HOME       >>       Science and Technology

Is Democracy The Best Way To Govern?


osknockout

Hmm... I tend to agree with the last few posts. Problem with the whole system is that there may be a better way to govern, but a democratic republic is possibly the most stable system we have, so any change would take a while to get through anyway. Agreed, true democracy died a long, long time ago. But it doesn't mean that a variation of it couldn't work in the modern world.The problem is that in a democratic-republic, it takes too long for the system to realign to a change of power. E.g.:We know that in the US we have federal and state governments and they both have different arrays of powers, even though they're supposed to balance each other out. Well, that balance went away in the Civil War with the federal government out on top. But the system of government was kept the same except for blocking the confederates from coming back. - The government shifted in power, but no laws were made to account for them. - And still, we have no greater power in the federal government than in the past.- And again, there's the case of the imperial presidency. Presidents are free to wage their own private war for 60 days without Congressional approval. Sad to say, this came out of a compromise. As the military power of the nation grows, the greater the power of the executive branch becomes. So we have a president that has the power to plunge the earth into nuclear war on his fingertips. Scary thought.What I'm trying to say is that even though the system's built to adjust, it just can't because people have too much faith in the system to change it. Some madman can be elected president out of popularity and start WWIII as of right now. - And no one can stop him because we traditionally trust the president. And in the modern era, people do not have the power to stop the government from doing something destructive in the long term during a crisis - they've got machine guns, we don't.For a better mechanism, I think you need to have a people that are willing to constantly change their government system and their constitution. The best thing I can think of right now is a greater-scaled republic, where people vote for mayors, mayors for district leaders, district for state, state for region, etc. and run a triumvirate if need be.


hitmanblood

I am not that much familiar in specifics with you about united states government. But what I consider is that You've got point there that new governement has too much time to adjust that is they use too much time. And what about third world countries where governments are changing more often.Also I would like to point that democracy is not the most stable system we have because of its fundamental law which is changing of the government every five or every four years. Because of this people cannot get really on some project considering only large scale projects, if one government start project other may think it is not necessary and other government closes this one and starts another one. This is main reason why democratic system is not sustainable and why in the democratic system there are so many scandals it is not because people have free thinking it is merely because of the conflict of interest of different government set up. The only thing that can be stable is some sort of long term government or any sort of ruling where there is one ruling body which is staying on the head of state for at least 50 years. This and such system is only feasible and sustainable to be stable. Otherwise it just breaks down when hall mechanism is wrong it is not hard to break it. But when someone is on the head of state for long term period this will in fact produce stability and it is not necessary that he or she or if it is some sort of government they are competent but they will produce stability because of the mere thing that they are not changing government every so. When they start some project they have the time and the power to finish it. And nothing else would stop them. However the biggest problem of such system would be that if really incompetent person would come in charge then it might produce more bad things then good to the society as a hall. That is why I would like to point that there should be one more body which would control the actions of the higher body and interfere only in case if it becomes critical like if people get so dissatisfied that they are ready to start riots and so on.


possible123

possible123 you're idea is somewhat good but you must understand that this way it is open to abuse from the rich and wealthy which could influence results of those sets and rich and wealthy which could be able to reach president or dictator however he would be called. Also I think that such organizational structure can only be maintained in the utopia.

Well, I didn't expect my idea to be actually functional, just some of my thoughts. I am only one normal person.

 

However, I want to know how the rich could affect the system.

 

The rich couldn't corrupt all the people working on making the test.

They could only corrupt one or two people, I assume. The rest of the staff would notice of one

or two staffmembers started making suggestions that were stupid.

 

Anybody can influence a vote, but in my idea, the vote isn't given the full power of decision.

 

Corrupting the dictator would be difficult as he would be guarded. Also, portions of tests would try to

find out the morals of a person. A person that passes the test and the votes in my idea would be

difficult to corrupt.

 

As for the difficulty for such an organizational structure, I think that most countries that have nuclear capability

could have a system of government like this.

 

But I think that in the end, there is no way to stop a determined bad person from taking power permanently.

If the good side keeps trying and succeeds, the bad side will keep trying too.


hitmanblood

Well it seems that we have come to the misunderstanding as I am considering under corruptions all those things that affect person's judgment in some other way he or she would do it. So if you consider that someone could bribe someone in your team it is possible but if someone really wants to influence person's judgment in the team then he could go even further doing some things like kidnapping and so on you get the point. The biggest problem is that you cannot chose ten people which cannot be affected by some rich and powerful who wants to seize power. You see how easily it may happen that person is just not able to find way out of problem.And furthermore it would affect everyone in the society at the current democratically organizational structure bribery is a big problem and lobby is really noticeable and common thing however if system similar to your's is applied then I assume corruption would reach critical levels. I hope you got my point on this one.


pinchmips

Well, I didn't expect my idea to be actually functional, just some of my thoughts. I am only one normal person.

 

However, I want to know how the rich could affect the system.

 

The rich couldn't corrupt all the people working on making the test.

They could only corrupt one or two people, I assume. The rest of the staff would notice of one

or two staffmembers started making suggestions that were stupid.

 

Anybody can influence a vote, but in my idea, the vote isn't given the full power of decision.

 

Corrupting the dictator would be difficult as he would be guarded. Also, portions of tests would try to

find out the morals of a person. A person that passes the test and the votes in my idea would be

difficult to corrupt.

 

As for the difficulty for such an organizational structure, I think that most countries that have nuclear capability

could have a system of government like this.

 

But I think that in the end, there is no way to stop a determined bad person from taking power permanently.

If the good side keeps trying and succeeds, the bad side will keep trying too.


I know this is 2 years after the last post, but I came across this thread while researching for an English Comp II paper.

 

Possible123, I think you may be a little naive to how well money talks and how far it can walk.

 

There isn't anything to stop the dictator from corrupting himself.

And one of the problems with any kind of dictatorship is: "Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely."


ORene

The topic is deviating from the starting post, its turning into a Democracy VS Republican talkI think the best way to solve this issue about the 75-80% of the population not supporting a ruler is to make preliminary elections. Supposing hundreds of people are candidates for election, they could make a voting and choose the top 5 that have most votes. Then with less candidates, the population votes would be less widespread and therefore get higher percentages of support for every candidate. Also in my opinion, what can be seen from what you said is that the parties just want power. It doesn't seem to matter how they obtain it, ally with your previous adversary. "Oh you know what? yesterday I called you corrupt, but now I need your votes so you are not corrupt anymore" that's not a true democracy!



Pages :-

Page 1Page 2


VIEW DESKTOP VERSION REGISTERGET FREE HOSTING

Xisto.com offers Free Web Hosting to its Members for their participation in this Community. We moderate all content posted here but we cannot warrant full correctness of all content. While using this site, you agree to have read and accepted our terms of use, cookie and privacy policy. Copyright 2001-2019 by Xisto Corporation. All Rights Reserved.