[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Home]
RE: Questioning Democracy
To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
Nick
I beg to differ about the fact that we live in 'an unusually polarised age'.
Can you give an example of a period in history without dispute and conflict?
The only ones that come to mind are those where population contact and
density were very low or else our knowledge of their times incomplete.
I am delighted that in 30 years we have reduced the level of nuclear threat
and may have reduced the Irish terrorism problem in the UK. Does anyone
remember the gallows humour of evening discussions about the location of
Russian weapon targets in the UK? ... and I cannot speak for those who lived
through the Cuban missile crisis.
Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com
[mailto:owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com]On Behalf Of Nick Dippie
Sent: 04 January 2006 15:37
To: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
Subject: Re: Questioning Democracy
To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
BUPS-DIS@bups.org
good issue edward, like you i'm interested but somewhat lacking in
knowledge, so hopefully this discussion will improve that a litte.
it seems to me that the main problem with democracy is that the people who
get into power are the people who are good at getting there, and tend to be
bit power-hungry rather than idealistic. the idealists tend to end up in
their various fields - if you really want to make a difference to health
care, you become a doctor of some sort, for example.its the flaw at the
heart of democracy that to persuade the people you are the right person to
govern you have to tell them what they want to hear, not what you may think
is right.very few (if any) truly idealistic politicians succeed at all.so we
end up with what are essentially the best spin doctors (or those who employ
the best) getting into a position of governance that they are not
necessarily suited to.i think it was plato who was fiercely critical of
priority given to those with good rhetorical skills.
its also true that a million people are not necessarily more right than one.
matthew, your meritocratic idea is pretty interesting, and could potentially
work very well. there are 2 problems i see: firstly there's no real
democratic element to it(not necessarily a problem of course), unless you
have people getting promoted purely by some vote of their peers.it is also
open to abuse.thats why it could work very well, with the best getting to
the legislative roles, or it could become corrupted, with rife cronyism and
senior jobs getting bought.it'd be all too easy to keep dissident voices
out.as you said yourself, one of the strengths of democracy is its usual
check on tyranny (don't forget that Hitler was democratically elected).
its an interesting topic though, and i think we are in an unusually
polarised age, with the cold war just behind us democracy is viewed by many
with an almost religious fervor.this is especially true of americans in
general, and also over here - no-one seems to doubt that bringing
democracy, say to the middle east, will be an instant 'cure-all' for their
problems.
nick
Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list
at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml
Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml