What's new

Democracy is a failed experiment

democracy != Majority rule.

Every minority group has rights which are protected by an Independent Judiciary. Majority group cannot promulgate any random law. The independent judiciary can always strike it down if it goes against minority group's rights.

@ all those who think democracy has failed : U people don't know actual meaning of democracy.

With our multiparty system,that may not be necessarily true.Consider three political parties in an election A,B and C

A gets 20 votes
B gets 30 votes
C gets 20 votes

B wins because he/she gets the "majority" of the votes yet 40 votes that A and C garnered went against him which is larger than the 30 votes he/she succeeded to garner.

Also,I am not great fan of the Judiciary.If the Judiciary actually did it's job,we wouldn't be needing a Jan Lokpal Bill now would we?
 
. .
People are not unhappy with democracy. They are unhappy with the politicians. Try and take away democracy and the peoples freedom to choose who represents them and you willl see a revolution. This last election saw a more conservative tilt. This is due to Obama's healthcare law, and his inability to lead on the economy. The next election should be the tie breaker on political gridlock. My prediction is Obama voted out and the democrats loss of the senate.

The one thing that could mess all of it up though is a 3rd party candidate splitting the republican vote. Just like what happened in the 90's with Ross Perot. He split the republican vote and gave Bill Clinton the election.
 
. . . . .
why? oneliners wont help nobody.

I agree that Democracy is over-rated. For instance, I don't agree with how the Western powers impose conditions on weaker countries as to what system they should use. Like as in: "If you aren't democratic, we'll impose sanctions on you, and you lot will all rot." This is really retarded.

A country's prosperity and future is not a one-man job. It's a combined effort of every citizen of the nation. And when the leaders fail to recognize that commitment from its people, that's when trouble starts. I have seen "democratic" systems that are in fact dictatorial. Elections are only part of a democracy.

For country to be officially a dictatorship, being in charge of everything can be a big burden. I don't understand why some people want to be dictators so badly. And of-course, those Western folks won't be too happy.

A one-party state? Well, that depends on the commitments of the party. If the commitments are impure, and people's basic rights are abused, then nothing good can come out of it. My country's first president tried that for four years, it didn't end well for him (he and his whole family were slaughtered). Much of the senior leadership were executed.

So, what is the best? It is fair to assume that democracy is the best. People's opinions, voices, rights, needs, wants, desires, etc do matter. But then as they say, freedom doesn't come free. And success of a democracy depends on the awareness of its citizens. And of-course not everything can be satisfied. The rule of law is very important.

We can say that there can be a lot of corruption in a democracy. India is one example. That is why the rule of law is very important. No one is above the law. Of-course, corruption exists in every country. If the corruption is a crippling one, then it can be a serious problem. Even if there is corruption in India, it is still relatively stable and in control even with all the problems within the country.

America is a good democracy. It's just that there are too many vested interests in my opinion. Or maybe there are just too many people involved(?) Although, I wouldn't call it a 'beacon of democracy for the world'. It can be a good example. That is how America is one of the leaders in higher education and Science & Technology, and their system do nurture some of the world's best minds.

But then, as we see in China, democracy is not a pre-requisite for economic growth, stability, and prosperity. It's all about where one's commitment lies.
 
.
Democracy is failed in Pakistan, history says Pakistan always develop in military rule, best recent example is Musharraf era.
 
.
Yah right, worlds most developed, rich, educated and successful countries happen to be democratic. Surely the signs of a failed experiment:undecided:

Do not forget, these "developed, rich, educated and successful" countries you speak of were all robbers in the past. Stealing and exploiting the worlds resources.
 
.
Those who want to get fruits of democratic tree must wait for tree to grow,but problem is,it takes time to grow.
 
.
very little to do with political system... somehow all east asian countries do a pretty good job on industrialization, regardless of their political system... Japan have only one party in power since 1955 -1993. South Korea and Taiwan were in military dictatorship during the similar time, but all of them do a really good job on get their people become rich, no offense, i would prefer race is the problem.
 
.
Do not forget, these "developed, rich, educated and successful" countries you speak of were all robbers in the past. Stealing and exploiting the worlds resources.

what an escape goat for us developing nations(lets include backward nations as well along with the deloping ones) to deny our failuirs, i dont know where did cananda, australia, norway, sweden, denmark, finland, belgium and many more countries went for loathing to have todays' prosperity.
 
.
I agree that Democracy is over-rated. For instance, I don't agree with how the Western powers impose conditions on weaker countries as to what system they should use. Like as in: "If you aren't democratic, we'll impose sanctions on you, and you lot will all rot." This is really retarded.

A country's prosperity and future is not a one-man job. It's a combined effort of every citizen of the nation. And when the leaders fail to recognize that commitment from its people, that's when trouble starts. I have seen "democratic" systems that are in fact dictatorial. Elections are only part of a democracy.

For country to be officially a dictatorship, being in charge of everything can be a big burden. I don't understand why some people want to be dictators so badly. And of-course, those Western folks won't be too happy.

A one-party state? Well, that depends on the commitments of the party. If the commitments are impure, and people's basic rights are abused, then nothing good can come out of it. My country's first president tried that for four years, it didn't end well for him (he and his whole family were slaughtered). Much of the senior leadership were executed.

So, what is the best? It is fair to assume that democracy is the best. People's opinions, voices, rights, needs, wants, desires, etc do matter. But then as they say, freedom doesn't come free. And success of a democracy depends on the awareness of its citizens. And of-course not everything can be satisfied. The rule of law is very important.

We can say that there can be a lot of corruption in a democracy. India is one example. That is why the rule of law is very important. No one is above the law. Of-course, corruption exists in every country. If the corruption is a crippling one, then it can be a serious problem. Even if there is corruption in India, it is still relatively stable and in control even with all the problems within the country.

America is a good democracy. It's just that there are too many vested interests in my opinion. Or maybe there are just too many people involved(?) Although, I wouldn't call it a 'beacon of democracy for the world'. It can be a good example. That is how America is one of the leaders in higher education and Science & Technology, and their system do nurture some of the world's best minds.

But then, as we see in China, democracy is not a pre-requisite for economic growth, stability, and prosperity. It's all about where one's commitment lies.

by seeing your post, i assume you are not against democracy.
 
.
democracy is the best form of government.no doubt in that.the problem is with the way in different people understand it.

for example take india,
we may be unhappy with the corruption,bad govt etc,still we have the power and voice to express our stand.

But do you really have power when an italian woman wields more influence than most just because she is has inherited a name ghandi
 
.
Back
Top Bottom