Why Socrates hated Democracy

[H. Dawary]

@Jungibaaz

The main problem is the perception that democracy is supposed to be perfect, as in perfect in solving everyone's and every group's unique problems.

I have said it before and will repeat: Democracy is both the goal and process.

Say we have a population of 1000 and country is Elbonia. Say that the Gods 'showed' us that women are inferior and therefore should not taint the governance of the country with women related nonsense. That means half of Elbonia is disqualified from politics in general. But for the other half, the Elbonian men, no other disqualifier are in place. All Elbonian men are equal in the eyes of the law. Is Elbonia a democracy ? Yes.

If democracy is both the goal and the process, it means democracy is inherently imperfect since you cannot make what is perfect a process. It is perfect. It needs no improvements. But precisely because we continuously examine our democratic processes, it stands to reason out that democracy is not perfect. It can never be. Despite the institutional discrimination of Elbonian women, Elbonia qualifies as a democracy because the people operate their democracy under the best known available information about humans and politics at the time.

Would there be Elbonian suffragette ? Probably. Would the idea that women is the equal of men come from nascent Elbonian thoughts or imported from outside ? That does not matter. There will be resistance from 'the establishment', for certain. But proposition and resistance are the inevitable components of the process. A system, be it human or mechanical or natural, favors stability and favors it even to the point of being static. The old saying applies: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." To Elbonian men, the system is perfect. But to Elbonian women, their discrimination from politics made the system imperfect, therefore, in need of fixing.

Why was Elbonian women discriminated from politics in the first place ? Because The Gods said women are inferior. This means this group was discriminated through no fault of its own. The members of this group have violated no social conventions or even ethics, let along laws, to warrant discrimination. If we remove 'The Gods' from consideration, this forces Elbonia to reexamine itself.

When you belongs to a club, there are costs and benefits. The first cost is loyalty. The first benefit is prestige. Both are intangibles. The tangible costs and benefits are dues, attendance, protection, privileges to exclusive things, and so on. If you do not pay your dues (taxes) and is consistently absent at roll calls (expat), why should you receive the club's protection and enjoys its privileges to exclusive stuff ? After all, the tangibles came from other tangibles such as labor in order to be real which contribute to the intangible 'prestige'.

This line of reasoning is natural in every organization that seeks to stand apart from other organizations. In other words, it seeks to discriminate and does it based upon the best known available information about humanity. The issue is not representation but first whether or not have you harmed the organization and/or a member in any way.

Here is a conflict that must be resolved. You paid your club dues but you stole from another member. In this case, both actions are tangibles. Or, you paid your club dues, but you disparaged the club in the presence of another club. In this case, one action is tangible and the other intangible. Which is more heinous ? More offensive in the eyes of the membership ?

The process of finding disqualifiers is no less important than the process of trying to be inclusive. Democracy is not invulnerable. If the process is not defended, it will be destroyed from within. The members of the club must be aware that there are negative consequences to their actions if those actions are harmful to the social conventions and ethics that predated the laws. We punish via laws, but we judge from social conventions and ethics. If you start eyeballing my wallet, I will judge you even though you have not done anything tangible.

If we are to assess ancient Elbonia according to today's standards of democracy, regarding being an evolving process, then ancient Elbonia would not be a democracy because of what 'The Gods' said about women. In a sense, it would be unfair simply because of the time and knowledge gaps. We can be kind and give them the benefits of the doubt of being a democracy because at least they did not placed any disqualifier on the men. What this means is that we can only judge our contemporaries on who is 'democratic' and who is not. We are on the same era of human growth in terms of social evolution and knowledge accumulation. Caveat: We are not talking comparing the US and some unknown jungle tribe of humans.

Our contemporaries consists of countries that have varying degrees of inclusiveness in the democratic process. Because of the greater inclusiveness factor, it is easy to call one country 'not democratic' and difficult to defend one's own democratic process in the face of that charge.

Everyone generally agrees that being a convicted felon is at least worthy of being discriminated from the democratic process of voting, even though not everyone actually made legal that that disqualifier. That violation of social convention was severe enough for everyone to even consider the idea of discrimination. So for now, we can ignore convicted felons as a legitimate criticism that a country is 'not democratic' for disqualifying such a group from its democratic process.

But what about holding other or even diametric ideas ? Today, the Western countries allows people with diverse political ideas to participate in our democratic processes. Many countries do not. We call those countries various 'un-democratic' labels like 'authoritarian' or 'dictatorship'.

Our defense of our current notion of democracy must not shy away from the disqualifiers we put in place because we did not create those disqualifiers from external factors like 'The Gods'. We have those disqualifers because of the demonstrated tangible harm to our members.

I see that you are more concerned about the idea of democracy then anything else...

Rome was no different in its democratic process albeit it was an aristocracy... but they did make institutions that benefited the plebs (people) and even exalted then by making consuls and tribunes that could veto motions and lead armies into war, however even that failed...

Rome’s democracy icon institutions went on a downward sprial right after the Gracchi brothers. The republic of Rome was largely aristocratic, the people (plebs as they were referred to) had little to no say except for having the right to veto reforms or laws passed by the optimates (aristocrats), but in summary the Aristocrats ran the show, they had all the important lands, resources, influence, and pretty much most of the positions of power was under their authority and they could make or unmake laws, the people couldn't.

Rome would fight big wars, and send it's men out to fight them, the plebs were mostly farmers and some were tradesmen, these farmers after having enlisted as it was pretty much mandatory to enlist and fight Rome's wars would then have no one to cultivate the farms, so what did they do... sell the farms, and who bought them... the optimates. Now Rome being Rome, they would win it's wars and bring in a bunch of slaves who would be then bought by the optimates and send to do all the farmwork at a cheap price, sound familiar? Yea same thing is happening with outsourcing jobs to china, India and elsewhere minus the conquests, of course the plebs had no way of competing against cheap labor plus the men being sent out to fight wars and so what happened was more land was for sale and more land was bought by the optimates, thus resulting in the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer, which is no different from today.

The Graachi brothers ( who were optimates) saw this inherent problem and sought to reform the system and give the plebs more rights, the problem was the optimates would have none of it as it was against their best interests, the Graachi by gaining the support of the people were in some ways becoming leaders of Rome, and the optimates saw this, they understood quickly that having the people on one's side lifted a person's position and authority, something Marius and Caesar also learned during their time in office. So what happened was the Graachi brothers were killed as they were "undoing the foundations of Rome" in other words, taking away the authority of the aristocrats and going against their debauchery.

After the Graachi brothers were killed the situation of the Roman people worsened over the years, the optimates would sometimes give the people tributes or petty payments to keep them quiet from the already corrupted system, it worked for a short-while but it was not a substantial solution. Then enter Marius and Caesar, Marius as well as Caesar both found their opportunities in the impending danger Rome was in against Barbarian onslaught, from winning wars against the Barbarians they uplifted themselves, however they were ambitious men who didn't really care about Rome but more about furthering themselves, and their opportunity was the disgruntled people who were economically abused by the corrupted existing system. Marius gained the support of the people but was stopped by his arch-rival Sulla, who saw that Marius was acting in his interests by becoming the master of Rome, of course he was doing it in the best interests of the people but his intentions were not in the right place. Marius lost, but Caesar triumphed when he was put in the same situation some decades later.

It was not longer after that when Caesar was assassinated, his great nephew Octavian, or Augustus Caesar, came to power and became the dictator of Rome. He improved the situation of Rome and enriched it beyond what it was before, but at the cost of it's liberty.

This unfortunately from my point of view will be the fate of all democracies, a necessary transition into dictatorship/one man rule.

 

[Indos]

I see that you are more concerned about the idea of democracy then anything else...

Rome was no different in its democratic process albeit it was an aristocracy... but they did make institutions that benefited the plebs (people) and even exalted then by making consuls and tribunes that could veto motions and lead armies into war, however even that failed...

Rome’s democracy icon institutions went on a downward sprial right after the Gracchi brothers. The republic of Rome was largely aristocratic, the people (plebs as they were referred to) had little to no say except for having the right to veto reforms or laws passed by the optimates (aristocrats), but in summary the Aristocrats ran the show, they had all the important lands, resources, influence, and pretty much most of the positions of power was under their authority and they could make or unmake laws, the people couldn't. Rome would fight big wars, and send it's men out to fight them, the plebs were mostly farmers and some were tradesmen, these farmers after having enlisted as it was pretty much mandatory to enlist and fight Rome's wars would then have no one to cultivate the farms, so what did they do... sell the farms, and who bought them... the optimates. Now Rome being Rome, they would win it's wars and bring in a bunch of slaves who would be then bought by the optimates and send to do all the farmwork at a cheap price, sound familiar? Yea same thing is happening with outsourcing jobs to china, India and elsewhere minus the conquests, of course the plebs had no way of competing against cheap labor plus the men being sent out to fight wars and so what happened was more land was for sale and more land was bought by the optimates, thus resulting in the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer, which is no different from today. The Graachi brothers ( who were optimates) saw this inherent problem and sought to reform the system and give the plebs more rights, the problem was the optimates would have none of it as it was against their best interests, the Graachi by gaining the support of the people were in some ways becoming leaders of Rome, and the optimates saw this, they understood quickly that having the people on one's side lifted a person's position and authority, something Marius and Caesar also learned during their time in office. So what happened was the Graachi brothers were killed as they were "undoing the foundations of Rome" in other words, taking away the authority of the aristocrats and going against their debauchery. After the Graachi brothers were killed the situation of the Roman people worsened over the years, the optimates would sometimes give the people tributes or petty payments to keep them quiet from the already corrupted system, it worked for a short-while but it was not a substantial solution. Then enter Marius and Caesar, Marius as well as Caesar both found their opportunities in the impending danger Rome was in against Barbarian onslaught, from winning wars against the Barbarians they uplifted themselves, however they were ambitious men who didn't really care about Rome but more about furthering themselves, and their opportunity was the disgruntled people who were economically abused by the corrupted existing system. Marius gained the support of the people but was stopped by his arch-rival Sulla, who saw that Marius was acting in his interests by becoming the master of Rome, of course he was doing it in the best interests of the people but his intentions were not in the right place. Marius lost, but Caesar triumphed when he was put in the same situation some decades later. It was not longer after that when Caesar was assassinated, his great nephew Octavian, or Augustus Caesar, came to power and became the dictator of Rome. He improved the situation of Rome and enriched it beyond what it was before, but at the cost of it's liberty.

This unfortunately from my point of view will be the fate of all democracies, a necessary transition into dictatorship/one man rule.

Bro, you need to make several paragraphs if you have a long writing. It is to make it easier to read and understand.

 

[H. Dawary]

Bro, you need to make several paragraphs if you have a long writing. It is to make it easier to read and understand.

Sorry... will edit now

 

[Broccoli]

Constitutonial republic is best way forward for most countries as it offers longer term stability vs countries with single party or strongman on the helm.

If we look at history dictartorships have usually failed or are fundamentally weaker than democracies. Example: Saudi and Syrian rulers need external help otherwise they would have been overthrown already and both countries are far away from being more stabile than democracies... same story all over the place.

Dictator or strongman offering stability is probably biggest lie ever.

 

[vi-va]

Constitutonial republic is best way forward for most countries as it offers longer term stability vs countries with single party or strongman on the helm.

If we look at history dictartorships have usually failed or are fundamentally weaker than democracies. Example: Saudi and Syrian rulers need external help otherwise they would have been overthrown already and both countries are far away from being more stabile than democracies... same story all over the place.

Dictator or strongman offering stability is probably biggest lie ever.

The western countries failed to think, because the media stuff their mind without thinking in depth, sad but true.

Most intellectuals from western countries can only think of 2 stereotype:

1. Democracy
2. Dictatorship

Haven't anyone tell them there are more than 20+ types of governance?

List of forms of government

Back 2500 years ago, they even knew there are at least 6 types of governance.
In book Politics (Aristotle), there are 6 types of governance.

君主制、共和制、贵族制、寡头制、民主制、僭主政体（专政）
Monarchy, Republic, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, Tyrant

Democracy is a flawed system, everyone knew it. Otherwise, Trump won't be elected.

More importantly, westerns can only think form of government, they didn't know there are something on top of form of government.

Form of government is just a tool to rule. Different countries and people can have same form of government, but the outcome can be completely different. Take Philippines and Japan as example, Both Philippines and Japan constitution and political system are designed by Americans, the difference is so large, their government efficiency and outcome has nothing in common.

On top of Form of government is Government Principle, it's more abstract. The difference between China and many other countries is not the Form of government but Government Principle.

Same tool in different hands. It's the people and party determine the destiny of the nation.

 

[gambit]

I see that you are more concerned about the idea of democracy then anything else.

Subscription to an idea is the first step. By subscription, I mean two items: intellectual and emotional. I can be physically apart from the area where the idea is practiced but if that idea is attractive enough, I can invest intellectually and emotionally.

So yes, first and foremost in my mind is the idea of democracy. For most, the subscription is all three: intellectual, emotional, and physical. We think about it, we live in it, and we are passionate about it.

This unfortunately from my point of view will be the fate of all democracies, a necessary transition into dictatorship/one man rule.

Are you saying that a dictatorship is inevitable?

There is a difference between 'destiny' and 'fate'. To keep it short, destiny is about choices and trends but fate is ordained and unalterable. If mankind is fated towards the dictatorship form of governance, then we might as well abandon all pretenses of democracy now. So far, the US has proved with 234 yrs of existence that its constitutional republican form of governance is highly resistive towards idolatry and elitist forms of governance.

To be clear...Idolatry is something like Mao or Saddam and elitist is something like current China with one-party rule and its few members determine the policies of governance. At one point, the US did briefly considered George Washington for the first king of the newly independent country.

Having a constitution itself does not guarantee democracy. China have a constitution, so did the Soviet Union when it existed. What matter is how a constitution demarcate authority and power. For the US, that demarcation begins from the people or hierarchically -- from the bottom up. The 10th Amendment in the US Constitution made it clear: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Essentially, any figure will have to justify to the people any expansion of centralized power, hence, difficult to the point of near impossible, for any figure to become so popular that the people ceded to the figure the powers that were originally theirs in the first place.

The US version of democratic practices are not meant for everyone, but its general ideas are attractive enough to be used as model for aspirants of democracy.

 

[Nilgiri]

Constitutonial republic is best way forward for most countries as it offers longer term stability vs countries with single party or strongman on the helm.

If we look at history dictartorships have usually failed or are fundamentally weaker than democracies. Example: Saudi and Syrian rulers need external help otherwise they would have been overthrown already and both countries are far away from being more stabile than democracies... same story all over the place.

Dictator or strongman offering stability is probably biggest lie ever.

Excellent post and nothing to add to it.

Also good to see you reply @gambit , haven't seen you around in a while.... hope you are doing well

 

[gambit]

Excellent post and nothing to add to it.

Thanks.

Also good to see you reply @gambit , haven't seen you around in a while.... hope you are doing well

Been busy last month moving. Am no longer in western US but relocated back east. Closer to my family in Florida.

 

[Old School]

We need to read Plato's Republic to find that out. The only way to know Socrates is through his students as Socrates himself did not leave any litterateur behind. Some historians even cast doubt on the existance of a historical Socrates ; that Plato used Socrates as a fictional figure to express his own opinions. Anyway, historians are undoubtedly divided.

 

[vi-va]

Excellent post and nothing to add to it.

Also good to see you reply @gambit , haven't seen you around in a while.... hope you are doing well

Not really. The survival of a country not only depends on their political system stability. but also the capability.

In long term, in a Jungle Society, which is the current international system, there is no pacificator, no authority, every countries depends on themselves. The capability to reform and resolve their social issues, improvement of living standard, defense and unity are the key for survival.

India's reform capability and will is quit questionable.

 

[Nilgiri]

Not really. The survival of a country not only depends on their political system stability. but also the capability.

You need the former to have any chance of harnessing the latter.

This system we have in India is the only one that will be stable and tough for us.

I have seen it firsthand that no other system will work. (Indira Gandhi tried such an experiment a few years and failed miserably)

In long term, in a Jungle Society, which is the current international system, there is no pacificator, no authority, every countries depends on themselves. The capability to reform and resolve their social issues, improvement of living standard, defense and unity are the key for survival.

No argument there. But all perspectives regarding this are relative, and even more relative when you have very heterogeneous country. So other systems simply tend towards too much absolute power invested and projected, and it just becomes matter of time for too much pressure to accumulate imo. This happens quicker in some and slower in others depending on context and what circumstances happen.

India's reform capability and will is quit questionable.

I don't know if questionable is the right word. There is certainly enough differences inside India between states to provide reference points for what works and what doesnt work....and this provides nuanced reform over time.

When something hasnt worked in larger high level systematic choice + grander time scale, then you get more visible reform like in 1991....but without collapsing the entire country like USSR because it got too used to centralised brittleness but was obviously more interior pluralistic.

So nothing good would happen at all with authoritarian or totalitarian kind of system, since India has from onset different languages and cultures within it. Too many would be excluded if there was a dictator or monolith one party system.

Every other country, same thing applies, just some can tolerate centralist one-party kind of stuff more than others, both degree and duration wise...but it would not be as good as an optimized republican democracy overall. It generally depends how homogeneous vs heterogeneous the country is and its context in history.

 

[Aspen]

Pakistan needed more people like Musharraf.

Benevolent dictators are the best form of government.

I will support a military coup because they have always been more competent than Pakistan's civilian leadership.

 

[vi-va]

You need the former to have any chance of harnessing the latter.

This system we have in India is the only one that will be stable and tough for us.

I have seen it firsthand that no other system will work. (Indira Gandhi tried such an experiment a few years and failed miserably)



No argument there. But all perspectives regarding this are relative, and even more relative when you have very heterogeneous country. So other systems simply tend towards too much absolute power invested and projected, and it just becomes matter of time for too much pressure to accumulate imo. This happens quicker in some and slower in others depending on context and what circumstances happen.



I don't know if questionable is the right word. There is certainly enough differences inside India between states to provide reference points for what works and what doesnt work....and this provides nuanced reform over time.

When something hasnt worked in larger high level systematic choice + grander time scale, then you get more visible reform like in 1991....but without collapsing the entire country like USSR because it got too used to centralised brittleness but was obviously more interior pluralistic.

So nothing good would happen at all with authoritarian or totalitarian kind of system, since India has from onset different languages and cultures within it. Too many would be excluded if there was a dictator or monolith one party system.

Every other country, same thing applies, just some can tolerate centralist one-party kind of stuff more than others, both degree and duration wise...but it would not be as good as an optimized republican democracy overall. It generally depends how homogeneous vs heterogeneous the country is and its context in history.

I never suggested India adopt a Chinese system, or some other systems. We Chinese are none Americans who believe there is an universal system which works for everyone.

Every big countries are mixed system, United States is mixed system, no matter what they claim they are public or democracy. They are not republic nor democracy, they are capitalism, plutocracy, democracy, republic, kleptocracy, and dictatorship of majority. Also they are expansionists, imperialists, protestant, and many others.

The same applies to China. China is an old civilization, so naturally inherited the old traditions of dynasties, and culture of government. New China adopted a completely new system and doctrine, call it communism, socialism, or revolution-ism, or collective-centralism. After open up policy adopted, China can be tagged with capitalism, or even state capitalism features. All in all, China is more like socialism with collective-centralism and Chinese traditions.

Any tag on China will simply be wrong. Any tag on India will be wrong either. All big countries are mixed system and very complex, including Pakistan.

The MSM are so biased and profit driven, propaganda agenda driven. Intellectuals should avoid this system, that system kind of stereotype thinking.

Again, I never suggested India should adopt any foreign system, Chinese are NONE Americans.

The questions are:

1. Can India reform herself before social issues explode?
2. How can a government be more honest and cleaner?
3. How can a government be more accountable?
4. How can a government be more efficient？
5. How can a government improve their people living standard faster, better?
6. What's the fate of India?

Those questions are not directly related to political system, but are the key for any countries development and survival.

I see that you are more concerned about the idea of democracy then anything else...

Rome was no different in its democratic process albeit it was an aristocracy... but they did make institutions that benefited the plebs (people) and even exalted then by making consuls and tribunes that could veto motions and lead armies into war, however even that failed...

Rome’s democracy icon institutions went on a downward sprial right after the Gracchi brothers. The republic of Rome was largely aristocratic, the people (plebs as they were referred to) had little to no say except for having the right to veto reforms or laws passed by the optimates (aristocrats), but in summary the Aristocrats ran the show, they had all the important lands, resources, influence, and pretty much most of the positions of power was under their authority and they could make or unmake laws, the people couldn't.

Rome would fight big wars, and send it's men out to fight them, the plebs were mostly farmers and some were tradesmen, these farmers after having enlisted as it was pretty much mandatory to enlist and fight Rome's wars would then have no one to cultivate the farms, so what did they do... sell the farms, and who bought them... the optimates. Now Rome being Rome, they would win it's wars and bring in a bunch of slaves who would be then bought by the optimates and send to do all the farmwork at a cheap price, sound familiar? Yea same thing is happening with outsourcing jobs to china, India and elsewhere minus the conquests, of course the plebs had no way of competing against cheap labor plus the men being sent out to fight wars and so what happened was more land was for sale and more land was bought by the optimates, thus resulting in the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer, which is no different from today.

The Graachi brothers ( who were optimates) saw this inherent problem and sought to reform the system and give the plebs more rights, the problem was the optimates would have none of it as it was against their best interests, the Graachi by gaining the support of the people were in some ways becoming leaders of Rome, and the optimates saw this, they understood quickly that having the people on one's side lifted a person's position and authority, something Marius and Caesar also learned during their time in office. So what happened was the Graachi brothers were killed as they were "undoing the foundations of Rome" in other words, taking away the authority of the aristocrats and going against their debauchery.

After the Graachi brothers were killed the situation of the Roman people worsened over the years, the optimates would sometimes give the people tributes or petty payments to keep them quiet from the already corrupted system, it worked for a short-while but it was not a substantial solution. Then enter Marius and Caesar, Marius as well as Caesar both found their opportunities in the impending danger Rome was in against Barbarian onslaught, from winning wars against the Barbarians they uplifted themselves, however they were ambitious men who didn't really care about Rome but more about furthering themselves, and their opportunity was the disgruntled people who were economically abused by the corrupted existing system. Marius gained the support of the people but was stopped by his arch-rival Sulla, who saw that Marius was acting in his interests by becoming the master of Rome, of course he was doing it in the best interests of the people but his intentions were not in the right place. Marius lost, but Caesar triumphed when he was put in the same situation some decades later.

It was not longer after that when Caesar was assassinated, his great nephew Octavian, or Augustus Caesar, came to power and became the dictator of Rome. He improved the situation of Rome and enriched it beyond what it was before, but at the cost of it's liberty.

This unfortunately from my point of view will be the fate of all democracies, a necessary transition into dictatorship/one man rule.

Dude, you should write more. I do enjoyed your post.

 

[vi-va]

What Socrates called democracy and what we call democracy are quite different. I'm not just talking about Pakistan's unenlightened democracy, but the modern perception of what democracy is, the anglicised democracy based on Magna Carta as opposed to Athenian democracy.

A lot of people when considering Athenian democracy focus (wrongly in my opinion) on those that it excluded, the smaller number of people that it allowed participation, its exclusion of women and migrants. But for its time it allowed the poor to participate, which is remarkable.

Equally, there are ways in which I would argue that their democracy was even more true to the principle than ours, sortition has many merits over election, for instance, it eliminates career politicians, electioneering and lies, limits the influence of people who rig the process etc. In a perfect system of sortition applied today, the ordinary working man is just as likely to be in power and make the system work for him as a rich man does. And they both can't stick around long enough to form a ruling class, it's out with all of them after their terms and they are then forbidden from partaking again. They had direct democracy compared to our representative ones.

These are differences to bear in mind when considering the opinions of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle on what they called 'democracy'.

Their opinions leave some interesting lessons on how to manage modern democracies, where they can go wrong and how to stop them from doing so.

By the Ancient Greek standard, our democracies are more like oligarchies, where the rich rule. If indeed we have democracy as the Greek's saw it, then what Socrates and Aristotle feared would happen is that the poor through mob rule would capture the wealth of the rich. The two solutions in the modern context to that issue would be to limit participation and by default, limit democracy, or by lowering inequality.

There was a very interesting paper by some political scientists at Princeton a few years back, that paper basically concluded that the US, though it may pride itself on being a democracy, functions for all intents and purposes as an oligarchy. The paper refers to these as systems of majoritarian pluralism (democracy) and biased pluralism (subversion of democracy or oligarchy). The latter is a political system that works for monied interests, and if the ordinary people get what they want once in a while, it happens to be coincidental, and only results from the monied interests already being on board with the idea.

These are important distinctions to understand when watching that video in the OP. Socrates is taking issue with the mob rule of Ancient Greek democracy, which are very different to systems we idealise today. And even those systems we idealise, in reality are detached from the textbook definitions of the words we use for them. Our so called 'democracies' are NOT suffering from mob rule as the video WRONGLY implies, or unenlightened plebs influencing policy for the worse, instead our democracies are suffering from biases that rig the system in favour of the wealthy and that usurp the power of the vote and deny representation to the poor.

That's how and why Rome and US decline.

 

[Nilgiri]

I never suggested India adopt a Chinese system, or some other systems. We Chinese are none Americans who believe there is an universal system which works for everyone.

Every big countries are mixed system, United States is mixed system, no matter what they claim they are public or democracy. They are not republic nor democracy, they are capitalism, plutocracy, democracy, republic, kleptocracy, and dictatorship of majority. Also they are expansionists, imperialists, protestant, and many others.

The same applies to China. China is an old civilization, so naturally inherited the old traditions of dynasties, and culture of government. New China adopted a completely new system and doctrine, call it communism, socialism, or revolution-ism, or collective-centralism. After open up policy adopted, China can be tagged with capitalism, or even state capitalism features. All in all, China is more like socialism with collective-centralism and Chinese traditions.

Any tag on China will simply be wrong. Any tag on India will be wrong either. All big countries are mixed system and very complex, including Pakistan.

The MSM are so biased and profit driven, propaganda agenda driven. Intellectuals should avoid this system, that system kind of stereotype thinking.

Again, I never suggested India should adopt any foreign system, Chinese are NONE Americans.

The questions are:

1. Can India reform herself before social issues explode?
2. How can a government be more honest and cleaner?
3. How can a government be more accountable?
4. How can a government be more efficient？
5. How can a government improve their people living standard faster, better?
6. What's the fate of India?

Those questions are not directly related to political system, but are the key for any countries development and survival.


Dude, you should write more. I do enjoyed your post.

Yes lot of this would need face to face talk I'm afraid, coz I would need to build up my case and analysis using archive material (I have collected) with proper context.

China is a different country on this matter altogether as we have discussed before. But for average country I believe overall republican democracy if implemented well is the best shot otherwise its too much coin flipping.