One of the lessons to be learnt from the urban riots in Britain is that our 'democracy' is failing to produce a workable society. I still think British democracy is one of the best democratic systems going, but if it is not working, we should be thinking what comes next. If the Cons/Lib Dems are too tough on the rioters, they will probably lose the next election.

A look at other democracies... the USA, where candidates are selected largely on their ability to raise money... and so we get consistently mediocre Presidents. Anyway, a system which puts Spiro T. Agnew and Dan Quayle a heartbeat from the Presidency cannot be a good one.

Singapore... one of the best working systems going... but of course it's a benevolent dictatorship masquerading as a democracy.

Small countries like Finland and Switzerland seem to do best, perhaps because they're small. The big European democracies, France, Germany, and Italy, all suffer from multi-party systems; if the Government is a coalition, too little gets done because too many disparate groups have to agree first.

These are just a few random thoughts to get a discussion started; how can we develop workable democracy, or what alternative is there?

Great subject.

I agree that democracy, as it is practiced wherever it is practiced, is doomed to never suceed in any thing close to utopia.

By definition, it will only ever achieve average results, because the majority are average.

Democracy is great on paper....so are communism and Christianity.

Benevolent dictatorships are fine.

I propose a systen that has some characteristics of both democracy and benevolent dictatorship.

There should be an underlying mandate that whatever decisions are made, are made for the benefit of the majority. The ultimate mandate is for the survival of the race.

But to get to make those decisions, one must qualify, not by popularity, but by proscribed phsychometric, personality, and intelligence tests.

Anyone who can pass these tests can be a member of the ruling council.....so the membership is not a set number.

The ruling council is a democracy in the strictest definition with strict rules of conduct. Those parliamentary rules are enforced by "the people". In other words, "The people" get to force the rulers to think about the greater good, and the rulers are smart benevolent people that form a democratic commitee.

I saw a little part of a TV program the other night.

Hope I get to see it again or at least find out its name to look for a re-run

Anyway the show was about China & the USA

The little section I saw had an English perhaps American gentleman

describing how basically in China they are planning long term.

Yet the Democracy of America always seems to operate in two year terms.

I am sure he said much more on this show & I would like to see it all but that little tiny part I saw was one of those things that left me wondering

I don't see the UK system as having failed. I just feel its not attracting the brightest minds any more.

Therefore I would treble MP's salaries in orderthat people with real talent might consider politics as a career and also not be wasting their time with lobbying groups and expenses claim forms.

I think Harcourt should have a chat with Plato; hope you meet him in the afterlife!

China... yes, they get things done, but at what a cost? Environmentally it's a disaster; whether life has really improved for the people is hard to tell. I see it as a kind of Chinese dictatorship of the proletariat, but I don't see where it goes next... or does it get stuck there?

My initial thought when I started this thread was that the party system in UK needed a rethink. There are so many major problems, immigration, overspending and the debt burden, education, the need for a radical overhaul of the welfare system, community rebuilding, and so on; these combined I do not see that the party system can deal with. Perhaps what is needed is a three-party think-tank (disregard the minnows for the moment) to work out long-term policies for, say, a ten-year period; these policies would be discussed in the party conferences, and ideally the three parties would agree to a coherent long-term policy. But I don't think most of our politicians would be farsighted enough to stop wrangling.

Maybe we should ask Singapore to lend us the Minister Mentor... though he's a bit long in the tooth nowadays! One of his innovations, BTW, was to pay ministers good salaries. At one time the Singapore PM was the best paid in the world.

I don't see the UK system as having failed. I just feel its not attracting the brightest minds any more.

Therefore I would treble MP's salaries in orderthat people with real talent might consider politics as a career and also not be wasting their time with lobbying groups and expenses claim forms.

Why run for public office when the opposing side will publicly attack you and your family relentlessly for the rest of your life?

I see a form of socialism/communism as the way forward.

Almost perfect ideologies, unfortunately the negatives far outweigh the positives. Once some smart Alec manages to iron out the problems they could develop to be the best system around.

Think Star Trek

I don't see the UK system as having failed. I just feel its not attracting the brightest minds any more.

Therefore I would treble MP's salaries in orderthat people with real talent might consider politics as a career and also not be wasting their time with lobbying groups and expenses claim forms.

Why run for public office when the opposing side will publicly attack you and your family relentlessly for the rest of your life?

I assume you're referring to the US. In Britain the only time you'll get a mention is if you are ill, when half the country will be rubbing their hands in anticipation.

Or if you are found asphyxiated with a Tesco bag tied around your head and your pants down. Then everyone will have a good laugh at your expense naturally.

One of his innovations, BTW, was to pay ministers good salaries. At one time the Singapore PM was the best paid in the world.

That probably is the greater issue I believe some are missing. Salaried politicians, elected positions, etc.

Why not act upon their civic duty without the pay and control incentive.

Idealistically [even a romantic notion], political officers should be an unpaid duty to the society - elected as they would be in normal circumstances, but instead extending a posture of cultural responsibility. The dangers [too late now] come when politicians become professionals as part of a segregated club or clique, instead of mixing with the chosen society.

I think we've already moved on to what's next. That being a plutocracy. Democratcally elected governments simply ignore their electoral mandates now, as well as the rule of law, citizens rights and their respective constitutions.

I think this plutocracy will be particularly difficult to dislodge and wouldn't expect it to happen till Asia's rise peaks out and starts into decline. Then I expect the odd revolution and widespread adoption of less top heavy democratic socialistic societies.

I think we've already moved on to what's next. That being a plutocracy. Democratcally elected governments simply ignore their electoral mandates now, as well as the rule of law, citizens rights and their respective constitutions.

I think this plutocracy will be particularly difficult to dislodge and wouldn't expect it to happen till Asia's rise peaks out and starts into decline. Then I expect the odd revolution and widespread adoption of less top heavy democratic socialistic societies.

Which country are you referring to? If the US... well, money controls the election. If UK, no. If Thailand... hasn't got near democracy yet; I don't know what it is.

English politicians weren't paid at all until a century or so ago (we're an old country, and can think in historical perspectives!)... but we had an extensive patronage system. But only relatively rich people can go into politics as a civic duty.

I don't think a democracy can ever work in a large country. India is a muddle, so is Indonesia... and it doesn't work in USA.

I think we've already moved on to what's next. That being a plutocracy. Democratcally elected governments simply ignore their electoral mandates now, as well as the rule of law, citizens rights and their respective constitutions.

I think this plutocracy will be particularly difficult to dislodge and wouldn't expect it to happen till Asia's rise peaks out and starts into decline. Then I expect the odd revolution and widespread adoption of less top heavy democratic socialistic societies.

The short-form of Plutocracy is already well in place in many parts of the world.....some refer it as Corporatocracy. Which seems to be the growing passion of the ones who make the rules. A fusion of government and coroprations working as one.

I think we've already moved on to what's next. That being a plutocracy. Democratcally elected governments simply ignore their electoral mandates now, as well as the rule of law, citizens rights and their respective constitutions.

I think this plutocracy will be particularly difficult to dislodge and wouldn't expect it to happen till Asia's rise peaks out and starts into decline. Then I expect the odd revolution and widespread adoption of less top heavy democratic socialistic societies.

Which country are you referring to? If the US... well, money controls the election. If UK, no. If Thailand... hasn't got near democracy yet; I don't know what it is.

English politicians weren't paid at all until a century or so ago (we're an old country, and can think in historical perspectives!)... but we had an extensive patronage system. But only relatively rich people can go into politics as a civic duty.

I don't think a democracy can ever work in a large country. India is a muddle, so is Indonesia... and it doesn't work in USA.

I'm talking about larger established western democracies, including the US. The US is the most dynamic of these democracies and conceivably could make appropriate course changes, though I'm not particularly optimistic. Those changes would need to include the removal of money from the electoral process, term limits, and extreme reform of the political lobby.

I disagree that a democracy can't work in a large country but it requires the correct institutional foundations and proper checks and balances on power and multiple levels of consumer citizen oversight. I only state that as a possibility, I don't believe it is probable given corporate cancer that has spread over all of society, most particularly the govt/corporate revolving door been regulators and lobbyists.

I think we've already moved on to what's next. That being a plutocracy. Democratcally elected governments simply ignore their electoral mandates now, as well as the rule of law, citizens rights and their respective constitutions.

I think this plutocracy will be particularly difficult to dislodge and wouldn't expect it to happen till Asia's rise peaks out and starts into decline. Then I expect the odd revolution and widespread adoption of less top heavy democratic socialistic societies.

The short-form of Plutocracy is already well in place in many parts of the world.....some refer it as Corporatocracy. Which seems to be the growing passion of the ones who make the rules. A fusion of government and coroprations working as one.

Right.

I think we've already moved on to what's next. That being a plutocracy. Democratcally elected governments simply ignore their electoral mandates now, as well as the rule of law, citizens rights and their respective constitutions.

I think this plutocracy will be particularly difficult to dislodge and wouldn't expect it to happen till Asia's rise peaks out and starts into decline. Then I expect the odd revolution and widespread adoption of less top heavy democratic socialistic societies.

The short-form of Plutocracy is already well in place in many parts of the world.....some refer it as Corporatocracy. Which seems to be the growing passion of the ones who make the rules. A fusion of government and coroprations working as one.

Right.

Which is undesirable, I think most people agree?

I disagree that a democracy can't work in a large country but it requires the correct institutional foundations and proper checks and balances on power and multiple levels of consumer citizen oversight. I only state that as a possibility, I don't believe it is probable given corporate cancer that has spread over all of society, most particularly the govt/corporate revolving door been regulators and lobbyists.

For the US perhaps following what was a beautiful Constitution would be a good first re-step

For the US perhaps following what was a beautiful Constitution would be a good first re-step

BINGO!

I disagree that a democracy can't work in a large country but it requires the correct institutional foundations and proper checks and balances on power and multiple levels of consumer citizen oversight. I only state that as a possibility, I don't believe it is probable given corporate cancer that has spread over all of society, most particularly the govt/corporate revolving door been regulators and lobbyists.

Theoretically, yes. In practice, I doubt it (you yourself say that it's not probable). The bigger the country, the farther away the average citizen is from those who govern him, and the less influence he has on what happens.

The US, as you say, Flying, has a great constitution... but it doesn't work, nor do I think it can ever work, people being what they are.

I disagree that a democracy can't work in a large country but it requires the correct institutional foundations and proper checks and balances on power and multiple levels of consumer citizen oversight. I only state that as a possibility, I don't believe it is probable given corporate cancer that has spread over all of society, most particularly the govt/corporate revolving door been regulators and lobbyists.

Theoretically, yes. In practice, I doubt it (you yourself say that it's not probable). The bigger the country, the farther away the average citizen is from those who govern him, and the less influence he has on what happens.

The US, as you say, Flying, has a great constitution... but it doesn't work, nor do I think it can ever work, people being what they are.

It's people being what they are, and the fact that everyone is different, that makes democracy, in it's commonly practiced form, far from perfect.

Human nature being what it is, and human's being far from perfect, means that they generally need to be governed rather than led.

Endure posted a thing in the riots thread about Sir John Peel's mandate for the police. It's a good guideline that could be adapted slightly to govern the governors....that and what I have suggested already.

I disagree that a democracy can't work in a large country but it requires the correct institutional foundations and proper checks and balances on power and multiple levels of consumer citizen oversight. I only state that as a possibility, I don't believe it is probable given corporate cancer that has spread over all of society, most particularly the govt/corporate revolving door been regulators and lobbyists.

Theoretically, yes. In practice, I doubt it (you yourself say that it's not probable). The bigger the country, the farther away the average citizen is from those who govern him, and the less influence he has on what happens.

The US, as you say, Flying, has a great constitution... but it doesn't work, nor do I think it can ever work, people being what they are.

If the citizenry is farther away from those who govern it is by their own choice. The framework exists for accountability and changes of course but it is the citizenry that has given up from keeping their end of the bargain. I include myself in that group BTW. Those who would lead have always been capable of deceit and tyranny. What's changed is that the citizenry finds that an acceptable tradeoff now if the personally achieve some level of comfort. That works for a while, but it eventually leads to some kind of endgame which many find they do not like at all. Democracies require vigilance and a general awareness that those who would rule cannot be trusted.

The US, as you say, Flying, has a great constitution... but it doesn't work, nor do I think it can ever work, people being what they are.

If the citizenry is farther away from those who govern it is by their own choice. The framework exists for accountability and changes of course but it is the citizenry that has given up from keeping their end of the bargain. I include myself in that group BTW. Those who would lead have always been capable of deceit and tyranny. What's changed is that the citizenry finds that an acceptable tradeoff now if the personally achieve some level of comfort. That works for a while, but it eventually leads to some kind of endgame which many find they do not like at all. Democracies require vigilance and a general awareness that those who would rule cannot be trusted.

I think the US Constitution does in fact work & is what made the USA great.

But as Lannarebirth so eloquently pointed out it is the citizens who need to see that it is in fact honored & not torn down by those allowed to do so.

Funny as it will hopefully some day soon be the citizens who take it all back peacefully or otherwise.Sadly they may have already waited too long.

Funny too that they will surely be labeled terrorist. Looking back I believe the framers were also probably called terrorist

(or what ever term was appropriate) by some.

Funny too that they will surely be labeled terrorist. Looking back I believe the framers were also probably called terrorist

(or what ever term was appropriate) by some.

Perhaps 'nihilist' is the word you are seeking?

Perhaps 'nihilist' is the word you are seeking?

:lol:

That too

Funny as it will hopefully some day soon be the citizens who take it all back peacefully or otherwise.Sadly they may have already waited too long.

I agree.

And 'anarchists'?

The USA constitution may have worked, but does it now? Though I was thinking mainly of Britain, the fact that I think it no longer works is part of the reason why I started this thread.

It works for me.

All this false, rhetorical, and surfaced discussions of democratic principles and theoretical models leaves me rather exausted. It's never what it seems to be.

Quite simple. Are you free? Are you independent and self-sufficient?

Can you be? Or.....are you allowed to be?

I find this dreamy attachment to political philosophies and identities to be nothing short of a scam. Easily fooled, are we - and to broader suggestion. The systems are designed not for us, but for the selected few. It's always been like that....we purchase the benign and benevolent promotions because, in our hearts, we fear the worst. We don't care to face what really is.

No one seems to be curious, less questioning.

I am not self sufficient, but I am about as free as I wish to be. I had an old neighbor lady who was almost completely self-sufficient and as independent as anyone I'd ever seen. She grew all her own food. What little money she had came from selling cream from her two milk cows. She cut a whole winter supply of hay with a hand sythe. She had a well which was dug by hand and used a hand pump. She never collected a penny from the gov't--not even social security which she was eligible for.

I admired her, but I didn't envy her. It was a difficult life, but it was completely of her choosing. She didn't like politics or politicians. She didn't care much for gov't, but she couldn't be bothered get her knickers in a knot over anything the gov't did.

She died at 79 years of age of breast cancer. She never sought treatment, but that was by her own choice.

All this false, rhetorical, and surfaced discussions of democratic principles and theoretical models leaves me rather exausted. It's never what it seems to be.

Quite simple. Are you free? Are you independent and self-sufficient?

Can you be? Or.....are you allowed to be?

I find this dreamy attachment to political philosophies and identities to be nothing short of a scam. Easily fooled, are we - and to broader suggestion. The systems are designed not for us, but for the selected few. It's always been like that....we purchase the benign and benevolent promotions because, in our hearts, we fear the worst. We don't care to face what really is.

No one seems to be curious, less questioning.

Should you be allowed? The freedoms you talk about are anarchy's cousins.

All this false, rhetorical, and surfaced discussions of democratic principles and theoretical models leaves me rather exausted. It's never what it seems to be.

Quite simple. Are you free? Are you independent and self-sufficient?

Can you be? Or.....are you allowed to be?

I find this dreamy attachment to political philosophies and identities to be nothing short of a scam. Easily fooled, are we - and to broader suggestion. The systems are designed not for us, but for the selected few. It's always been like that....we purchase the benign and benevolent promotions because, in our hearts, we fear the worst. We don't care to face what really is.

No one seems to be curious, less questioning.

Should you be allowed? The freedoms you talk about are anarchy's cousins.

The social and familial extensions and solidity are the based of culture and civilisation. Not fabricated political schemes.