Why give everybody suffrage if some people are much better suited to make those decisions
|
Translation: Why have democracy? The majority of people are not especially intelligent or rational, while a small minority are better fit for leadership. In theory just giving that minority all the power sounds great, but history is fraught with examples that reveal this as utopic naivety. The benefit of universal suffrage is not that it distributes power equally (it does not), but that it exerts some regulatory effect upon the minority and keeps it relatively more accountable to and in touch with the majority of the populace over which it governs. Even in the days of monarchy, it was not necessarily the kings who were the best suited for the job. As far as I'm concerned, there has never been a historical example where the best suited rulers had all of the power and the minority lived in a utopia. If you know a contradiction to this please, by all means, enlighten me. I never claimed any of what you now represent my argument to be. Of course those in power are not always of the minority best qualified to wield it, and of course there is no minority in utopia. None of this contradicts my analysis. If anything, your response highlights additional benefits of democracies/republics over non-representative forms of government: (a) the relatively less arbitrary nature of ascension to power; and (b) the relatively greater influence of merit in ascension. I never claimed any of what you now represent my argument to be. Of course those in power are not always of the minority best qualified to wield it, and of course there is no minority in utopia. None of this contradicts my analysis. If anything, your response highlights additional benefits of democracies/republics over non-representative forms of government: (a) the relatively less arbitrary nature of ascension to power; and (b) the relatively greater influence of merit in ascension. |
