. Several answers have already been given, which make it clear that democracy is an extremely inadequate form of government: to choose non-skilled nitwits and governments consisting of people who find them ‘ nice ‘, who often have a big mouth but unfortunately also often do not be hindered by knowledge.In addition, not only are people who are unskilled with decisions, they are also very much, so that everything lasts a long time, takes a lot of money and does not yield optimal results. In short, democracy is naturally a deerniping form of government. It would be obvious that people, who have a very good understanding of them, should be responsible for government tasks within their expertise.
A more interesting question is therefore: what is good about democracy?Why do we all want democracy, while you don’t have to be an Einstein to see that it will produce quality bad governments?
The reason why democracy is a better idea than all sorts of other forms of government (dictatorships and oligarchians, including technocracies) is actually just one: spreading power.And why is that so important? That is so, because power corrupts. If people, without being bothered by others, can exercise power (and if you are dealing with governmental power, it means that they can and will be allowed to apply violence by police and army at their own discretion), then they are going to abuse it. First maybe well meant, but that’s going to be out of hand. In the end, power leaders are especially caring for themselves rather than for the society they are responsible for. And that leads to endless misery.
If your power is fragmented through democracy, which we are exceptionally good at in the Netherlands, you will be inefficient as a government, but no one will have the opportunity to use government power to pursue (only) its own interests.This will prevent the most disastrous form of inefficiency, which is well worth the inefficiencies of democracy.
An instinker, this question.For how can democracy, the opposite of dictatorship now have disadvantages?
It was the ancient Greeks who chose the democracy 芒 鈧?虄鈩? a form of government in which the people (d脙 虉mos) themselves vote on the laws or the representatives that make the laws.(Krateo = reign, prevail).
But even then, not everyone was right before the law, because slaves, women, arms and aliens were not allowed to vote (yet).
A serious disadvantage of a democracy I would call the wrong or improper use of the term.Was The German Democratic Republic Democratic? Is the R茅publique D茅mocratique du Congo democratic?
In a upwelling of Democratic idealism the West supported the Arab Spring.Tunisia has been a democratic republic since then, but Islam is the official state religion. Democratic?
According to the source lost in Iraq, 654 965 to 1 million citizens live after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s undemocratic regime.
Libya was not more democratic after the elimination of Kadhafi, it is not clear whether a democracy to Western standards is the best solution for Syria.Perhaps it is the “enlightened Despoot芒 鈧劉 that this part of the world needs.” It is certain that the flow of refugees is putting an enormous strain on the western Democracies.
In short, because the undersigned has no conclusive answer to the question, a quote from Winston Churchill.
芒 鈧?艗democracy is not a good state, but I know no better. 芒 鈧?/p>
But Churchill also said: 芒 鈧?艗the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter. 芒 鈧?/p>There are several disadvantages, but for me the most important:
The lack of quality, knowledge and insight of many of the elected.
This is seen at local level (guess that 芒 鈧?艙on num芒 鈧?still important Thema芒 鈧劉 s judge), at national level (nitwits in Parliament) and at [Unfortunately many drivers:
At local level 芒 鈧?虄at the official 芒 鈧劉 called because they happened to be chairman of the Folk Garden Association, so well known, at national level 芒 鈧?虄at the official 芒 鈧劉 called because they happened to be a ski girlfriend of the Prime Minister (really true!).
There are a lot of Thema芒 鈧劉 s and developments in our society where a technocration really would deliver better policies and more objective solutions (but dare to acknowledge that).
A dictator can take drastic measures from one day to the other.In a democracy, however, a government cannot do that without enough support. Change can therefore be very viscous. Take the reduction of the mortgage interest deduction. All parties knew that it was an untenable arrangement with only disadvantages. But the homeowners were completely in love with it, so it became a taboo topic. We are now working on a dismantling, but that had to be 20 years earlier.
That a hostile, totalitarian regime or grouping can democratically help a democratic system to soap.In Zo芒 鈧劉 N case must be protected with undemocratic means the democracy….
Real democracy exists alone and can only function in small village communities where one collects important decisions on a meadow or the village square, enumerates all the pros and cons, talks about it, and then the Decision.This is not even typical of Swiss Alpine villages, even in tribal communities, they took decisions in this way, and the chef lived in exactly the same kind of hut as everyone else and needed support from the whole community for every decision.
The problem is that above the plus minus 150 people no longer working.One hundred and fifty is the limit under which everyone can know each other, 11.175 bilateral relations are already needed (i.e. 150 times 149 divided by 2). Above that it becomes too cluttered. Without further organizations, groups greater than 150 tend to argue or fall apart. Student associations over the 150 organise annual clubs or disputes and organise comparatively less association-wide events, soldatencompagnione from above 150 functioning poorly, and democratic decisions over 150 lead to Cracked and quarrel where no decision comes out (the reproach of many anti-Democrats: it is retarding leaned).
That is why you see that in larger groups technocratic elements are added to it.A representative body is chosen; Parliament. Due to the controlling function, this again influences the ministers appointed by the Head of State (and sometimes the head of State itself is also elected). But among those ministers are ministries that again have departmental heads, units and teams. All those executive officers are not elected. No, they are appointed on the basis of service years and capacities, such as promotions in a company.
And those appointed or tolerated by the elected Parliament or head of State, and the elected head of state, are those unemployed who think ‘ come I have nothing to do, let me be president that seems like me. ‘ Absolutely not, they too have had a year-long climb in a political party behind, combined with a paid job for the party or as a civil servant.They are also appointed. And also the heads of provincial and municipal divisions within the parties: they are appointed (only the board is elected and then also only in parties with the Legal Form Association-the PVV is and the NSB was a foundation without any influence of the members). For you to be in a position at all, you will have to have an extensive career in politics (unless you have a populist or innovative program).
In my view, the main disadvantage of democracy is the fact that real democracy is a fiction. Above 150 people it simply does not work anymore.This is taken care of by organisation in which people are appointed on the basis of knowledge and experience, especially in the ministries. A Parliament therefore has a tremendous knowledge deficit in ministries: 150 second Chamber members cannot resist the paper shop that a ministry can produce.
In the end, it is not democracy sec but about transparency and democratic control.As long as it is in an elected parliament, a government cannot make it too fur, because then Parliament will intervene. If Parliament fails to vote, it will be voted off. This sword of Damocles ensures that government members remain motivated to act in the public interest and not in their own interests. In the Netherlands, the elected Parliament has managed to get the upper hand in various confrontations with the crown in the 19th century (issue-Meijer, Luxembourg issue), even though there was not even a general electoral right.
The comparison between Iranian democracy and Dutch democracy is illustrative.In The Netherlands, Parliament can make a minister or government a guide. Iran is a democracy on paper, but in Iran the influence of the elected Parliament and the elected president is relative and the clergy and Revolutionary Guards have the final word through all sorts of unelected committees in almost everything. In fact, they also influence the selection of candidates for the chosen positions (in NL it is inconceivable that a Minister may screen candidates). Result is a government structure under Ayatollah Khamenei that can go completely without any control, and therefore does not attract an atom of the Iranian population. Another example is the Philippines which has a system that has a democratic content similar to the Netherlands on paper. However, as I said, you first have to go through a career before you are taken seriously as a candidate, and in the Philippines influential families play together that ball since independence (both at national and local level). With others: You don’t even come between and even populist Duterte is itself coming from such a ‘ political family ‘.
It follows that a democratic system and the spread of power on paper in itself are not yet a guarantee of fair governance.And it is simply not possible to let everyone decide for everything. Transparency and democratic control are the key words.
Democracy can be used to help democracy to soap.Those who control the provision of information for the voters are monitoring democracy.
The main disadvantage of democracy is that someone who decides to take a decision must convince enough people of their correctness.
In addition, the system is unsuitable for people who believe that man is naturally poor. You do not dare to submit to the will of the majority if you think that it might be bad for yourself, out of line preservation.
So democracy cannot exist without social cohesion, inclusion with a beautiful modern word.Everyone can participate, everyone is part of it.
You cannot be democratic if the death penalty exists, there are people on the streets to cry from hunger and people are excluded from participation in social processes.
It’s just what you find a disadvantage.