General News Is the democratic model of government broken?

Sure, the voters can act stupidly, be swayed by ridiculous propaganda and whatnot. But so can any group of people. As they used to say in Russia "Even the wisest man is simpleton enough."

Suppose Brexit was decided upon not by a referendum, but by some steering committee of credentialed technocrats who rationalised and groupthought their way into it, honestly believing they're all acting scientifically and objectively -- would it really make the situation any better?

 

It certainly isn't a good year. In the U.S., the media sleaze is possibly the worst since the early 1900's tabloid era (i.e., there is precedent; this is not new).

The other interesting contrast to me is how China is quite transparent when it comes to its repressive instincts. Government policies of censorship and repression are fairly open and meant to send a message.

In more traditional "democratic" countries, not so much. There is, for example, GCHQ in the UK, with it's incredible powers, and of course in the U.S. we've known the FBI role in undermining political movements since Nixon and before, and of course there's the NSA.

The UK and the US assert themselves to be representative, inclusive, and open to dissent, while maintaining a machine to repress dissent. In the end I think we in the U.S. have far more in common with the Chinese system of government, than we'll ever admit.

 

Depending on your definition Americas presidential elections aren't really democratic *shrugs*

Democracy may have many flaws but so has every system and this one has proven itself to work so far.

Besides picking out specific negative examples and saying your own system is better is easy for everyone because the positive aspects are completely ignored. Looking only at this one election and making fun of democracy for it is very narrow minded and childish as all elections that worked well and all other democratic countries are being ignored but still get branded with one single example where it went badly.

 

As does any act of democracy where the result isn't completely unanimous. Usually most favourably argued by those that were in the minority - in this example, remain voters.

If politicians spent less time trying to 'lead' us and turn our political system into a personality contest, then they could focus on their job, representing and serving the people. If those elected feel that they know better than the people, it is there responsibility to relay that knowledge to ensure an educated and informed electorate. It is not their mandate to ignore the will of the people or to represent their own interests over those of their constituents.

still using the Brexit referendum as an example, I wonder how many UK MP's will lose their seats after insulting the intelligence of those that voted them in? How many nominees will be replaced by their party for failing to support and represent the view of the majority of their constituents?

My guess is not very many on both accounts.

That is the true travesty here. Most people are not educated about and do not understand the political system that they live under. Many people fail to use and appreciate the full power of their vote. Few people believe that they can make a difference or be involved in politics. Unbelievable volumes vote for political parties due to unrequited loyalty rather than policy, as though they are supporting their favourite sports team.

In my opinion that is why the people of China and others alike may not see the power of democracy, because where it does exist, it rarely exists in the interest of the people.

 

Non-democracies rely on leaders acting rationally and in the national self-interest, as well. And it all occurs with limited debate, which is even less conducive to rationality.

And because there aren't 'pressure valves' in non-democratic countries without rule of law (which China most definitely is) for citizens to express dissatisfaction, those countries often have to swing heavily towards certain policies without a rational debate to avoid mass public unhappiness. The courts aren't genuinely independent, so the poor resolution or lack of a resolution of legal disputes are ultimately the fault of the party which governs. There is little accountability of legislators to the public. There is effectively no accountability of the executive to the legislature.

Additionally, a government which both censors and controls the press is often forced by its own propaganda to go down bad routes of governance because it's used its power for short-term boosts in the public morale and can't afford to take back its popular positions.

Ultimately, China has to deal with personality conflicts, abuses of power, pointless palace intrigue and factionalism more than any democracy. All of those ways (internal power-games are a non-institutional form of checks and balances) to limit power are opaque and those actors don't have any incentive to stop playing those games because there's no public accountability.

China's system appears to be working because China is growing economically and using belligerence abroad to cement its domestic legitimacy by playing into grand historical narratives. But structurally, China is very weak to widespread internal challenge. Because in an economic downturn or after a scandal that can't be solved by just repeating the same old arcane accountability mechanisms, China's people can't just boot the government out. They have to fundamentally reform the state itself and disestablish the Communist Party from the organs of state it has become synonymous with.

China's increasingly educated and rapidly expanding middle class is frustrated with nepotism and favouritism, making its support for the Party contingent on their continued affluence and to some extent scorning state propaganda. They're tired of well-connected polluters acting with impunity. They want access to global ideas as well as goods. And once you become rich, you can start caring about non-material, social values much more. That threatens the Party, and it's particularly threatening without institutional mechanisms to allow citizens to express political views or to arbitrate private disputes fairly. The Communist Party's greatest success - creating wealth - is probably going to be its biggest domestic challenge.

Even adopting a system more like Singapore's, with independent courts (businesses simply don't trust China to uphold law fairly), a legislature with some form of opposition, even if it doesn't have the chance to win power, which has the chance to question government policy would go a long way to establishing a more accountable and structurally sound state.

Democracies can appear weak and divided. But the fundamental structures of the state tend to stay safe. Britain's constitutional structure has been incrementally reformed to become more democratic but remains fundamentally intact from its 1660 model. Obviously China won't become a flourishing liberal democracy overnight - traditions of democracy usually grow organically. But it can incrementally restructure itself as Britain has done for centuries. It could proactively prevent itself from reaching crisis point by reforming known flaws - something European democracies abjectly failed to do and something China has every capacity to work towards.

 

Democracy is the mob. 10 straight people vote to lynch 9 gay people. 10 is greater than 9. The gay people get lynched.

Also, you have more choices of Slurpee than you do Presidential candidates, or State representatives or whatever else.

Also, you have no say in whether or not your country goes to war. Special interests can bribe people in the government to go to war for some end.

So yeah, Democracy is terribly flawed, shouldn't be considered by any rational human being, and should never be used ever again by any civilized society.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd

 

I honestly think we should let robots to govern us...but not the ones really intelligent, just the ones that are able to calculate all the probabilities, and uses all the data available to make economic decisions, for example. We, as humans, are corrupt and flawed by nature, so there's no model that can fit for such an unequal world

 

Yes it is.