One of the problems about democracy is that most people don't bother to express their opinions until something affects themselves. This will usually happen between elections when there is very littte they can do about it without making a major effort.

Even the Athenians had this problem. They solved it by paying for attendance at the Assembly.... 2 obols a day, which was enough to live on. But we (whoever we are) could hardly follow their example.

An upsurge globally in green initiatives is one example of people power working, and being altruistic. Legislation has been passed in numerous countries on such matters as air pollution, de-forestation, whaling, fish stocks, endangered species etc.

But your point about the ennui of the people being a problem with democracy emphasises my stance; The majority of people can't be left alone to do the right thing in the right way. They can't be trusted to think for the greater good, they can't be trusted to make the right vote, if they even bother to vote.

The vacuum leaves the politicians, many of whom are in the job for their own agenda, to do what they like.

When voting becomes a privilege accorded to those that earn it, and the politicians are people who are proven able mentors, there is an incentive to vote, and a voting demograph that is more likely to vote.

More of the 'special people' deciding what's best for the rest of us I see.

Would you rather non-special people making the decisions?

How can you possibly prefer someone who is potentially an idiot (such as George W Bush) than someone proven to be smart?

You mean the George W Bush who got a BA from Yale and an MBA from Harvard Business School? Is that not 'proven to be smart'? If not how would you judge who's smart and who's not? How would you pick out the 'potential idiots' ?

I asked you if I was an idiot a couple of posts back. I have no BAs or MBAs or PhDs but you'd apparently decided that I was smart enough to be one of the electorate based on a few posts on Thaivisa.

I suspect the 'special people' that you'd like to see installed are those who agree with you.

The problem with democracy in the UK at the moment is not the electorate but the politicians. Apart from Frank Field and Dennis Skinner they're all career politicians who've no idea what happens to real people outside the Westminster bubble. They might as well be from another planet. What we need is a few more George Galloways and a few less Ed Millibands.

One of the problems about democracy is that most people don't bother to express their opinions until something affects themselves. This will usually happen between elections when there is very littte they can do about it without making a major effort.

Even the Athenians had this problem. They solved it by paying for attendance at the Assembly.... 2 obols a day, which was enough to live on. But we (whoever we are) could hardly follow their example.

An upsurge globally in green initiatives is one example of people power working, and being altruistic. Legislation has been passed in numerous countries on such matters as air pollution, de-forestation, whaling, fish stocks, endangered species etc.

But your point about the ennui of the people being a problem with democracy emphasises my stance; The majority of people can't be left alone to do the right thing in the right way. They can't be trusted to think for the greater good, they can't be trusted to make the right vote, if they even bother to vote.

The vacuum leaves the politicians, many of whom are in the job for their own agenda, to do what they like.

When voting becomes a privilege accorded to those that earn it, and the politicians are people who are proven able mentors, there is an incentive to vote, and a voting demograph that is more likely to vote.

More of the 'special people' deciding what's best for the rest of us I see.

Would you rather non-special people making the decisions?

How can you possibly prefer someone who is potentially an idiot (such as George W Bush) than someone proven to be smart?

Look where your policy of electing the brightest and best has gotten the US in the last six years. Not exactly a roaring endorsement for your elitist only candidate lists.

Would you rather non-special people making the decisions?

How can you possibly prefer someone who is potentially an idiot (such as George W Bush) than someone proven to be smart?

I think your whole argument collapses through the virtual impossibility of deciding who is smart enough to participate, and what to do with the second-class citizens.

How can you tell people, "We are the elite; you aren't."?

Yesterday's freedom fighters and guerrillas have become "terrorists" if it serves the purpose of whoever is calling them that.

Labels are used to influence opinion and attitude and are often misapplied. Usually the labeling is deliberate at first, but with time the label sticks and it's usage becomes normal, the misdirected meaning sticking to it.

"Elite" has become a dirty word. This isn't semantics, it's about what import the word carries, what inference.

Change the way you think of "elite" and the elite are no longer a despised and feared group.

We are already ruled by an elite. Why not have an elite that deserve to be there?

Would you rather non-special people making the decisions?

How can you possibly prefer someone who is potentially an idiot (such as George W Bush) than someone proven to be smart?

I think your whole argument collapses through the virtual impossibility of deciding who is smart enough to participate, and what to do with the second-class citizens.

How can you tell people, "We are the elite; you aren't."?

Is it impossible? I have greater faith in science, maths, and their masters than you. I think it could be done with reason and sound mathematical and social science.

The thing about really intelligent people is they all know it and all recognise each other. As such, they generally do not try to deceive each other. I think a committee of brilliant minds from many facets of society and education could formulate a winning plan.

I use the term 'special people' in my posts rather than 'elite' because as Seastallion says 'the meaning of 'elite' has changed. The 'special people' are the ones who know what's best for you. They always assume that in any change they'll be sitting at the top table rather than with the hoi polloi.

You only have to read some of the reports and ideas that come from 'really intelligent people' to see how divorced they can be from everyday reality.

A small (but possibly poor) example springs to mind. To stand for election as an MP in Thailand you need to have a university degree. Sounds like a good idea but who then is the natural representative of all those rice farmers in Isaan? Someone who has a degree in political science from Thammasat? I don't think so.

I am a special person. I am also a really intelligent person My partner is a rice farmer in Isan.

But I don't presume to dictate to other people how they should govern themselves. I just don't know. I just know that democracy is not the ideal way.... but for all its faults, we haven't found a better one yet.

This is all taken from the Yellow Shirt playbook on "How to Win an Election and Remain in Office Forever".

I am a special person. I am also a really intelligent person My partner is a rice farmer in Isan.

But I don't presume to dictate to other people how they should govern themselves. I just don't know. I just know that democracy is not the ideal way.... but for all its faults, we haven't found a better one yet.

There is no form of government that's ideal as long as it has to deal with people.

Working in Libya for ten years, and dealing with the authorities there under Muammar Gaddafi, I have seen another form of democracy tried and abused.

The system set up under MG and his fellow army officers (such as Salah Jaloud and Abdul Obeidi) and the Revolutionary Council was that each small component of society, such as a street in a town, or a complete hamlet or Bedu tent camp, would elect representatives to express their views to the next highest body. These minor representatives would then meet in groups and elect their spokesmen to go to a higher council and so on, up to a small overall body - a national council. But every year there was a peoples' congress where all the representatives met and held discussions on all matters raised since the previous congress.

This seems very democratic, in that there were no political parties and no manifestos or promises by politicians as the representatives were all to be drawn from the people at large. However there grew up a revolutionary socialist party who took all the representatives seats and supported Gaddafi to 150%. For instance, one night on television Gaddafi was as usual addressing the people and bemoaned the loss of Libyan traditional culture, such as the way men dressed. Instead of wearing traditional Libyan or Bedu robes or jacket/trouser combinations, people were wearing 'American' clothes - jeans and shirts with ties. The next morning all the sycophantic revolutionary socialists were out in the streets of Tripoli (mainly), Sirte, Misurata and Benghazi (very little) cutting off ties and cutting the bottom few inches off jeans legs.

Another political appointment was made by a guy called Ali (as I remember) who marched into the Ministry of Agriculture in Benghazi one day with a couple of bodyguards, went in to see the Minister, laid his AK47 on the desk and announced 'I am the new Minister for Agriculture'. He lasted about eighteen months and then his body and that of his body guard were found scattered in many pieces in a local cemetery. He wasn't popular.

So although I supported the theory of Gaddafi's democracy, the practical version did not work so well.

The problem with Democracy is that it assumes people are

• honest
• hardworking
• rational
• clear thinking
• individuals
• and not corruptible

Unfortunately most people are not those things.

MMM. I won't argue with Isocrates. He makes true enough points.

I will offer my own take on democracy.

Many people will say that despite it's flaws, democracy is the best system we've got. True enough, but that disregards the possibility of devising a better system.

I offer "Qualified Democracy".

Qualified Democracy overcomes one of the greatest (if not the greatest) flaw in standard democracy; in essence, democracy is majority rule. By definition, majority rule is rule of the average man who makes average decisions, albeit he votes for someone who is supposedly better than average. Ideally, society wants the best decisions, made by the best minds with the best ethics and greatest integrity.

To achieve the best, candidates for political positions (the people's representatives) should qualify for the position in terms of the aforementioned 3 criteria but also to have knowledge of their particular portfolio (ie, an accountant doesn't have the police portfolio and a medical doctor would have the health portfolio)

To ensure the best policies are pursued by the representatives, voters should qualify to vote.

Effectively, the bottom xx% of the population are disqualified from voting on grounds of poor intellect, low integrity, anti-social attitude or mental disorder.

Only the top yy% can stand for election.

When I have offered this idea in the past, I always get howls of "But it's not democracy if you don't let some of the people vote!" and "How can you decide who can vote or not?"

No, it's not democracy as we know it. It's a new, better form of government that has much in common with democracy.

It's not me deciding who can vote, it would be science and a committee of great minds. That's why I said "xx%". (My guess is it would be around 30-40%, and yy% around 20).

Qualified Democracy would put an end to idiot populist policies and idiot leaders who get in on personality or looks.

Brother, a pleasure to find you on this thread. Your post above captures my exact thoughts about democracy. I try to explain this to people- the democracy is mob rule, but they do not get it. Few Americans realize the USA is not a democracy. It is a horrible inversion of language by the progressives, such as their successful challenge of the word "liberal," which now of course if co-opted as their own.

Much changed when the progressives under Wilson failed to socialize the US around 90 years ago; thus was born the hushed whisper ideology of "progressivism." Now, out of the closet, it is fashionable to be progressive. But progressives are the ones who have labored to dilute the singular controlling factors that previously prevented the US from mob rule. It was just just (land owners also ) suffrage, it was changes to the election/appointment of senators by popular vote and more, it was the progressive reeducation of Americans in the classrooms to believe they lived in a "Democracy" rather than a "Representative Republic" with democratic mechanisms.

One example: Books, indeed, US Army Field Manuals one hundred years ago, listed Democracy along side Socialism, Communism, and Fascism as example of ideologies that threaten the USA. You and I many not agree how it came to pass but we agree with the fatal flaw. Mitt Romney was widely condemned in a statement taken out of context whereby he noted something about the majority of Americans on handouts being 40 something %. He is of course correct and his critics know this. Nearly 50% of Americans are on the public dole and/or pay no taxes. In fact, nearing 50% do not pay taxes, yet they are afforded the same exact vote as the industrious in society. What you now have happening, and the progressives are keenly aware their dream is within reach, is that those who suck off the life of others are now a majority voting block. The list is near endless of free crap people can get, overlapping programs to get stuff, and no incentives any longer to avoid being on the dole. This is mob rule. This is also the mechanism by which a decidedly dumbed down populace, in exchange for voting for free crap, also votes in endless corporatacracy and increasingly, tyranny.

I agree with you, Seastallion (and Isocrates), that democracy is not an ideal system, but I don't think your offering is any better.

First, where do you get your "committee of great minds"?

Second, how do you 'select' your voters? By exam or how? Just think of the administration and the opportunities for cheating. And would everybody submit to your selection process?

Third, candidates for the top post are either selected by a very small group (in parliamentary democracy) or on the negative criterion that there's nothing wrong with them (as in a presidential system). Otherwise, why on earth would anybody have selected George W. Bush, let alone Dan Quayle as VP. I don't see how your system would change this (except maybe neither would have made the electable group!).

It's a better suystem for those of us, like you and I, who are Great Minds, and for the rest - 'Opposition Voters', shall we say, it is for their own good. Like Apartheid.

SC