but it is the best so far.
You are wrong on several points:
Fascism does not champion any sort of individual freedom, hereunder including property rights. Furthermore, it is uncertain as what meaning you give to the term "old fascism".
The idea of property rights are derived political philosophers of the last half of the millennium, amongst others John Locke and David Hume.
In short: Locke argued, in his contract theory, that property is a part of natural law. Hereunder, property should not only be understood in terms of the regular use of the word, but also autonomy over ones person, work etc.
Hume on the other hand saw rights of property as a an counteract against man's shortsightedness, to make up for human egoism. Such rights, defined in laws, were to secure a much more farsighted environment for humanity.
We can, of course, not entitle all the honor to these philosophers, but it is not an understatement that their ideas have been of importance to the development of rights of property. Fascism, however, is not only a preposterous ideology based on discipline of the collective through corporative and others means, but also irrelevant in to this subject.
Anarchistic ideas are nor the foundation of ideas of freedom. Again, one is inclined to reference philosophers such as John Locke, but also the much later John Stuart Mill is a central figure. It is through the ideas of these philosophers, and others, that anarchistic ideas have been derived - and as such your reference is plain wrong.
It should also be noted, that these defenders of democracy, especially Mill, championed democracy. Modern philosophers also take point in democracy in their theories of freedom.
To further reference Mill, direct democracy is impossible when it comes to large groups of people. As have been noted here, it is more suited to smaller communities (in fact, direct democracy is in use in Switzerland). Thus, representative democracy is the better solution.
Representative democracy is democracy. It is none of this mish-mash "Democratic-Republic"-nonsense that you propose it to be. The USA can maybe better be described as a constitutional democracy, in which there is a majority rule, bound by the constitution. However, it should be noted that in the case of the USA, one must also take into consideration the federal system.
You say that democracy killed Socrates and Plato. It may well be that the Greek democracy was guilty of this, but it is a fact that the Greek democracy, although a true inspiration to the ideas of modern democracy, was not the kind of system of government we today know as democracy. Some would argue it was in decline, corrupted, though the fact that only certain groups were allowed to vote, is a better display of it errors.
Democracy is the rule of the many, and it is only in a representative form that it is possible. This idea can be expands upon, and democracy can be described in many fashions, based on which extent it includes the people in political debates and decisions. Your definition of democracy does not take such things into consideration, and is at best lacking.
Last, but certainly not least: It is frightening to see that you believe fascism champions individual rights; in fact, it is, in my eyes, no better than Nazism. I recommend picking up some books both on history and political philosophy, so that you may see that you are wrong in this matter.
Greeks would have town squares to get the votes of all the people. one was of Socrates trial, which led to him having to poison himself (his death penalty). Plato even said, Democracy killed Socrates (because it was the will of the people for him to die). Plato was also found guilty, but he decided to take the banishment penalty... i never said he died.
Facism has had many goals and many changes when it came to economics. the form of government itself is just as brutal as communism, but the economics isn't much different from what we see today. they believed in private property but in strict regulation (such as minimum wage and approval of businesses). Really, what we see with the people trying to find that in between of capitalism and socialism, that was what facism was...
i guess you missed what i was trying to say though in the whole. would you have rather it that i mention only political philosphers? the problem is that it's harder to point out on how it really works. I say take the civil liberties from Anarchy and the economics of Facism and the Constitutional set of the USA and try to work with it.
i never said things like anarchy and facism are actually good, the point i was trying to make is that we have to pull out the good from all ultimate ideologies and make something that's mainly good.
The term fascismo is derived from the Italian word fascio, which means "bundle" or group, and from the Latin word fasces. The fasces, which consisted of a bundle of rods that were tied around an axe, was an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrate. They were carried by his lictors and could be used for corporal and capital punishment at his command.
king test (www.real-testking.com)
I agree with Churchill.
That is, assuming you mean "real-word" Democracy, such as we have in the United States, where leaders have some leeway to take unilateral action in certain situations. Pure direct democracy is probably not a good idea.
| Side: Worst except for the others
I agree on the matter of direct democracy. It is simply not possible in larger communities.
But how can one expand on the idea of democracy? Is democracy merely the normative idea of the rule of the many, or are the ways in which democracy can be described to a further extent on a more descriptive foundation?
"democracy" means mob rule. A constitutional representative "democratic" form of government seems to be the best form of government. However, our constitution have been subverted by our elected official. Because, our elected officials have found out that they can bribe us with our money, and we keep electing them. So, who are the stupid ones, us the electorates for voting them in or the pompous people we have elected?
How could "strict" democracy be the best form of government if there is no country today using it? Apparently it hasn't worked in the past therefore people had to change it up a little bit. Democracy, agreed would be the best for a small group or tribe but there is no way possible for everyone in a specific country could vote on every matter that is brought up...
It is implied broadly around the world mostly in Western style democracies that capitalism means democracy. Obviously China's balancing of Communism and capitalism is working well for their economy in spite of their (supposed) human rights violations: supposed because all (modern) countries incur human rights violations on a near daily basis, upon their own citizenry and visitors to other nation states.
i believe that democracy is not THE BEST form of government but at least we can say that it is a BETTER form of government. in other forms such as dictatorship etc we citizens have nothing to do. we are just SUBJECTS of a ruler. but in a democracy(specially federation) we are the ones who are ruling. it is not that we are UNDER anybody. in a democracy we are what we are. we have government under us. we have our own representatives. we are given a number of rights and so we are expected to perform certain duties. what else do we expect. there is nothing perfect. we face challenges in a democracy which we have to overcome. but we cannot just say that democracy is not at all good. it will be us who'll be facing problems if we follow any other form of government. i say it again DEMOCRACY IS NOT THE BEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT BUT IT IS A BETTER FORM OF GOVERMENT.
Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led "armed party" which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome a threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics and actions is the vision of the nation's imminent rebirth from decadence.
70-432 testking (www.real-testking.com)
It doesn't matter what form of government you have. It's the government itself that truly matters. George Bush is a perfect example against democracy while Obama is a good example for democarcy.
I would say democracy in a truthful, deceitless, manipulative-less, humble etc. society. However democracy flourishes in countries where whoever can manipulate the crowd most, wins. The politician's game is to lie the best. That's who we vote for.
Modern democracy has already proved its flaws. There'll be another 'revolution' in the future - influenced by China, India, Brazil and Russia where a different form of governance will seem ideal.
| Side: There's better still to come
yes because, democracy is still the best way of the government today, you can do what want in life, you have a freedom to choose your religion, you have a freedom of expressions, freedom of speech, freedom of education, values, family,
| Side: There's better still to come