Democracy,compatible with huge population

Nevertheless, the Prime Minister is still the 1 person who is on top.

Though I would argue that the concept of a parlimentary system is somewhat less democratic than the US system because all the power is concentrated into one body, whereas in the US, it is seperated into 3 independent powers that fight one another. Yes, over the last 107 years, the Executive Branch has been gaining a lot of ground for various reasons. Another difference is that Tony Blair is elected into the Parliment by his home district and then becomes Prime Minister. The President of the US is the only person in the US who is elected nationwide.

Oddly, Singapore seems to stand alone in the field of having a large educated population, yet no democracy.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim It's the only choice if you value the rights of the individual. Democracy doesn't protect the rights of the individual at all. It values the rights of the biggest mob.

Originally posted by DukeC Access to information and abilitiy to understand it is more important to a democracy than population size.

To a large extent educated populations demand a say in how they are ruled, which often leads to democracy or at least a democratisation.

Originally posted by Jagiello I think Sun Tzu said "to rule many is the same as ruling few-it's a matter of organisation".

Well Quoted!

Here's my two cents: democracy, like any other political system, is designed to keep the population under control and in good order. In any human society there will be an elite of some sort, who are always in control over society via economic or political or religious/ideological means) or a combination thereof. So far, it is the best such system designed, because middle class and poor people either have the feeling in control (whereas the elite is always in that position), or simply tune out politics because they start seeing the current state of events as natural and unchangeable. Other systems are more heavy-handed, and they result in the population being discontent, leading to political subversion and general loss of productivity.

What does it mean if a democracy truly "works" in the first place?  Is it one in which there is a hundred per-cent, direct representation?  Benjamin Franklin said that the Constitution would end up being nothing more than a band-aid, and that some kind of totalitarianism would rear its head again.  Maybe the notion of a democracy that starts to not work is one in which the spectrum of debate ends up narrowing itself.  If a population gets big enough, certain voices and segments necessarily become marginalized.  When necessity binds people together, you see democracy in its most unadulterated form.  The colonists of the 18th century railed against something in a time of urgency.  The Constitution reflects what their (ostensibly, the entire population's) contemporary fears were about evil governments.  So many factors have entered into the equation over the last couple of hundred years, that our collective sense of need has completely changed.  This tiny segment cares about the loss of the second amendment, this sizeable chunk cares about whether Paris Hilton goes to the slammer, this group cares about global warming.  I do not think it is possible for the United States to function democractically at this point--at least not the way the Founding Fathers might have intended.  At this point, its just a vehicle that gets driven by the guy with the best PR.  Whatever the case, I'll take American democracy on its worst day over North Korean totalitarianism on its best.

Edited by jacob - 14-May-2007 at 06:18

Originally posted by pinguin Originally posted by DukeC Access to information and abilitiy to understand it is more important to a democracy than population size. Which is why there's censorship in China and why there's so much manipualtion of the media in the west.     Dictatorship is incompatible with a free market economy. If China continues to be sucessful economically it will have to turn to democracy. Otherwise things will explode in social revolts. They will start at the first economical downturn.   It has happened many times before. There is nothing to stop it to happens in China.   Pinguin

Originally posted by Jagiello ...Well,my opinion is the idiots that can't even read shouldn't be allowed to rule and determine the faith of all others.They shouldn't be slaves and have no rights but also shouldn't be masters and their votes to be with same value as those of the educated people.And after all,slaves don't choose to be slaves.They are either born or made slaves.Most of the uneducated people have chosen to leave school or just didn't want to learn.I'm talking about the wealthy countryes where even the poor can become educated.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by Jagiello I allso think it's not compatible with huge amounts of people simply because most of them don't even have primary education and vote emotionaly for parties that they connect with personal ideas or experiances.Such voting leeds to the electing of communist and nationalist parties.The best form of democracy for me is when only people that graduated College or University or atleast High school can vote.It's simply not fare for me that the vote of an educated Doctor of science or even a Proffesor is equal to the vote of an idiot that can't even read for example but votes because he was prommised good future from a party.This might sound like oligarchy but that kind of "citizenship" in Rome for example worked perffectly,although it wasn't democracy.Just imagine if we put this way of giving "citizenship" only to people that graduated and are considered educated and only they can vote.It would not be somekind of aristocrathic title and would not be recieved as a heritage.If you remember because of the "stupid" crowds did communism prosper in many countries and the intelectual groups�were destroyed.� Sounds very like Aristotle's argument justifying slavery. The 'idiots who can't even read' have to be looked after and guided by those who can. � �

Well,my opinion is the idiots that can't even read shouldn't be allowed to rule and determine the faith of all others.They shouldn't be slaves and have no rights but also shouldn't be masters and their votes to be with same value as those of the educated people.And after all,slaves don't choose to be slaves.They are either born or made slaves.Most of the uneducated people have chosen to leave school or just didn't want to learn.I'm talking about the wealthy countryes where even the poor can become educated.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Democracy doesn't protect the rights of the individual at all. It values the rights of the biggest mob.

When it comes to the question of individual rights and freedom, nothing compares with Anarchy. Look at this:

�� No political philosophy I ever heard of loves the human race as much as Anarchism. Every other way of looking at the world says that people have to be controlled and ordered around and governed. Only Anarchism trusts the human being enough to let him work it out for himself. ��

Didier in Shantaram - G D Roberts