Is Democracy The Best Way To Govern?

[amit nigam 0]

When Mr. George Bush was elected for the first term, he won by a very thin majority, which had to be decided through court. That means that almost 50% of american population was not in his favor. [though he is one of my favorite president].

 

In my country India where there is a multiparty system, where hundreds of parties fight in the general election and then form a coalition government and which has been called true democracy by many world leaders, there is a great irony.

 

The country which is the largest democracy and also given the stamp of true democracy by the world is run by a party which got approximately 25% of the total votes. To add to this, many of the parties with which it is forming a coalition government are those against whom they have fought tooth and nail during elections and called them corrupt and so many other things. And still, while in coalition at centre, whenever there are state elections they fight against each other.

 

So in both cases we have seen that a party which does not have support of more than 50% of the population is running the country. Apart from that there are so many ambiguities in the system.

 

So how can democracy be the true solution. Though I m totally against authoratarian rule and i believe that at present democracy is the best bet. But the question is, can we devise a better mechanism.

 

I think something of the sort that is used in UN security council and other places like NSG group can be a solution though it will be very difficult to apply. There every person is important and no decision can be passed without approval of all.

 

What do u guys think?????

Edited May 20, 2006 by amit nigam (see edit history)

[trace-uk 0]

India has a parlamentary system of democracy like the UK (for obvious reasons). Any country that has a prime minister will have the same system. But yes, democracy has to be the best way for the people to oust a government and install a new one without bloodshed.

[Tetraca 0]

The USA is not a Democracy, and never was. The USA is a republic like Rome. A true democracy is like one in ancient greece - everyone votes for the laws - not some representatives. I personally believe that actual democacy would be better than having a republic.In the USA, we don't have a true Democracy. A true democracy is where all people vote on laws and not just a parliment or congress. That is called a republic. I don't really like the system of the republic, and I believe that we should have more of a real democracy.

Edited May 20, 2006 by Tetraca (see edit history)

[amit nigam 0]

i totally support u tetraca.wat i think that on contentious issues on which there are less than 75-80% support from the elected representatives there must be a public voting .but it will be very costly and i think impracticle.

[jlhaslip 4]

tetraca,The USA is considered a "Democracy" by virtue of the fact that individual citizens are allowed to vote and elect their representatives regardless of their status other than being a citizen of the US. For instance, once upon a time, only Landowners were given the vote, now the vote is given to citizens regardless of whether they own land or not.As for being a Republic, that has to do with the relationship between the member states and the Federal Government. Here in Canada, we are a Dominion. Same net effect. A collection of "States" or a collection of "Provinces", both are Democracies.Other differences between the US and Canadian systems are the Nature of the "Senates". Yours are elected based on State representation (2 per State), ours are appointed by the Government in Power at the time a vacancy occurs and not based on Provincial representation. And of course, we have the inclusion of a Queen as represented by the Governor-General as the top figurehead, but that is another Topic.

[Tetraca 0]

i totally support u tetraca.
wat i think that on contentious issues on which there are less than 75-80% support from the elected representatives there must be a public voting .

but it will be very costly and i think impracticle.

Yes. It would be very impractical with the amount of people in the US Alone. Even if we did it though modern technology it'd be hard to manufacture enough of a device that could send a vote from thousands of miles away. In a smaller and righer country like say luxembourg it'd be practical though.

[True2Earn 0]

I am 100% against democracy. Why? You can read about the differences between a democracy and a republic HERE. It is very informative and eye-opening to those that don't really understand the difference. In a nutshell, the difference between a democracy and a republican form of government is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Democracy is mob rules. Even Thomas Jefferson was against this form of government.

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

~Thomas Jefferson

 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

~Thomas Jefferson

Even the U.S. Constitution guarantees a Republican form of government, not a democracy.

United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

The founding father of the United States of America understood that a Republican form of government would protect the individual rights and not the whim of the majority. Their belief was every human had personal sovereignity and Rights that were granted by God. As God is the highest authority, these God-given Rights could not be taken away by governments.

 

But, of course, this is happening now. One question I have is "If a God-given Right cannot be taken away or controlled by government, why do I have to be licensed to exercise some of them? Why is the government refusing to comply with the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution?" The American government has become too oppressive and is slowly taking away the Rights of The People. That is why I am a named Plantiff on the Landmark Case (USDC Case # 04CV01211) We The People, et al v. United States. You will see my name, Bryan K Reinhart, on page 26 of the Complaint. The lawsuit against the government is because the federal government is committing wrongful, unconstitutional acts resulting in injuries, loss and damage to millions of American citizens. You can find out more about the Fight to restore the Rights to the American people at the We The People Foundation.

Edited May 20, 2006 by True2Earn (see edit history)

[scotty_knows 0]

I believe that all people should have tha chance to vote in everything. States argue about their representation as a state, but the states are representing the people. Why can't people represent theirselves? Are they unworthy? Adults who vote in elections sometimes don't even know anything. There should be a test about the information about the current election, and then anybody who passes (Just because some people are younger, doesn't mean they don't know anything) should be allowed to vote. And not just in elections either.

[Tetraca 0]

If the Republic is to succeeed, you need a person with a nuetral opinion who would only base the decision on the pros and cons of each option. We should get rid of this Liberal/Conservative Democrat/Republican junk and get people who can make decisions without going in circles.

[jlhaslip 4]

Well, a little research here and it seems that the Dominion of Canada would probably best be described as a Republic, too.
The distinction between a Democracy and a Republic being : that the rights of Individuals are protected by a Constitution, in a written form, which limits the power of a democratically elected Government against violating the inalienable rights of Individuals in a Republic.
The Democracy as practiced here in Canada being a representative form of Democracy similar to the United States by virtue of the process of electing our constituency representatives. One difference between the US and Canada is that you must hold your Federal Elections on a regularly schedule basis every 4 years. In Canada, the Federal Elections must be held no later than every 5 years, or when there is an absence of confidence in the Government or when the Government feels it is politically expedient (ie: when they think they are certain of a victory).


Definition : Dominion - one of the self-governing nations in the British Commonwealth;
body politic, nation, res publica, commonwealth, country, state, land - a politically organized body of people under a single government;
Source : The Free Dictionary

Definition : Republic - The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
Source : Your Reference

Using these definitions, Canada is both a Dominion (as a political entity within the British Commonwealth of Nations) and a Republic ( as per the Definition above, having a Constitution protecting the rights of Minorities)

Point being: now that I have done this research, I agree that the "republican" form of Government is better. A Government elected by the Majority with limits on its powers which protect the rights of Minorities.

[tdm 0]

Great question. There must be a better way to run a country. Communism in theory is the best way but in practice it doesnt work, sumone has to be in charge.I think the best way to run a country would be no govermeant but the people have a vote on things. like wheather to goto war or not, the people decide, because yeh govermeant works like that but how many MP's do you see asking peoples veiw's. We have an MP that is so stuck up she doesnt know what the town is really like, shes not even from our town.To be honest there is no right way to govern a country, ill give you a list of possibles and then the downsides to each.Dimplomacy - Not the populations views just a few people'sCommunism - On paper works Great but sumone has to be in charge.Monachism - one person cant decide what going to happen.There are lots more, they all have downsides. The best way to govern would be a mix of all of them

[amit nigam 0]

Wow. Thats amazing. Now i got to know the true potential of forums like ours.

With the help of just 2-3 posts i got to know so much about the differences between the republican form of government and democratic form of government. especially the posts by jlhaslip & True2Earn were an eyeopener.

in India we are right now under a lot of stress. due to the greed of votes the government is putting a 50% quota on all admissions in technical and other higher education(undergraduate & postgraduate) places for a certain section of society which forms almost 40-45% of the population. if they vote in block then the party which gets their support is almost definite to win.

the point is that most of the people about whom the government is going to have reservation are actually deprived lot and we also support their upliftment. but the way in which the government is doing this is quite wrong. those people must be given good education at the school level so that they can compete at the higher level. But instead of doing that, which is definitely the way in which gov. will have to work hard, the gov. is going the easier, profitable(only for the gov.!!!) and the wrong way. in this way the gov. will just destroy the country and nothing else because bright and studious people will not be able to come up. also it will be disastrous for those who get reservations because when they will not be knowing any basics they will
definitely falter at the higher level and this will hurt their morale and self-confidence.

so now i feel that if we would have got a republican kind of gov. then it would have been better.

by the way as soon as i will collect 30 points i will start a site for the same cause by the name youthforequality.coz.in. log on to it after some time to know more about this.
right now if u want more information you can log on here youthforequality.blogspot.com

[amit nigam 0]

hi friends...what happenned... i still am not able to get some sort of replies which will help me in getting an answer to my question and also in finding a new way...plz..do write...ok...bye..

[galexcd 0]

We need a libertarian rule. Someone needs to get rid of all this government. Now I don't want complete anarchy, just let us do what we want on our own property.

[hitmanblood 0]

HMm I was considering what to write as many things are already said in this topic. I have to agree democracy is far from the best system for running country, I wouldn't place it even in the middle, moreover if we check all todays countries we can easily deduce that there is no real democracy in practice. Each country is under some sort of lobby or even criminal like bribes and so on, you probably get what I want to say. Also I would agree that theoretically speaking communism is the best practical way of government or way of controlling society. But it has its own fallacies. As in todays society someone has to rule and there has to be some kind or sort of governing body which will impose laws and control many. I personally like communism or shell I say I prefer communism to any other organizational way but communism is not feasible nor sustainable over long term period of time. Even China is allowing capitalism to enter its own kernel. But now we reach other problem government type and social structure as it in this place it would be more appropriate to say that Socialism and I assume that tdm. Also thing with socialist countries is that they are hardly sustainable and there are very few in world which actually succeeded in such organizational structure. Like Sweden their type of Democratic Socialism has proven itself very feasible however it is so only because Sweden has larg3e founding and no war on its territories for long time. And it is living to large extent on third world countries actually living on the investments. The country itself. I want to point one more thing and that is that if we consider todays world communistic way is not sustainable because only one thing and that is economy. Economist usually say or call this factor infinite wants it is explanation for occurrence of society development, consider here development and not growth because there is difference between these two things. As one need of person or society part has been satisfied it will start to demand new one and so on to infinity. That's why infinite wants. And in todays world one country can hardly sustain itself without trade that is without export import. And communist society prevents external trade that is import although export is still possible but usually at lost for companies and the country itself. One example where communist country companies were able to compete with other countries is Yugoslavia with its social nationalism. Companies from Yugoslavia were able to export and import goods and actually make profit. However due to external influence country broken in several pieces in the bigging of nineties. Now to return to democracy from those facts already present in first paragraph we may consider furthermore that even in democratic systems it is very usual thing that those who are ruling and getting to put government in one place are not usually the ones who gained the most votes or even if they gained most votes they gained less then 50% so very foundation of the democratic process is questionable but eventhough there is example when people succeeded in organizing voting for everyone and then deducing what to do its Athena in Ancient Greece. However considering this fact I would say that the best organizational structure would be some sort of collective. As then people that is everyone in the collective would vote on common thing and make conclusion together that would exclude bribery and make everyone equal at least when making decision. Under collective I consider sort of organization like Borg in Star Trek however excluding that Borg has queen and that the very person is lost there. I am considering collective on lower principle. If someone gets idea and that idea is good there would exist system of excluding "stupid" ideas or those already decided bad or negative. Everyone would have chips inside of them we are currently able to make such integration and everyone would vote on the suggestion if the suggestion is passed there would be governing body which would be obligated to introduce this suggestion and make it used in practice. So I would say that best principle is some sort of collective of people with democratically principle in place but society organized in the communistic view or socialistic to speak more correctly. That is society similar to the Star Fleet Federation with just certain add ons.