- 15 Nov 2009 21:35
#13236749
Some time ago, I created a post that outlined 13 reasons not to support democracy. The URL is: www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=95651
How much power do politicians actually have in a democracy? The politicians are mostly just puppets of certain larger social movements and/or of special interests. The sort of people that end up becoming politicians are those who lack principle, and who desire fame and status.
Why mention Mugabe, specifically? What about the leaders of all the other African countries? South Africa? Ghana? Do these countries have good leaders? What are your thoughts as to the government of Rhodesia before Mugabe came to power? Was it a better government? Was it a more democratic government? How did/would Rhodesia's government compare to those throughout Africa? Was Mugabe initially popularly elected? What does that indicate as to the wisdom of the masses?
Also, who is "you"? The electorate? What do you do if the electorate supports bad ideologies and bad leaders? By you, I mean you, Carpe Veritas. It is obviously not true that "there is no way to replace them [non-democratic governments] or change their policies". If it were true then democracy never could have came into existence in areas that were previously non-democratic (ie essentially the whole world). Furthermore, non-democratic governments have changed their policies dramatically, on many occasions, and have been overthrown and replaced by other non-democratic and democratic institutions. For example, the Peoples Republic of China is now very different from what it was in 1976.
Again, who is this "we"? And how do "we" "get rid of them"? How has this been working out lately?
Massive immigration isn't very popular - especially tolerance of illegal immigration - what have the democratically elected politicians done about it? The huge bank bailouts in the US were very unpopular; will the politicians who voted for the bailouts be held accountable? Furthermore, do you think that the most popular policies are always the best policies?
What do you mean by "self interest"? Are you referring to the interests of the specific voter or to the interests of some group to which the voter belongs? Does every voter always vote for the candidate who would best serve their interests? For instance, is it true that all of those who voted for McCain in the US presidential election would have had their interests best served by a McCain presidency, and that all of those who voted for Obama are now having their interests best served? When the NSDAP won 43.9% of the vote in the German federal election of march 1933, all those who voted for the NSDAP were voting in accordance with their self-interests?
Carpe Veritas wrote:People who want power (for whatever reason) get into the positions of power, because by nature those who don’t want power don’t apply.
How much power do politicians actually have in a democracy? The politicians are mostly just puppets of certain larger social movements and/or of special interests. The sort of people that end up becoming politicians are those who lack principle, and who desire fame and status.
Carpe Veritas wrote:If a dictator or Monarch does a 'bad job' (like Mugabe arguably has) what do you do? There is no way to replace them or change their policies, and no way to ensure said policies benefit anyone in the country except said dictator and followers.
Why mention Mugabe, specifically? What about the leaders of all the other African countries? South Africa? Ghana? Do these countries have good leaders? What are your thoughts as to the government of Rhodesia before Mugabe came to power? Was it a better government? Was it a more democratic government? How did/would Rhodesia's government compare to those throughout Africa? Was Mugabe initially popularly elected? What does that indicate as to the wisdom of the masses?
Also, who is "you"? The electorate? What do you do if the electorate supports bad ideologies and bad leaders? By you, I mean you, Carpe Veritas. It is obviously not true that "there is no way to replace them [non-democratic governments] or change their policies". If it were true then democracy never could have came into existence in areas that were previously non-democratic (ie essentially the whole world). Furthermore, non-democratic governments have changed their policies dramatically, on many occasions, and have been overthrown and replaced by other non-democratic and democratic institutions. For example, the Peoples Republic of China is now very different from what it was in 1976.
Carpe Veritas wrote:If a democratically elected politician does a 'bad job' (and they usually do) we can get rid of them for someone else who may, or may not, be more efficient or representative instead.
Again, who is this "we"? And how do "we" "get rid of them"? How has this been working out lately?
Carpe Veritas wrote:Furthermore politicians in a democracy, being ultimately self serving, can protect and promote their positions by pursuing popular policies, and when they pursue unpopular policies their careers crash and burn *cough that sounds like Iraq*.
Massive immigration isn't very popular - especially tolerance of illegal immigration - what have the democratically elected politicians done about it? The huge bank bailouts in the US were very unpopular; will the politicians who voted for the bailouts be held accountable? Furthermore, do you think that the most popular policies are always the best policies?
Carpe Veritas wrote:People vote by self interest so thus it is in the politician’s interest to represent and promote what the population thinks is best for them.
What do you mean by "self interest"? Are you referring to the interests of the specific voter or to the interests of some group to which the voter belongs? Does every voter always vote for the candidate who would best serve their interests? For instance, is it true that all of those who voted for McCain in the US presidential election would have had their interests best served by a McCain presidency, and that all of those who voted for Obama are now having their interests best served? When the NSDAP won 43.9% of the vote in the German federal election of march 1933, all those who voted for the NSDAP were voting in accordance with their self-interests?
Carpe Veritas wrote:So we pick our leaders, compel them to our benefit, and replace them when or if they fail at provided. Thus democracy serves our self interest, serves our sense of fairness, and is the best system of governance available in the world for now… Thoughts?In 1960, it has been estimated that China and India had roughly the same GDP and many idiotic analysts were predicting that India, "the world's largest democracy", would outperform China over the remainder of that century and beyond. Non-democratic China now has more than twice the GDP of India and continues to have a much higher GDP growth rate. In fact, China has the fastest growing economy in the world and appears to be heading towards having the world's largest economy. What do you make of this?