This topic, raised at the beginning of the year, has been rattling around my mind and leading me to a conclusion that I never would have anticipated ? that the current scheme of government is pretty damned good. To remind everyone, the nub of the debate was about whether or not Democracy was the best governmental framework we could aspire to. The quote by Churchill which encapsulated this was "Democracy is the worst form of government, but it's the best we've got for time being".The debate coveredThe purpose of laws ? not entirely obvious without some thought. Laws need to protect the individual from harm by others. The definition of ?harm? is of course very important and has been argued about over the centuries. Most recently the ?cartoon wars? raised the issue of whether or not causing offence was harm, and the majority opinion (which did not include government) felt was that it was not. I believe that the hunting ban, which I wholeheartedly supported, also fell into the category of causing offence (to humans ? animals are not really directly protected by laws, though I know that will probably create another thread to this debate). I think earlier laws which were primarily aimed at reducing offence included the laws against homosexual practices and pornography laws, though the latter can be argued as one which causes indirect harm. Laws which protect the individual from physical or mental assault and those that protect property rights are not contentious, but we should question the need for other types of laws which could come back to haunt us when they impinge on personal liberty. I think our current inconsistent drug laws are a good example of legislating at the boundary of personal liberty ? the way alcohol is legislated is probably the best ? one should have the right to consume up to the point that one puts others at risk of harm. Tobacco is coming into line with this approach, and one day soon ?recreational? drugs will, I am sure follow suit.Who should govern us ? experts or representatives. We would really like to have the best people in charge, but then could we agree on who they might be? Elections are biased in favour of the power hungry over the competent. Some say that you should ban from government office anyone who aspires to it as they will be entirely unsuitable. Interestingly we do seem to have accommodated these concerns in our present two chamber system. The first chamber decides what laws to enact, and the second chamber crafts these aspirations into good and fair laws. We get the mix of experts who can express their views without fear of losing their jobs, but the statute book is controlled by elected representatives who will lose theirs if they stray too far from public opinion. Before I started studying philosophy I was firmly of the opinion that the House of Lords should be abolished, now I think they do a pretty important job, but I?d like to see their titles changed and enforced retirement at 70. But we should remember that the primary advantage of democracy is that you can chuck out your government if you don?t like what they do.The vagaries of voters and the flaws of elections. When the people of Middlesborough voted for a mayor on the basis that he wore a monkey suit (and had no experience of local government) one wondered if democracy really was safe. As western governments push democracy on African and Middle Eastern societies we can see that tribal allegiances undermine individual votes. But in secular western democracies the election process is respected and works reasonably well. First past the post does lead to the decision of the largest minority prevailing, and Al Gore losing the election to Bush even though he got more votes, should spur us to improve the democratic election mechanism. There is also the issue about where you draw the line in who can vote and who can?t. The idea of universal suffrage is now well established, but there are loads of 17 year olds who want the boundary shifted, and I think they?ve got a good case. We should recognise that the line is currently drawn arbitrarily by chronological age, maybe we should have a voting test like a driving test to bring in bright young kids and keep out people who don?t understand the purpose of government. Indeed most of our MP?s dislike the idea of referenda precisely because of the fear of an ignorant public enacting bad legislation. The way things work now some of the worst laws (e.g. capital punishment) can be kept off the books.Other forms of government. Yes they do ?work? and I guess the utilitarian view would say that if a system works over a long period of time, then it is probably appropriate. Businesses and armies have hierarchies, and in most cases monarchies are better than anarchies. But for a society which has a reasonable standard of wealth and education democracy is about as good as it gets.The philosopher in me tells me to go back to my first point about the purpose of laws to also assess the quality of any form of government. If a government lets individuals do what they want to do providing it doesn?t harm others, then I?d say it was successful. I?m sorry it?s taken me so long to contribute to the debate, I hope it adds something.Bernie DoeserSandiway, Cheshire, UK.