This follows on from the clearing the streets thread, but is broader so I gave it it's own thread. My view is that a failure to define what democracy is has resulted in the Middle East being ablaze as it currently is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23723465

It's "a chimaera or a hideous dream".

Since Athens in the 5th century B.C., there's never really been such a thing.

It's "a chimaera or a hideous dream".

Since Athens in the 5th century B.C., there's never really been such a thing.

Well i can only speak for the UK but i suspect this is true for most Western style ' Democracies'. Democracy lasts for about one minute every four years, the time it takes to enter a polling booth and put a cross against the candidate of the party who you (naively) believe will fulfill the promises they made in order to win your vote. After leaving the polling booth all bets are off. Wouldn't it be nice if the trades description act applied, and was enforced, against politicians and the governments they represent!

Just after the 2015 General Election in the UK we will celebrate the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta.

This was, to me, the first step on the long road to democracy, taking away from the King his absolute right to act as he wanted, but instead to consult with, and gain the approval of, his barons.

This process went through many further stages, including the Wars of the Roses and other contests for the dynastic continuance of certain 'royal' families, Henry VIII break from Rome, James I/VI being invited to take the throne, his son being executed for not following the 'democratic' ideas then in force, Oliver Cromwell becoming Head of State, Charles II being invited back to rule under certain conditions, his brother James II being deposed by King Billy (William of Orange / William III) who was invited in, then the Hanoverian dynasty being invited in, through Victoria and the earlier years of the twentieth century, when general and then universal suffrage were accepted (excepting only peers, criminals and lunatics) to our present situation - when the people still do not have a loud voice in the running of the country, as there are only choices between this five-year manifesto and that five-year manifesto. I have no option at the moment to opt out of the EU, to destroy all windmills (which contribute 2% of our power needs at 20% of the bills we pay), to turn our armed services into a defence force, to cancel Trident, to cancel HS2 and many other policies not at the moment offered by either left or right.

This is as much a democracy as was ancient Greece, where slavery was endemic and only 10% of the population could vote.

We in the West know no more of democracy than anyone else. We are just more sheep-like in our blind acceptance of what the media and politicians tell us (those who are flying the colours we prefer, rather than the 'other lot'.

Well yes, I take it democracy means representation of and accountability (or the pretence of) to the people according to some of your replies, I would agree and in times of crisis men are drafted into the army, currency controls and taxation rollback the freedoms we take for granted. There is more to the question than this though. Supposing 51% of the population detest the remaining 49%. I'm not referring to the U.S. here, but to a theoretical land where upon winning an election the majority want to eradicate or banish the minority, maybe for tribal or religious reasons. In such a situation you only ever get one election, and this is IMHO not a democratic process as I believe implicit in democracy is the principle of applying universal rights even to people you dislike. I have also heard the saying that democracies don't go to war with one another. With this in mind how would or could you steer an Egypt, Rwanda or North Korea towards our flawed versions of democracy? Finally, how do you safeguard an existing democracy to stop it degenerating into anarchy or civil war?

It's a lovely idea, but unworkable. Even in Athens, by the 420s, the polis was having to pay people (2 obols a day) to attend the Assembly.

It gives every fool equal say to every wise man.... and in most states, if not all, the fools outnumber the wise men many times over.

If it works at all, it works best in well-educated states like Finland and Switzerland, where the numbers are small.

Can you find a better-run state than Singapore, technically a democracy, but in fact a benevolent dictatorship since Lee Kuan Yew first came to power?

It's a lovely idea, but unworkable. Even in Athens, by the 420s, the polis was having to pay people (2 obols a day) to attend the Assembly.

It gives every fool equal say to every wise man.... and in most states, if not all, the fools outnumber the wise men many times over.

If it works at all, it works best in well-educated states like Finland and Switzerland, where the numbers are small.

Can you find a better-run state than Singapore, technically a democracy, but in fact a benevolent dictatorship since Lee Kuan Yew first came to power?

With that in mind I note that Iceland has the world's oldest parliament, they are a small well educated Country and I recently read the Finnish education system is one of the very best. I also agree about benevolent dictators, perhaps there should be a recognized career path to develop them.

P.S I'm starting to like El-Sisi, the day after Erdogan started meddling in Egypt's affairs in supporting the MB Egypt formally recognized the Armenian genocide.

I like both the preceding posts, and as far as bringing a country to democracy goes - even the flawed version available to most Western countries - this will take education, a free press, the eradication of bribery and nepotism, free speech and the banning of private possession of guns and similar weapons.

Although it took the English 700 years to achieve the system we now possess, it took the French only 150 years and what is now Germany less than 100 years, the same as Italy. Spain and Portugal did it in a day, following the deaths of Franco and Salazar.. But the people did have an understanding of where they were headed - I don't think that this is the case with most Middle Eastern countries yet.

And for Steely Dan's other point - if Bashar Assad is overthrown there will be a mass extermination not only of the Alawi in Syria, but the Christians, Circassians and other monorities by the Sunni rebels. As a multicultural society we should be supporting the Assad regime as it at least tolerated the minority peoples of the country, whereas the rebel forces want an Islamic society based upon the Sunni version of Sharia law. Although I am perfectly at ease myself when living under the Saudi version of Sharia, I would not like to live within a newly imposed version, with no previous custom to guide my footsteps.

Democracy, to me, is like going in to a Tesco hypermarket and being able to select Heinz baked beans, Crosse and Blackwell sauce, Princes tuna, baxter's soup, Hovis bread, Anchor butter, Flora margerine, Robertson's marmalade and Bonne Marie jams. Plus a lot of fresh vegetables that suit the current season - salads in the summer, root veg in the winter.

What we have at the moment is a choice between Heinz and own brand products throughout the store. Virtually nothing else is stocked. Neither can one select Heinz for this product, own brand for that. Once you have picked up the first item, you must stick with that brand for everything else. That's why the proportion of the electorate that votes is falling - the shoppers are staying at home and growing their own produce, saying a plague on both your houses to the owners of the hypermarket.

I'm reminded of a couple of quotations from Sir Winston Churchill:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

These really capture the problems with democracy: people are too stupid and/or ill-informed and/or self-interested to put in place the best leaders, but we don't have a better system.

As for the failure of democracy in the Middle East, that's because the predominant religion there believes that the system prescribed in its holy book is superior to all other systems, including democracy. They are too blinkered by religious indoctrination to realise that democracy is fairer, more rational and would lead to societal development in many, many ways.

I'm reminded of a couple of quotations from Sir Winston Churchill:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

These really capture the problems with democracy: people are too stupid and/or ill-informed and/or self-interested to put in place the best leaders, but we don't have a better system

Still one may not get the 'best' leaders, as they may not wish to stand in a voting system that may bring a lot of dirty laundry into the process.

The people who stand for office are the politicians - people who want to rule, who want power, who are pursuing a career in the control and government of their fellow men. Not the best leaders.

The people we need are more socially aware, such as church leaders, imams, social workers, all with many years experience. Also doctors, nurses, policemen and so on.

Alternatively the Lord of the Manor and his ilk. All to stand for one five year session only, then back to their careers.

Parliament to sit at a round table, rather than the British way of opposing sides.