With All This Politics, Whats The Perfect Political System

[ernest1966]

Ok, what do you think works best ? Monarchy, Democracy, Socialism, Communism, a Religious state ?

My take is simple. It doesn't happen a lot, it is rare, but when it happens it really works.

Its Enlightened absolutism, or in the modern day a Benevolent dictatorship, here is a link

What are you thoughts?

[dogleg]

Benevolent dictatorship works in my home, as long as I remember to submit!

[ernest1966]

don't they put the fluride in the water where you live to do that ?

[PhilHarries]

Benevolent dictatorship works in my home, as long as I remember to submit!

I've often wondered whether that form of government is not better than the rest, especially for Asians. Let's face it, whoever the government is matters not a bit to the vast proportion of society, unless you include places like Zimbwabwe, so why waste all those resources on meaningless elections? As long as the head of state is benign and at least keeps his people fed and safe that's all most want out of life.

The problem with demoocracy is that whoever you vote for the government always wins.

Anyway the ideal form of government is the one where I'm the BOSS!

[noahvail]

A benevolent dictatorship wins hands down, until the dictator dies or is rendered incapable of leadership (yes, I know, when he dies he's generally considered to be incapable of leadership, but y'never know ).

[PhilHarries]

A benevolent dictatorship wins hands down, until the dictator dies or is rendered incapable of leadership (yes, I know, when he dies he's generally considered to be incapable of leadership, but y'never know ).

Well it was widely rumoured that the Soviet leaders were putting in public appearances for some time after the body organs ceased to function. But they were anything but benevolent.

[johna]

Churchill's famous dictum: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

[Ricardo]

What's the best form of government ? Whatever gives the most freedom & opportunity for the little guy.

[pete_r]

I see two problems inherent to a benevolent dictatorship:

1) The dictator himself may be enlightened, but he will need a group of people to support him, some of whom even with the best intentions at the beginning, will eventually take advantage of their position to abuse power.

2) As the level of education of the population improves (which should be the aim of any good enlightened dictator, shouldn't it), more and more people will want a greater say in the running of the country, leading to calls to end the dictatorship and establish full democracy.

So at best, benevolent dictatorship can be a temporary system to prepare a transition to full democracy, if the ruling group can keep corruption under control and if they are prepared to let go of their power when the time is ripe. That's two big "ifs", and it may be simpler to try democracy directly.

Edit to add: Case in point, Thailand. But let's say no more...

Edited April 18, 2009 by pete_r

[parryhandy]

IMO a transparent and corruption free legal system and police force should be the starting point for any form of government.Without these as a backbone the system of government for the majority of people is irrelevent.

[johncitizen]

It has to be Steady State Green-Socialism, in which the democratic state is based upon three pillars of human rights, a strong constitution and a commonly agreed upon vision which all politicians and public servants must aim to pursue when making their decisions.

By steady state I mean we disregard the fallacy of the need for economic growth and instead increase our quality of life through technological gains and the reduction of waste. Societies would be based upon the accumulation of knowledge and culture not wealth, and we would be as custodians of the planet, not parasites feeding off it.

Edited April 18, 2009 by johncitizen

[noahvail]

It has to be Steady State Green-Socialism, in which the democratic state is based upon three pillars of human rights, a strong constitution and a commonly agreed upon vision which all politicians and public servants must aim to pursue when making their decisions.

By steady state I mean we disregard the fallacy of the need for economic growth and instead increase our quality of life through technological gains and the reduction of waste. Societies would be based upon the accumulation of knowledge and culture not wealth, and we would be as custodians of the planet, not parasites feeding off it.

It all sounds good, eh. Uhmm...*which* three pillars of human rights? My memory isn't what it used to be, so I asked Mr Google, and got several definitions just on the first page.

Agrarian societies would still be at the mercy of the elements, though. And a country that found its people starving might want to simply take the produce from a neighbouring country - we've seen that time and time again throughout history. And I doubt that a 'sustaining' agrarian state would want to negotiate away food that its own people need; and then the fighting started, as the old saying goes.

But yours is a wonderful, if Utopian, description of a good political system.

[johncitizen]

Sorry, that was meant to be:

"three pillars of: human rights, a strong constitution and a commonly agreed upon vision which all politicians and public servants must aim to pursue when making their decisions."

And I didn't say anything about an agrarian state. In fact, there is no reason that such a system wouldn't be more hi-tech and mechanised than it is today. In such a state, manual labour could be replaced by machines without need for fear of having a lesser quality of life- in fact, I would envisage that such work would entirely be done by machines when and where possible, giving people more time to educate themselves, spend quality time with family and friends and lead happy, fulfilling lives.

It is my belief that food shortages are a result of waste, inefficiency, man-made environmental disasters and inequality, not naturally occurring droughts and floods. Thus it is well within our reach to be rid of poverty and hunger altogether, if we have the will to do so.

Utopian it might sound, but I believe that if a nation puts where they want to be in fifty years in writing and cement it into their constitution and are therefore lawfully bound to base all of their decisions upon such a decision, such a future WILL be realised.

jc

[henryalleman]

Churchill's famous dictum: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

Correct, and all the rest is pure Bull..... Just look the standard of living in democracies compared with all the other system who have been tried in the past. Democracy is also the only system who can correct itself and put things straight without civil war or bloodshed.

Just have to look to the current financial meltdown, its a failure due the excesses of capitalism, but again the democratic system reacts and will implement new rules to prevent those excesses in the future.

And the best way to obtain and prevail democracy are coalition governments, who balances the power of political parties, persons or an presidential regime with all his interference in law making. In such forms of government a war against Iraq, Vietnam, secret jails and Patriot acts and so on are just impossible.

In short coalition governments are the best protection against violations and abuses of human rights.

Edited April 19, 2009 by henryalleman

[Priceless]

IMO a transparent and corruption free legal system and police force should be the starting point for any form of government.Without these as a backbone the system of government for the majority of people is irrelevant.

I fully agree, but would like to add the famous quote "Justice delayed is justice denied" (attributed to Gladstone).

Poor Thailand, you've a very long way to go.

/ Priceless

[kiakaha]

Ok, what do you think works best ? Monarchy, Democracy, Socialism, Communism, a Religious state ?

My take is simple. It doesn't happen a lot, it is rare, but when it happens it really works.

Its Enlightened absolutism, or in the modern day a Benevolent dictatorship, here is a link

What are you thoughts?

1984.

[dbrenn]

Churchill's famous dictum: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

Right - wherever humans are involved there can never be a perfect system, but democracy is the best of a bad lot. Benevolent dictators can so easily turn into tyrants, once they realise that they are no longer held to account for their actions. The other problem is that they always hang on too long, often into their geriatric years when they have no energy left to run a country.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Thanh-BKK]

Hi.

There's two possibilities in my opinion:

1) Absolute monarchy. One speaks, all (!) others do as told. Things are clear, rules are easy.

2) Communism. ALL are equal by 100%, no leader, no boss, no "more than you". Sadly this will never work with human beings who constantly want "more than you".

Best regards....

Thanh

[Pierrot]

Waste of space - post cancelled

Edited April 21, 2009 by Pierrot