Is Democracy outdated in its current format across the world?

[JanjaWeed]

When it works well.. it's a good thing. When it doesn't, it's either bad thing or outdated! All depends on what sort of people running the system of governance.

 

[skysthelimit]

Democracy is useless without accountability.

In small settings like a village or city state (Athens), democracy works well, but it's hard to enforce accountability on a large scale of millions of people. So the task of accountability is delegated to the national media, but all it ends up doing is create another class of power brokers and king makers, i.e. the media elite.

So, in a modern democracy, the real power lies with the media elite. They can make or break any politician; they set the agenda for national discourse. No wonder, then, that the media keeps singing the virtues of democracy.

Having said that, it's hard to find a better alternative; China got lucky because their leaders happen to be competent and patriotic, but that's a rare combination. Given all the uncertainties, democracy is probably the best option in the general case.

Agree with everything but the last para.

China got lucky 'cos her leaders figured that state-sponsored capitalism will simultaneously lead to growth and allow them to take personal control of the majority of economic benefits. So we see overall strong growth in China, but with extremely fast increasing concentration of wealth - mostly in the hands of party leaders and their kin.

As for democracy, I think Churchill said it best - "... democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Liberty is not, and never will be, outdated. The very fact that you can debate this without fear proves it.

Can't we have "liberty" without democracy?

Conversely, how much liberty do we really have in today's democracies anyways?

 

[timetravel]

Democracy is a good thing, but it need a heathy foundation system，I think 15000$ per capita will make China full democracy, and people have spontaneous willing.The really important: when and how

we will have to wait and see when that happens ($15000 per capita). But will CCP be willing to let go of the control and let Chinese people participate in free elections?

(Considering that those in power at that point will be those who got all that power handed over in a plate to them. Elections would mean competing for power for first time ever)

 

[Fireaxe888]

Can't we have "liberty" without democracy?

Conversely, how much liberty do we really have in today's democracies anyways?

I don't think I've heard of a single dictatorship that hasn't resorted to censorship, intimidation or repression. It's what's necessary to maintain a monopoly on power.

We have the liberty to choose our leaders, to speak freely through any medium without fear of inprisonment or execution. Considering the billions around the world that do not enjoy these rights, I feel that we ought not to take them for granted.

 

[Sedqal]

The smartest and the brightest should be the ones to rule a country.

Howdy member from Malaysia High time I met one. I thought there were no Malaysians on PDF.

 

[Nan Yang]

we will have to wait and see when that happens ($15000 per capita). But will CCP be willing to let go of the control and let Chinese people participate in free elections?

(Considering that those in power at that point will be those who got all that power handed over in a plate to them. Elections would mean competing for power for first time ever)

I do not think xuxu said anything about having an election. Holding an election does not mean you have democracy.
Like I said. Democracy is a process. China is constantly evolving and reforming but we will never know what it will develop into. Its a never ending process.

In this universe there is only one constant. That constant is CHANGE ......... I-Ching - The book of Change.

Howdy member from Malaysia High time I met one. I thought there were no Malaysians on PDF.

Really ? I am the only poster from Malaysia? Hi

 

[skysthelimit]

I don't think I've heard of a single dictatorship that hasn't resorted to censorship, intimidation or repression. It's what's necessary to maintain a monopoly on power.

We have the liberty to choose our leaders, to speak freely through any medium without fear of inprisonment or execution. Considering the billions around the world that do not enjoy these rights, I feel that we ought not to take them for granted.

1. Example of benevolent dictatorships (albeit rare) do exist - Kamal Pasha of Turkey is one.
2. You think we have the "free" right to choose our own leaders? We don't. Our choice of who we vote for, what issues we are worried about, what policies we support are guided by what the media presents . And what the media presents is decided by their ad revenue, the vagaries of the 24 hour news cycle and the priorities of their corporate parents - who in turn have tacit and sometimes explicit understandings with the politicians.
3. Dictatorship is not the only alternative to democracy - my 3 favorites (listed in descending order of feasibility):
A. Constitutional Monarchy (a monarch with real power, not like England)
B. Democracy, but with a limited suffrage i.e. only some people are allowed to vote - based on education (lower limit), income (lower & upper limits), etc.
C. Anarchy

But I AM a big supporter of Freedom of Speech - that I believe should be the corner stone of any political system.

 

[Developereo]

China got lucky 'cos her leaders figured that state-sponsored capitalism will simultaneously lead to growth and allow them to take personal control of the majority of economic benefits. So we see overall strong growth in China, but with extremely fast increasing concentration of wealth - mostly in the hands of party leaders and their kin.

Every system is abused by the elite to some extent. That's just human nature and we can't expect perfection.

As for democracy, I think Churchill said it best - "... democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Churchill was hardly an objective commentator.

Like I wrote, democracy is an illusion beyond a certain point. It's the new opium of the masses; giving them an illusion of control where they have none.

The average voter has neither the time nor the interest to delve deeply into issues. As long as the economy keeps growing, most voters couldn't care less who runs the country. Most of the democratic process in the media is watched more for entertainment than enlightenment since the politicians rarely say anything substantial, and everything they say is taken with a grain of salt anyway.

The media elite decide what issues are important, and how to frame them; manipulating public opinion is a well-understood science.

Was Anna Hazara a patriot or a communist stooge? Were the anti-nuclear protests in India led by honest, concerned citizens or just a front for malicious, foreign NGOs with an agenda? In the US elections, the candidates were outdoing each other on who would bomb Iran first, despite the fact that the Pentagon and every US military expert is against it. In Australia, both major parties thump their chests about getting tough on refugees, despite the fact that it is not a major issue for most voters, and there are other, far more pressing, problems to deal with.

 

[posedion]

Democracy is a good thing, but it need a heathy foundation system，I think 15000$ per capita will make China full democracy, and people have spontaneous willing.The really important: when and how

Material Existence and human values and emotions are two different things, irrespective of flaws that democracy has , society will get over it

 

[Fireaxe888]

1. Example of benevolent dictatorships (albeit rare) do exist - Kamal Pasha of Turkey is one.
2. You think we have the "free" right to choose our own leaders? We don't. Our choice of who we vote for, what issues we are worried about, what policies we support are guided by what the media presents . And what the media presents is decided by their ad revenue, the vagaries of the 24 hour news cycle and the priorities of their corporate parents - who in turn have tacit and sometimes explicit understandings with the politicians.
3. Dictatorship is not the only alternative to democracy - my 3 favorites (listed in descending order of feasibility):
A. Constitutional Monarchy (a monarch with real power, not like England)
B. Democracy, but with a limited suffrage i.e. only some people are allowed to vote - based on education (lower limit), income (lower & upper limits), etc.
C. Anarchy

But I AM a big supporter of Freedom of Speech - that I believe should be the corner stone of any political system.

1. Now that I think of it, Singapore is another example of a competent semi-dictatorship, but in the main dictatorship pretty much invariably results in corruption, bad government and oppression, as those in power are not held acccountable by the populace.

2. Still better than sham "elections" that are more propaganda exercises than accurate expressions of the popular will.

3.
A) I don't think someone's parentage is a valid justification of power.
B) That sounds an awful lot like the British electoral system prior to the 1920s, which enshrined in law the idea that the views of some are worth more than others and resulted in governments fairly oblivious to the condition of the lower classes.

 

[SpArK]

Democracy outdated in its current format across the world?

If democracy gets outdated, go to www.favoritegoodparty.com and download election.zip file and run newgovernment.exe

 

[huzihaidao12]

Agree with everything but the last para.

China got lucky 'cos her leaders figured that state-sponsored capitalism will simultaneously lead to growth and allow them to take personal control of the majority of economic benefits. So we see overall strong growth in China, but with extremely fast increasing concentration of wealth - mostly in the hands of party leaders and their kin.

As for democracy, I think Churchill said it best - "... democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."



Can't we have "liberty" without democracy?

Conversely, how much liberty do we really have in today's democracies anyways?

1、the Government of India and the rich do not get much of the wealth from the outcome?
2、India' poor get more than China poor in the past，?

If democracy gets outdated, go to www.favoritegoodparty.com and download election.zip file and run newgovernment.exe

In fact, there is no need to, you only need to look at India.

 

[Nan Yang]

5 Reasons Humanity Is Terrible at Democracy
5 Reasons Humanity Is Terrible at Democracy | Cracked.com

 

[JSCh]

I think it is too simplistic to stick the caricature dictatorship or authoritarian label to China system of government. China just "lucky" and "happens" to pick the right capable and benevolent dictator? What are the odds of that? China is in the process of searching for the right system, if this system can keep "happens" to pick the right leaders, then democracy would likely be considered outdated by many.

 

[skysthelimit]

1、the Government of India and the rich do not get much of the wealth from the outcome?
2、India' poor get more than China poor in the past，?



In fact, there is no need to, you only need to look at India.

There is something wrong with you 50 cent guys - when did I say India was better? I just said that you should stop pretending that the so-called "Communist" Party of China is the next best thing after sliced bread!