Do all people support the system of democracy? Well basically Democracy means a system or government run by by the people for the people from the people.That means democracy supports the fact that people are always right.Now the question arises, Is it always true that people are always right? for example if a person X is not a thief and majority of people thinks that he is a thief.Then does that majority of people makes the truth false,i.e. we will have to think that person is a thief even if he is not a thief.Just because majority says, we will have to support the falsehood.And if Majority of people will be less intelligent then we will always have to supperess our feelings.And a decision of human being can never be perfect then how can we follow the wrong in order to get the Right? Please reply if some body have the answer.

I don't believe there is a "perfect" system. I think some systems tend to work better than others, but in the end they all have their own issues. I'm not entirely sure if are even any true democracies in existence, or if there ever has been. For example, the USA, which is widely considered a "democracy" is in fact a Democratic Republic. In my opinion, a Republic is probably more effective than a Democracy, because the leaders of a Republic are not constrained by majority rule. They do have to listen to their constituents, and follow the will of the people to a degree, but they have the ability and (hopefully) the forethought to not be swayed by public opinion alone. Mob rule could easily be just as scary as autocratic rule.

A great philosopher once said (don't ask which I don't remember), "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others." The problem and grace of a true democracy is that it requires the constant involvement of it's citizens. That is great as long as enough people remain personally involved voluntarily, but when people become complacent... In the declining, decadant days of the greecian city states too many citizens were choosing to just get on with their personal lives and interests and some cities had to hire or assign groups of slaves to round up enough citizens to have the numbers neccesary for their forums to do the job of governing.

A true democracy has every citizen having the right, if not the responsibility, to vote on every issue, bill, and regulation to come up before the government. A republic appoints people to make those descisions for the nation. As a republic built on democratic principles we elect by democratic process the people who will make those descisions and have a regularly scheduled review process when we decide if we want them to continue doing the job or want someone else to try their hand at it for a while.

A "perfect" system would be a tyrany where every descision is made by a wise leader who has an in depth understanding of 'the big picture' and a similar understanding of human nature. It would take a perfect, uncorruptable person who also would need to be immortal, because his successor may not be perfect and uncorruptable. The worst form of government is a tyrany under a corrupt leader. Can anybody say 'Fidel Castro'? The list of tyrants who have caused terrible suffering among their own people is long, the democracies that have caused similar tragedies... is there one?

A true democracy would be possible in the near future with the advancing connectivity of technology, but would any citizenry want to be required to spend between one and four hours every day dealing with the day to day requirements, keeping up with the issues and voting on them, of governing?

I believe that a true democracy is very possible. Like Vixen Poetic said, technology will have the power to further this possibility. Today, what I see are people who are very burned out and complacent when it comes to the government. Everyday our elected leaders make decisions based on greed and back room agreements made with big company heads and lobbyists. What we need is to become more involved in our government as a people. It has become routine for us citizens to sit back and take everything our government gives us- good and bad. I firmly believe that a complete change in the social way of thinking towards our government and politicians is severely needed.
By it's very nature, democracy involves a slow process to pass laws and make changes. However, we should never underestimate the power of people to make immediate changes if we come together. The fact is that if we all want something bad enough, they cannot ignore us. Remember, their jobs are in our hands.

This post has been edited by haberjj01: Apr 4 2008, 08:51 PM

That's Socrates and Plato for ya.

Platonic/Socratic thinking on societies works upon the theory of the declination of society, beginning with a proper kingship and declining towards an oliogarchy, timocracy, democracy, and finally despotism. Since I'm currently taking a philosophy college course, I'm actually starting to agree more towards the writings of Plato and less supportive of democracy, but having been brought up with the ideas and concepts of equality, human rights, freedoms, and the strive for individual happiness for everyone, it's nearly impossible as I always take into account how everyone else would feel.

That's not how Plato and Socrates thought.

Democracy is one of the worst types of government that a society can have, simply because EVERYONE has a voice. If something is voted on and there isn't unanimous agreement, usually the idea is thrown out, even though it would be more beneficial than harmful. Just look at today's current state of the nation. We have sympathy and some of us object towards human cloning, yet it would be very beneficial for us to be able to test and experiment with clones to bring forth new discoveries and knowledge of humans to be able to cure and aid what hampers us as a species (disease, unwanted hereditary conditions, etc.). We don't like testing on animals or people because it's inhumane, but how would we know what is and is not good for us? We are for freedoms of religion, speech, and what-have-you, but doesn't it slow down or even stop the progression towards the common goal of advancement as mankind?

The best kind of government, according to Socratic/Platonic thought, would be a kingship, but this too has limits. For one, the leading authority HAS to have knowledge, know how to advance society as a whole, and not have any self-interest. (Ideally, the leading authority should be a philosopher, or a Philosopher King.) The efforts of the leading authority MUST be for the people, first and foremost. The people, in return, MUST tend to what they are skilled at to provide and contribute to the society, and mustn't meddle in the affairs of others (i.e. a priest shouldn't try forging iron because he or she wants to, a blacksmith shouldn't try fishing, a teacher shouldn't try farming, etc.). (This is known as the ontological division of labor.) Of course, in a perfect world, there wouldn't be any conflict, but since there is always the threat of war, Guardians (soldiers) must be established to protect the people. They should be cared for, fed, and given the basic needs, but they are not allowed to possess land or property. In this type of society, not everyone is going to be happy, but it is focused on the goal of happiness for the society AS A WHOLE.

Now, as for the original topic at hand: I agree and disagree with democracy, as you can probably see why with what I said above. There really should be a ruling authority that strives towards the advancement of the society as a whole, but we all know that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I really do wonder how a kingship would work for the United States. (I don't think it's possible unless there is a cleansing, as Plato would put it, of all people already influenced by the idea of equality and fairness so that it would be possible to start off of a clean slate and have no objection to the new idea of an incoming kingship.)

Well... there truly is no perfect system. I don't have any real problems with democracy, but personally I favor socialist ideals above all else, regardless of governmental form. I'd be fine with a democratic government that puts its peoples welfare above all else, and I would be fine with a communist/dictatorship that places its peoples welfare above all else.

As I live in Canada, our country has a democratic system. I have found that this system does not work all to well, especially since people are becoming increasingly careless. What I mean by that is voter turn-out has steadily declined. More to my point though. I feel that the style of democracy in Canada is one of the least effective. Why? It is because decisions are made based on the opinion of the largest group. So:

40% of population wanted one thing
30% another
20% another
10% another

40% gets what they want. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is not the majority of the population, is it? Canada (and all other nations') democracies should function like this:

60% of population wanted one thing
30% another
10% another

Decisions should only be made in democracies if the majority of the entire population wants a change made.

Funny thing is that when I read this topic, I knew exactly the right quote for it. And you stole it lol. “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

That's by Winston Churchill. I agree with him 100%.

The democratic system in my view is the system of haggling, a system where politicians falsely sell there soul to the voting public. In such a system it is not the most adequate politician that becomes elected but rather the best haggler. Sadly enough such a system allow for incompetent politician reach the power positions.