Ah, I just thought of something - thanks T.F.B.M. - Dilettante, democracy gives us the release valve we need, if we didn't have it then as T.F.B.M. has pointed out, we will get continual political disruption, the revolution would be televised each Sunday after the NFL.

So democracy - such as it is - is necessary for capitalism to work.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

I think our culture dictates a will to govern ourselves based on the openness of law and the ability of individuals to influence law.
Other cultures do not feel this obligation to lead. They live within a framework that someone is above them and has their back. They admit they do not know much about their world and would like someone else to lead the way.
Along those lines, is the way I see government systems. I dont consider socialist systems as these commie-based plots to control the world.
They maintain themselves due to the peoples lack of willpower or lack of interest in government subjects.
How do you make people as interested in Government as Americans are of their own?
Expose them to the same set of circumstances that influenced Americas formation. That is about the only way I can be sure Democracy would flourish and be accepted.

__________________

There are many explanations about belief in aliens so largely spread among democratic ustaters: most of them revolve about the need of having a superior lifeform guiding them.

The last sentence sums up well that indeed, for a democracy to emerge and flourish, one needs indians.
Big issue is that nowadays indians are becoming scarcer and scarcer.
Only the negroes seem to fit the profile today and so many democracies to build on: china, india and so many democracies to maintain on: democratic europe, democratic us...

Ok, I meant to keep up better with this thread. Hopefully this rather long post will make up for some of my inattentiveness.

Two thoughts occur to me here.

First, the term "benign dictatorship".
It has, I think, been noted by people considerably more intelligent than myself that a wise and benign dictatorship is best of all possible governments. It is beyond doubt that a dictatorship is the most efficient and least corrupt form of government since no decisions require votes or consensus, no comprimises ever have to be made, and a supreme ruler is, almost by definition, beyond bribary. The dictatorship acts, like the supreme court, without worrying about popularity or the ever changing mood of public opinion. A wise and benign dictator would thus resolutely act in the ways best for his/her people, regardless of their fickle fashions or demogogues.
Of course the problem with dictatorships is that they so rarely are (much less remain) wise and benign. It is for that reason that dictatorship is no good.

The second thing that interests me is the comment that people "appreciate having a say". And so they do.
But the question at hand is not do they appreciate it, but is it really in their best intersts to "have a say" and, if so, how much of a say and which people?
Now in answering those two questions, even the most "democratic" nations impose limits on how much of a say people have and who can say it.

First off, as you noted, no major nation is a pure democracy in which every issue is decided by national referendum. The population (some of them anyway) may occasionally all get to vote on an issue, but in general their democratic power is funnelled through representatives; as you so aptly noted "we get democracy once [every few] years."
Now this is both necessary and wise in a large, powerful nation. It is necessary because a national referendum on every issue is utterly beyond the scope of the state's ability to hold elections. The resources simply do not exist to inform every voter of every issue and allow him/her to vote on it in a timely fashion. It is wise because the public is remarkably fickle and (by and large) both ignorant selfish. If nothing else, they haven't the time to read all the legislation, much less learn about economics, foreign affairs, history, law and politics.
So we obviously have already recognize the need to pratically limit the democratic "say" of the general population, if only for the good of the nation (i.e. "their own good").

Second, it is worth nothing that we do not even allow all citizens to participate even in the occasionally permitted exercises of democracy. To pick two examples from the United States: we forbid the vote to those in prison and to those under the age of 18.
Now these restrictions may seem to be no more than common sense: we obviously can't have children and criminals running the governmet. But I think they are extremely important because of the motivations behind them.
Why do we forbid the franchise to children? Is it not because they lack the maturity, education and experience to exercise it well? Because we suspect that their electoral input, if allowed, would be detrimental?
And why do we forbid the franchise to those in prison? Is it not because we have deemed them, by their behavior, to be untrustworthy?

Thus, even in our modern "democracies" we have already established that it is perfectly acceptable to deny the vote to specific groups of citizens because, based either on their experience/maturity or their actions, we believe their input would be detrimental to the nation.

If there is an argument for aristocrisy against democracy, I think it might start here: with the recognition that not all possible franchises benefit the people, that some people (children) are better served by not being allowed to exercise control of their government, and that eliminating the franchise of some groups (criminals) serves to benefit the greater population; AND with the recognition that even this limited group should not (indeed, cannot) be allowed continuous unlimited democratic power.
Once this is recognized, we can throw off the blinders that make us mindlessly believe that "everyone should have an equal say in the government".

The true debate is not whether or not "everyone" should be allowed to vote for all the issues: that option is not possible and, if it were, would lead to utter chaos. Ever "democratic" nation has realized this.
No, the debate is precisely who should have political power, how much political power they should have, and why? Are children and convicts truly the only people "unqualified" to control the government? Are not some groups (demarked by experience, education or something else) not better qualified than others?


{Just a reminder that I'm not really saying we should change our democractic system; this is more of an exercise in trying to figure out the arguments behind the democratic (and alternative) systems}

I'm not quite sure this follows. It's true that increased political interest does give on a desire for more democracy, but its also true that democracy encourages one to be more politically interested than they might be otherwise.

As it stands, most people are only really interested in, at most, a handful of political issues. If there were no regular elections (and therefore no campaign ads or press-releases intended to stir up the voters) I suspect we'd care even less.

Also, I don't think capitalism requires democracy in order to function. You can have a free market without free elections (or visa versa).

I hope this isn't useless cherry-picking by me. But it seems to me that you've put your finger on it Dilettante. I think in Plato's Athens that women didn't get the vote, nor did slaves of course and certainly not children. Democracy was only allowed for certain males.

Let's jump forward. I wish some of our French friends were in this thread, it would be good to have their input because I'm afraid my knowledge is (a) limited generally and (b) ignorant of French political history all bar a few significant events so some idea of the impetus of the Revolution in France and its ideas of liberté, égalité, fraternité, and how they influenced subsequent republics would be good. I'm limited in my Anglocentric views.

In Britain there was no universal male suffrage until the 19th Century (women of course couldn't vote until . I don't know the case in the US so I'll leave that to those who know.

New Zealand was the first country in the world to give women the vote in 1893, my state in Australia gave women the vote in 1894 but even here there was no universal suffrage until 1965 (not to be too specific and boring but here unless a man was a propertyholder he could not vote for the Upper House in our bi-camera parliament and this continued until 1965).

No doubt all of the restrictions on suffrage had cogent arguments to support them. I know you're not arguing for disenfranchisement, instead examing the basic premises of universal suffrage. And it's true there is no real universal suffrage. We limit - here in Australia - voting to adults (persons 18 and over) and who are citizens (born or naturalised). Criminals are entitled to vote in some circumstances.

So here the balance is tipped very much in the direction of granting suffrage to as many people as we can and keeping it from as small a number as we can.

The burning question of course is, "is this right?"

My answer to that is, "it depends"

If suffrage is merely a means to an end and that end is effective and efficient government then the case could be made out for a restriction on suffrage and on those who could be elected. But if suffrage is seen as an inherent human right, not in the natural rights sense but in the sense of the social contract, then suffrage must be as broad as possible because to have the vote is an end in itself. In other words it's to the greater good that all adults (reasonable restrictions allowed) should have the right to vote and that acknowledgement is more important than the pursuit of effective and efficient government. Since effective and efficient government can be arrived at by means other than restricting suffrage it seems to me that suffrage should be universal (again with the aforementioned reasonable restrictions).

I think I've inserted a few circular arguments in here - I'm open to demolition of course.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

I've had similar thoughts. Democracy seems to be one of those things in our culture that everyone speaks of with a necessarily-good tone. If something is "undemocratic," it is logically "bad." I'm certainly no well-informed commentator on the matter, but it seems to me that the people against democracy are those so-called elitists, those people that see their opinion and knowledge as above that of the average person that fits election time into his or her schedule. Perhaps elitists doesn't fit as well as "technocrats," for whom bureaucracy and public policy are topics of study. That seems to be the mentality for military or one-party or strict ideological systems of government - they are the ones that know what is best for the majority, despite what the majority itself thinks.

It all raises a difficult question for those of us who grew up in a democracy: does the majority know what is best, or does one minority or another know what is best? Diuretic nailed the topic, I think, when he brought up whether or not "universal suffrage" is the best means for a efficient, dependable government.

The problem is, who determines what an "efficient, dependable government" is? Democracy seems to work from the assumption that the will of the majority is the best determiner of an efficient and dependable government, just as theocracy seems to work from the assumption that the interpreted will of a higher power is the best determiner of the form of government. Though we are focused on identifying this answer or that answer, it seems really to be a matter of faith. Do you have more faith in the majority or in the technocrats, theocrats, ideologues, etc.?

Personally, I enjoy living under the current system. The fact that there are public outrcies and strong sentiment against injustice, torture, government power, etc., and that strong debates exist about these things, reinforce my belief that the majority may just be the best system that our brains can conjure at this point in history... just my random two cents.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

I am a Licensed Nurse, but only work about 4-5 times a month. The rest of the month I have two other part time jobs. When I walk into a hospital as a nurse, technically I would be your 'jack of all trades', as there are nurses who work near 50 hours a week. But I see those nurses and they are stressed out to hell, on the edge, and sometimes sleep deprived. I, however, am refreshed and never have any problem carrying out my job. I've never been written up once, nor made a med error (not yet, though they say it happens to everyone at some point). Just because one is not there as often doesn't mean he/she is less qualified than one who is there constantly.

If we were to choose someone for foreign policy, perhaps we could do in a 'shift-rotation' manner. One person does it for so long, then another steps in to give the other guy some down time. LOL. Just a thought.

This topic has become a debate over what it means to live in a democracy, what our nation stands for, and, ultimately, what we stand for. Are we a democracy? Do we stand for freedom and equality? Is ours a truly representative form of government? Freedom and equality are ideals; but, absent a perfect world, no one can live in society and be entirely free or completely equal. For every freedom there is a corresponding obligation to others, and equality is limited to the extent that such obligations are mutual, and others do not demand rights without responsibility for their exercise. In this, the promise of America is not freedom and equality, but rather liberty and equal opportunity and justice under law. But such promise cannot be kept when government instituted by men favors the few in derogation of the many, or serves the special interests at the expense of the public interest, and when the rich and powerful can have more justice than the poor and oppressed. As stated, supra, we Americans are a nation of laws, which can be both used (and abused) by men; and thus democracy requires the performance of our duty as citizens, both in choosing our representatives and elected officials and in seeing that they act in accordance with the law and in the interests of our nation. This is what it means to live in a democracy, the meaning of self-government, and the rights and power of “We the People.”

So instead of democracy we have oligarchy. In my darker moments I think perhaps Michels* was right. I don't like it but perhaps that's all we can look forward to in our democracies.

Robert Michels - Iron Law of Oligarchy.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

There is a story that after the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was asked what sort of government the delegates had created; to which he reportedly remarked: "A republic, if you can keep it." Whether the story (and the attribution to Franklin) is true is not known; but the substance of the quoted remark is true enough.

At that time I suppose Franklin was being somewhat cautious. Perhaps he was a bit worried about the Brits coming back or even the French (very unlikely) hopping in for their chop. And perhaps he was expressing caution about the likelihood of an internal take-over. Either way it's a great comment and if Franklin didn't say it then he should have...I like to think he did say it.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

There are a lot of things that Franklin never said.

Such as, "how about them Rams?"

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

It is really not helpful to paint things with the colors of fancy. Most of our so-called “founding fathers” - when viewed candidly - were fairly colorful characters without need of our help. Benjamin Franklin, who is considered to be the “First American” came close to forsaking hearth and home for England. Even Jefferson, with all his slaves, was hardly the liberal reformer we would have him be; and despite the efforts of modern-day Christians to convert him, the truth is that he was a deist, who had no qualms about revising the Bible to suit himself. See The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (1820). The “times that try men’s souls” bring out firebrands like Thomas Paine; who, if he was not a founding father, was certainly the midwife of American independence, and abetter to the overthrow of the French monarchy as well. Like Jesus, we would not be able to stand him. (Indeed, Paine was such a pain in the arse that he managed to make himself persona non grata in England, America and France!) Our perception of these characters is clouded by the dark glass of history, and distorted by attributions that represent so much wishful (rather than critical) thinking. It is like crediting Rembrandt’s paintings with depth of hue when their darkness is due to his using cheap paint.