Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Is "democracy" for the worst? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    On the bus home, I was staring straight into the eyes of a horse when I suddenly came to a sudden realisation that democracy isn't that great...

    My reasons:

    When a party gets elected, they know there will soon be another election and they have to try get back into office.Therefore they can't engage in any long term goals as the effects just won't be seen by the public so they follow short term goals that probably mean trouble for the future (eg all the accumulated debt of many countries that have this "democracy" system). It would be much better if a group or one person was in charge so he could actually serve for the people and not for the purpose of winning another election.

    The interest of the public isn't always in the interest of the government.

    You might say it's unfair if one person rules over everyone else but it's not really too different with the current system.

    Every politician came from a wealthy privelaged background and they hardly represent the average person so why are they making decisions for everyone when they have no idea what the majority of peoples lives are like?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KD35)
    On the bus home, I was staring straight into the eyes of a horse when I suddenly came to a sudden realisation that democracy isn't that great...

    My reasons:

    When a party gets elected, they know there will soon be another election and they have to try get back into office.Therefore they can't engage in any long term goals as the effects just won't be seen by the public so they follow short term goals that probably mean trouble for the future (eg all the accumulated debt of many countries that have this "democracy" system). It would be much better if a group or one person was in charge so he could actually serve for the people and not for the purpose of winning another election.

    The interest of the public isn't always in the interest of the government.

    You might say it's unfair if one person rules over everyone else but it's not really too different with the current system.

    Every politician came from a wealthy privelaged background and they hardly represent the average person so why are they making decisions for everyone when they have no idea what the majority of peoples lives are like?
    Looking at your rep and your first sentence (regarding the horse!) I don't know if this is genuine. But I'll give my opinion on this subject anyway...

    I think our current situation of representative democracy is good. And could work if used properly. People will moan about how the government don't share the same views as the public and go on about how bad politicians are - most of the time those very people are just jumping on a band wagon.

    The majority of these people moaning, don't utilise their right to democracy to it's full potential. The think voting at election time equals job done. The job isn't done. They don't get involved in current affairs or issues the government face. The don't meet with their local MP and raise their concerns, therefore their opinions go unheard. Again, I'm talking about the majority from personal experience, not all. And yes - a government can make plans for the future. Because if those plans seem legitimate, and are having a positive impact on the people of the country/economy etc, then they will be reelected.

    One person ruling over us is considerably different to what we have from now. Albeit, Cameron does enjoy going off on a tangent. And no, every politician didn't come from a wealthy home.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sounds a bit Chinese to me.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KD35)
    When a party gets elected, they know there will soon be another election and they have to try get back into office.Therefore they can't engage in any long term goals as the effects just won't be seen by the public so they follow short term goals that probably mean trouble for the future (eg all the accumulated debt of many countries that have this "democracy" system). It would be much better if a group or one person was in charge so he could actually serve for the people and not for the purpose of winning another election.
    This isn't a problem with democracy, it's a problem with our democracy. The problem as I see it, is that my voting in parties for a set amount of years (4 or more) means a party has enough time to do damage, and not enough time to instigate any real long term changes. As such short term gain for long term suffering is promoted. This isnt always the case mind you.

    The other problem as I see it, is that people are voting for parties when they should be voting for people, and voting for people when they should be voting for parties. Overall, what is important is policy. In Switzerland, people have the right to exercise their voters power before an election, which I think is a brilliant idea.

    What's more, the ideologies in which you vote are far too broad, and can cause conflict. I may agree with the labour policy on education, but the tory policy on immigration, and if no party represents this I have to make a choice. I can't speak for everyone, but I would relish the opportunity to vote in individual secretaries (health, home etc), instead of having them appointed by the leading party which can lead to corruption.

    These aren't my only grievances, but that's another topic. But what I am saying is that it is not democracy in general that is the problem, so much as it is our implementation. The problem is that democracies require participation, and fail if the members don't participate. So getting a true democracy to work is complicated, and needs a strong and healthy (Internet based) infrastructure to make the democratic process anything but a bureaucratic nightmare.


    (Original post by KD35)
    The interest of the public isn't always in the interest of the government.

    You might say it's unfair if one person rules over everyone else but it's not really too different with the current system.
    The problem is, that it would become like the private sector. It is important that we have a say in our leaders, and a say in the way our country is run. Any individual is likely to be quite radical, but if you hand the power over to a large group of people, the radical elements cancel each other out and the result becomes more moderate. It might not be completely efficient, but it protects the people and it's more stable.

    (Original post by KD35)
    Every politician came from a wealthy privelaged background and they hardly represent the average person so why are they making decisions for everyone when they have no idea what the majority of peoples lives are like?
    While the part in bold this isnt strictly true. I share the sentiment that too many politicians (in our government) come from wealthy families. The chances of a leader in a non-democratic system would probably come from a wealthy background as well. In politics, coming from a wealthy background puts you in a position where you can get in spotlight. This is by no means perfect, however.

    If MPs and politicians where there to represent the people that voted for them, not the party they voted for, there might be less of an issue.


    Overall, I think one of the biggest failings of our system, is that a hung parliament leads to disaster, while in a good democracy a hung parliament should be welcomed as the process working correctly (see pretty much every other democracy).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Democracy is a bit of floored concept, you can't enforce democracy democratically. It's still better than any other political system


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KD35)
    On the bus home, I was staring straight into the eyes of a horse when I suddenly came to a sudden realisation that democracy isn't that great...

    Totally normal :confused:
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    There are two main problems with democracy:

    1. You are at the mercy of the public, who you must hope are not hostile to you.
    2. A culture of apathy towards politics or of making irrational or prejudiced decisions acts to undermine the utility of democracy.

    It isn't a panacea - if you give prejudiced people the vote, you merely empower their prejudice. Instead, democracy requires a high standard of public education, so we should invest accordingly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ultimately it's a failed system because most people are stupid and can't be relied on to vote for sensible or universally(or the most) beneficial options or policies, a democracy in which every single issues is voted upon by the public would be unworkably slow and tedious, which means at some point we simply have to trust elected officials to make the correct decisions.

    Which is plainly a retarded thing to do, since people ..no exceptions, are either idiots, cruel, selfish, greedy or inept and this will be reflected in there govermental actions.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KD35)
    On the bus home, I was staring straight into the eyes of a horse when I suddenly came to a sudden realisation that democracy isn't that great?
    wat?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Syrokal)
    Which is plainly a retarded thing to do, since people ..no exceptions, are either idiots, cruel, selfish, greedy or inept and this will be reflected in there govermental actions.
    I think that's a bit of an unfair assertion



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LewisG123)
    I think that's a bit of an unfair assertion



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't...

    Your welcome to your opinion though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Syrokal)
    I don't...

    Your welcome to your opinion though.
    Well you make yourself look ridiculous and quite ignorant when you say something like that with absolutely nothing to validate it


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LewisG123)
    Well you make yourself look ridiculous and quite ignorant when you say something like that with absolutely nothing to validate it

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Luckily I am not a vain man...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Syrokal)
    Luckily I am not a vain man...
    What relevance does that have to vanity?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LewisG123)
    What relevance does that have to vanity?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't care if I look ridiculous.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    This churchill quote sums it up quite nicely:

    Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Syrokal)
    I don't care if I look ridiculous.
    If your vain you have an exaggerated opinion of yourself, how does you looking ridiculous and ignorant relate?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LewisG123)
    If your vain you have an exaggerated opinion of yourself, how does you looking ridiculous and ignorant relate?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    In common use Vanity also relates to appearance

    van·i·ty
    /ˈvanətē/
    Noun
    Excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements.
    Not being a vain man in the slightest how I appear has no bearing on me.
    Looking a fool or ignorant may bother some, but im fine with it.

    Edit: This is really dragging out, over a little bit of semantics isn't it?
    Is the weather nice at your end?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Syrokal)
    In common use Vanity also relates to appearance



    Not being a vain man in the slightest how I appear has no bearing on me.
    Looking a fool or ignorant may bother some, but im fine with it.

    Edit: This is really dragging out, over a little bit of semantics isn't it?
    Is the weather nice at your end?
    I still disagree with your choice of words but I really cannot be bothered to keep debating it. The whether isn't too bad here, cloudy but still quite bright


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LewisG123)
    I still disagree with your choice of words but I really cannot be bothered to keep debating it.
    Or is this what I desired all along?

    The whether isn't too bad here, cloudy but still quite bright
    Dire over here...
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 18, 2013
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.