Any feasible alternatives to democracy?

Post Reply New Topic

Lately I've been thinking about the flaws in the democratic system. The main problem I see is the fact that politicians are very reluctant to affect any actual social change because there is always at least one demographic that any decision has the potential to offend, and this will stop them from being re-elected. This seems so shallow and pointless; there has to be more to running a nation than kissing up to people and trying to stay in office a bit longer, surely?

But there seems to be no alternative other than dictatorship, and I am totally against dictatorship. There really needs to be some sort of system that does what is good for the people (as opposed to what the media has tricked the people into thinking they want), but doesn't become despotism. Unfortunately, I can think of no fool-proof way of making this happen. Obviously, there is the question of who gets to decide what is good for the people. But with democracy, I am rapidly losing faith in the people to know what is good for them - a lot of people will just do whatever the media portrays as the right thing to do, without really thinking critically about things. (I'm certainly not saying I'm infallible; in recent years, I've noticed that there are some things that in the past I have held certain opinions on without thinking them through at all.)

Even if such a system started out well (like in Animal Farm), there is so much potential for corruption and totalitarianism, it seems that it would be considerably more flawed than the democratic system it would replace.

Is democracy the lesser of two evils, or can there actually be a 'middle way'?

There is democracy and enslavement. I think I'd rather try to fix what we have.

Extreme term limits would be a big step in the right direction, or possibly even running the government on something like a draft system where experts on a given topic would be temporarily remanded to a committee to make a decision then go back to their real lives, sort of like jury duty. Eliminating "politician" as a long term career possibility is what's needed, replace them with a bunch of short timers who don't really want the job and aren't interested in horse-trading long term since they want to get back to what they actually do. Go back to government service, as opposed to government careers, and I think you'd see a big improvement.

This was tried in ancient Athens around the time of Pericles. Citizens were drafted to the various juries and law making bodies for terms of a year. Invariably the citizens of Athens voted in favor of war and plundering their neighbors. That is how the Delian League was establish. Eventually the treasure of the League was expropriated by Athens and used for public works projects (like building the Parthenon).

There is nothing new under the Sun.

ruveyn

Kritarchy. We just need to decisively define what a person's rights are and then leave all else to the courts.

Market anarchism. Just have law and social order all be goods that individuals can purchase, assume polycentric law.

Futarchy. Democracy for goals, betting markets for how to achieve these goals.

Demarchy. Choose leaders at random.

As for feasible? Bah, how can we know if anything is truly feasible unless it has already been done in the modern period by a government held up to modern demands.

In the United States, the Founding Fathers created a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY. A republic has safeguards to protect the rights of the minority from the dictates of the "simple majority" (50.1% of the population). More so, the separation of powers was to prevent any one group from being able to do whatever they wanted without the cooperation of the other branches of government. There are other safeguards that limit what can be done by government (hence the value of the precious U.S. Constitution as the bedrock of all lawful authority in America) which CAN NOT be altered without an extreme effort by the supermajority of the country...preventing government being reinvented as the wind changes direction.

Democracies always dissolve into anarchism and then oligarchies because it's so easy to get a simple majority to go for any stupid idea.

The Founding Fathers were very wise (in spite of efforts by revisionist historians to say otherwise). They did a very good job at making a form of government that could withstand the test of time, and the reason why America is falling apart isn't their short-sightedness or the flaws of the system they created, it is 150+ years of slow corruption of what they created which has been tolerated decade after decade by the American people.

Thanks for replies so far.

I probably should have said that I'm not talking specifically about the USA.

its not another political system we need, they all come down to the same thing: greedy leaders vs helpless masses. always always and always.

what we need is another mindset.

with a fresh new mindset, a benevolent dictatorship would work wonder. with a all-loving super-nice ultra-brainy leader, why not? there are many loving, nice and brainy people.
its however not in our nature to be consistently fair.

there will most likely never ever be a political system good for us.
one of the main reasons is humans, the animal, are made for groups of 20-100 people. today we live in groups of millions. its just not what we're made for.

In terms of an alternative to actual democracy, I'd say a technocratic polyarchy with state capitalistic streaks would be the best alternative.

In terms of the best alternative to America's government (plutocratic polyarchy), actual democracy.

Indeed, pure genius:

"Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered." - James Madison

Madison's oppressible oppulent minority - oddly enough - tend to be the ones promoting this infotainment media nonsense you hate. They tend to be the ones leading this country into what you see as political ruine. See any incongruency in your beliefs?

By the way, I'd say the flourishing of the US in the early years was more pinnable on...

1) Lots of habitable land and relatively sparse populations.
2) A simpler economy of Agranian Yeoman unhindered by the complications of state capitalist industrialization.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 25 Oct 2009, 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Early Rome as well I believe. But yeah, under this system both Athens and Rome were very imperialistic. Always wondered if that was merely a coincidence, that there might be other attempts at this that were not particularly imperialist. I know of none though.

democracy is not opposed to dictatorship - the entire field of state power is that of dictatorship (hence why Marxists speak of the dictatorship of the proletariat - they [edit: I mean we] mean a state which embodies the interests of workers against capital and whatever aristocracy may be left over). Whether power falls to one person making decisions or many is dependent on the specific historical conditions, correlation of forces between competing classes and the efficacy with which a singular or plural group pursues the aims of the class which holds power. For example both the English Civil War and the American Revolution/War of Independence were bourgeois revolutions against the English/British monarchy. In the English CW Cromwell became Lord Protector after two different parliaments were called and dissolved (the 'rump' parliament, the 'barebones' parliament) in order to drive through bourgeois reforms, such as that against the catholic church (on the use of tithes to maintain a professional clergy, a kind of poll tax in a sense and a serious economic issue which the barbones parliament failed to resolve I believe). The failure to achieve these reforms as a plurality was down to problem of their not being a sufficiently developed political arm for the rising bourgeoisie, the members of the barebones parliament were chosen for their piety and being protestant commoners (of a certain wealth). Being unable to overcome their religious etc differences this parliament was also dissolved and led to the protectorate, where Cromwell used this power to drive through the changes to a feudal country required to lay the groundwork for what would go on to be the most powerful capitalist nation within a century and a half. In the American Civil War they was a sufficient number of politically conscious individuals at hand to form a plural state rather than a single dictator. What makes both of these a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is that both state forms embodied the interests of the bourgeoisie, with a dictator in England and a 'democracy' founded with a property qualification in the US (though of course parliament returned to the ascendancy, with a property qualification, and despite the return of a monarch the Rubicon had been crossed for England).

Strictly speaking bourgeois democracy has generally been excellent. So long as you judge it according to how well it represents the interests of the bourgeoisie. Of course the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is not the only one going.

The UK system has many problems. There are little real checks on the House of Commons, and the court system is not set up to decide the merits of what the H of C does, so it runs riot. The founders of the USA were very familiar with the shortcomings of the English system and decided to design a system that addressed the problems. It worked well for a while, but during the Gilded Age the government became subordinate to the capitalist barons (robber barons) and atrophied in a sense, so that when FDR came along and decided to design a system with a strong executive nobody could stop him. The Supreme Court tried to hold him at bay, but eventually was forced to knuckle under.

Theoretically, the laws which FDR rammed through, if fully realized, would make America a dictatorship where Congress is a vestigial body and the courts are a rubber stamp, and the all powerful executive had free reign. FDR was an ok guy, but if somebody really crazy or evil got into office there could be a real problem. These laws are still on the books. Obama could become a dictator tomorrow if he so wished; I think that the only thing stopping him is that the military hates him.

Basically the continued survival of the American state since FDR has depended on the good will of the executive not to supersede it, a precarious situation. In reality the system is run privately by a handful of prominent families. Jefferson anticipated that the bankers might grow so powerful as to become a law unto themselves, and it has been realized. Any politician who dares to question the bankers is quickly murdered. The system was set up to avoid this, but end runs around it were devised.

I think that the answer is feudal rule by an enlightened elite. Humans seem to be genetically set up for feudalism. A system which identified the smartest and most capable individuals as children and set them up as unquestioned rulers would probably work. Rome had such a system for two centuries, where the emperor got to pick the most capable young man in the empire as his successor, and during that time Rome enjoyed the peak of its power and prosperity. If the genius elite got to pick their own successors, and were forbidden from picking a son or daughter solely on the basis of heredity, and were mandated to pick the most capable people, such a system of feudal rule would likely be the best solution. Obviously the people can not be trusted to pick their own rulers.

The Roman Empire is also a good example of constant civil wars for deciding of the succession. A ruling elite is not a good idea as it will always aiming for his self preservation and self interests to the depend of the needs of the people. So far is democracy that give the best results.

That, and you need to understand that the way the "opulent minority" rose to power is largely because of gradual corruption of the political system. The Romans had bread and circuses to keep the masses entertained, and the American people have gone the same way. As those with wealth used their influence to change things ever more in their favor, the majority failed to be vigilant in keeping government accountable. As independent media outlets were bought up by larger corporations or just went under, the lack of diversity in news coverage was the harbinger of the end. When 4 companies or less own over 90% of all print, radio and TV media, you don't get a very diverse pool of reporting on news events. Without the "Fourth Estate," government gets away with a heck of a lot because nobody is shining light on what's going on.

As it's been said, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Left alone, nations crumble from within.

It'd be a heck of a lot easier if this was a dictatorship. Just as long as I'm the dictator.