The Problems of Democracy

[Constantinopolis]

^ There you have it. This should have been in the second post, and then no further posts would be needed. /thread.

Seriously though - the problem with pretty much all criticisms of democracy is that they're not criticisms of democracy in particular, they are criticisms of all human politics in general.

Politicians lie in order to gain support? They don't follow any particular ideology or moral code? They seek personal power and wealth? Welcome to every government ever.

I realize this happens, but it has more implications in a democratic system than in a state that is governed on an ideological basis. In, say, a Marxist-Leninist state, if someone is just a demagogue who has no ideological leanings, then you can simply not allow them to run for office. In an autocracy, the autocrat could bar this person from power as they are a threat to the ideology of the state.

You know how much I love the idea of an ideological state. I admire the Byzantine Empire, the USSR, and I'm even intrigued by the political system of Iran.

But the evidence is that, at least in modern times, ideological states can't actually stick to their founding ideology for very long. Nearly all the Marxist-Leninist states ended up betrayed by their own ruling elite, which either openly turned against Marxism-Leninism and dismantled the state (as in the USSR), or kept up appearances while totally abandoning Marxism-Leninism in practice (as in China and Vietnam).

It's a "who watches the watchers" type of problem: An ideological state has institutions that are given the task of making sure that everyone else follows the state ideology... but what's to prevent the leaders of those institutions themselves from turning against the state ideology?

So far, no one has figured out how to design an ideological state that adequately deals with this problem.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I realize this happens, but it has more implications in a democratic system than in a state that is governed on an ideological basis. In, say, a Marxist-Leninist state, if someone is just a demagogue who has no ideological leanings, then you can simply not allow them to run for office. In an autocracy, the autocrat could bar this person from power as they are a threat to the ideology of the state.

You know how much I love the idea of an ideological state. I admire the Byzantine Empire, the USSR, and I'm even intrigued by the political system of Iran.

But the evidence is that, at least in modern times, ideological states can't actually stick to their founding ideology for very long. Nearly all the Marxist-Leninist states ended up betrayed by their own ruling elite, which either openly turned against Marxism-Leninism and dismantled the state (as in the USSR), or kept up appearances while totally abandoning Marxism-Leninism in practice (as in China and Vietnam).

It's a "who watches the watchers" type of problem: An ideological state has institutions that are given the task of making sure that everyone else follows the state ideology... but what's to prevent the leaders of those institutions themselves from turning against the state ideology?

So far, no one has figured out how to design an ideological state that adequately deals with this problem.

Even if that means inevitable ideological decay, it still means that an ideology is held to for a longer time than it normally would. The medieval states held on until very recently to their ideologies.

[Kovacna]

I believe that all government systems are corruptible by human nature at varying degrees. Ideologically and ideally speaking, any government system would work in a stable manner if it human nature wasn't all about self-interest. The fact that it is human nature to place self-interest first destroys the premise that a certain government type, especially democracy, is a good system for us.

[Constantinopolis]

You know how much I love the idea of an ideological state. I admire the Byzantine Empire, the USSR, and I'm even intrigued by the political system of Iran.

But the evidence is that, at least in modern times, ideological states can't actually stick to their founding ideology for very long. Nearly all the Marxist-Leninist states ended up betrayed by their own ruling elite, which either openly turned against Marxism-Leninism and dismantled the state (as in the USSR), or kept up appearances while totally abandoning Marxism-Leninism in practice (as in China and Vietnam).

It's a "who watches the watchers" type of problem: An ideological state has institutions that are given the task of making sure that everyone else follows the state ideology... but what's to prevent the leaders of those institutions themselves from turning against the state ideology?

So far, no one has figured out how to design an ideological state that adequately deals with this problem.

Even if that means inevitable ideological decay, it still means that an ideology is held to for a longer time than it normally would. The medieval states held on until very recently to their ideologies.

Yeah, but as far as the medieval states were concerned, it's worthwhile remembering that their ideologies didn't actually require them to do much that they wouldn't have done anyway. The practical difference between the Byzantine Empire and your average medieval kingdom wasn't that great (especially after Manzikert). Pre-modern ideological states mainly expressed their ideologies in the way that the imperial/royal court behaved and in the occasional building project. For the average peasant, there wasn't much difference between living in an ideological state or a non-ideological one. This is light-years away from modern ideological states like the Marxist-Leninist ones, whose ideology structured the entire economic system, down to every citizen's employment.

(side note: One of the most awe-inspiring things about Marxism-Leninism was the sheer audacity of it - this was by far the most ambitious ideological project in all of human history.)

But as far as "it still means that an ideology is held to for a longer time than it normally would"... ummm, what makes you say that? Modern liberalism, the mainstream ideology of liberal democratic states, has already been held for about as long as the USSR existed - and doesn't show any signs of imminent collapse. Don't confuse minor variations with major ideological shifts. The West has certainly not had any major ideological shift since 1945. That's 72 years and counting. The Soviet state lasted for only 74 years. Modern liberalism will definitely beat the Soviet record.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

A monarch, in addition to having studied throughout his life to become a king, is the national personification of his country, that is, he represents all the people of a certain country and was educated to defend it, without political parties.

So you're talking about a fantasy king that has never existed and never will exist in reality. Got it.

That is the other reason why most criticisms of democracy are wrong: People compare real-world democracy with idealized, pie-in-the-sky fantasy versions of the other political systems.

[Constantinopolis]

So you're talking about a fantasy king that has never existed and never will exist in reality. Got it.

That is the other reason why most criticisms of democracy are wrong: People compare real-world democracy with idealized, pie-in-the-sky fantasy versions of the other political systems.

(Image)

(Image)

You do realize that all of them got their hands dirty, took sides between political factions, made morally-questionable deals, started wars, negotiated arranged marriages for political gain, funneled money into their own pet projects, in some cases assassinated rivals, and generally engaged in precisely the same kind of realpolitik that democratic leaders do - right?

Of course these were good monarchs, and I personally like most of them, but they were nowhere near your earlier description of what a monarch should be like. They had more in common with Vladimir Putin (another autocrat I admire) than with your description of an ideal monarch. They weren't the "national personifications of their countries", and they certainly didn't represent all their people in an even-handed and unbiased manner. They had their own personal ambitions and pursued them. Those ambitions just happened to be good for their countries.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

You do realize that all of them got their hands dirty, took sides between political factions, made morally-questionable deals, started wars, negotiated arranged marriages for political gain, funneled money into their own pet projects, in some cases assassinated rivals, and generally engaged in precisely the same kind of realpolitik that democratic leaders do - right?

Citation needed

[Infected Mushroom]

Democracy's a terrible way to run things.

High school popularity contests are a strange way to run a country.

So I'm not the only one who made that comparison. This election felt like watching an episode of The Most Popular Girls in School. Except the prom queen would have actual power over something. ....Now that I think about ot Rachel Tice wouldn't make a bad president.... but she did win through bribery, so there's another comparison.

Exactly

[Lady Scylla]

I prefer a ceremonial monarch to prevent the existence of a president.

A monarch who has no power is the same thing as a republic. Then it would not make sense.

Then you bring the weaknesses of a monarchy in as well.

Actually, in some cases the monarchy can present its defects like any political system, but in counterpart, constitutional monarchies today have developed more than certain republics (see african and asian republics)

Why a monarch? What makes that lineage any better than another person who has dedicated their life to politics?

A monarch, in addition to having studied throughout his life to become a king, is the national personification of his country, that is, he represents all the people of a certain country and was educated to defend it, without political parties. While a king defends the population, a politician when he becomes president first wants to benefit his party by giving positions of ministries/secretaries and devoting himself only to re-elect (with rare exceptions). So the king rules the people, while most politicians only think about the upcoming elections.

That's a very naive view of monarchs.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Even if that means inevitable ideological decay, it still means that an ideology is held to for a longer time than it normally would. The medieval states held on until very recently to their ideologies.

Yeah, but as far as the medieval states were concerned, it's worthwhile remembering that their ideologies didn't actually require them to do much that they wouldn't have done anyway. The practical difference between the Byzantine Empire and your average medieval kingdom wasn't that great (especially after Manzikert). Pre-modern ideological states mainly expressed their ideologies in the way that the imperial/royal court behaved and in the occasional building project. For the average peasant, there wasn't much difference between living in an ideological state or a non-ideological one. This is light-years away from modern ideological states like the Marxist-Leninist ones, whose ideology structured the entire economic system, down to every citizen's employment.

(side note: One of the most awe-inspiring things about Marxism-Leninism was the sheer audacity of it - this was by far the most ambitious ideological project in all of human history.)

But as far as "it still means that an ideology is held to for a longer time than it normally would"... ummm, what makes you say that? Modern liberalism, the mainstream ideology of liberal democratic states, has already been held for about as long as the USSR existed - and doesn't show any signs of imminent collapse. Don't confuse minor variations with major ideological shifts. The West has certainly not had any major ideological shift since 1945. That's 72 years and counting. The Soviet state lasted for only 74 years. Modern liberalism will definitely beat the Soviet record.

Liberalism has held on because it is supported by ideologically liberal states and organizations; it is this ideology and organization, I think, that makes these states undemocratic.

[NeuPolska]

You do realize that all of them got their hands dirty, took sides between political factions, made morally-questionable deals, started wars, negotiated arranged marriages for political gain, funneled money into their own pet projects, in some cases assassinated rivals, and generally engaged in precisely the same kind of realpolitik that democratic leaders do - right?

Of course these were good monarchs, and I personally like most of them, but they were nowhere near your earlier description of what a monarch should be like. They had more in common with Vladimir Putin (another autocrat I admire) than with your description of an ideal monarch. They weren't the "national personifications of their countries", and they certainly didn't represent all their people in an even-handed and unbiased manner. They had their own personal ambitions and pursued them. Those ambitions just happened to be good for their countries.

If the king is the country, then what the king wants would therefore be good for the country, no (excluding any with mental disorders which would certainly disqualify them from the position of monarch)? Ivan the Terrible was asked by his people to come back after leaving the nobility in charge, who sought to benefit themselves and leave the commoners and serfs in the mud. Poland-Lithuania collapsed not because of the monarchy, but because of the nobility, especially the traitors in Targowica. Too much power with the nobility has always led to problems, particularly with French kings as well.

[Infected Mushroom]

A monarch who has no power is the same thing as a republic. Then it would not make sense.

Actually, in some cases the monarchy can present its defects like any political system, but in counterpart, constitutional monarchies today have developed more than certain republics (see african and asian republics)

A monarch, in addition to having studied throughout his life to become a king, is the national personification of his country, that is, he represents all the people of a certain country and was educated to defend it, without political parties. While a king defends the population, a politician when he becomes president first wants to benefit his party by giving positions of ministries/secretaries and devoting himself only to re-elect (with rare exceptions). So the king rules the people, while most politicians only think about the upcoming elections.

That's a very naive view of monarchs.

Kings are trained from birth to rule and to put the good of the nation first.

Elected politicians on the other hand, are products of a competitive capitalist system based on exploitation, networking, public image management and double-crossing.

This is why despite the few tyrants we've had in history, the vast majority of monarchs (for thousands of years) have had fairly benign and effective.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

That's a very naive view of monarchs.

Kings are trained from birth to rule and to put the good of the nation first.

Elected politicians on the other hand, are products of a competitive capitalist system based on exploitation, networking, public image management and double-crossing.

This is why despite the few tyrants we've had in history, the vast majority of monarchs (for thousands of years) have had fairly benign and effective.

Exactly

[Lady Scylla]

That's a very naive view of monarchs.

Kings are trained from birth to rule and to put the good of the nation first.

Elected politicians on the other hand, are products of a competitive capitalist system based on exploitation, networking, public image management and double-crossing.

This is why despite the few tyrants we've had in history, the vast majority of monarchs (for thousands of years) have had fairly benign and effective.

Lord have mercy.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

You do realize that all of them got their hands dirty, took sides between political factions, made morally-questionable deals, started wars, negotiated arranged marriages for political gain, funneled money into their own pet projects, in some cases assassinated rivals, and generally engaged in precisely the same kind of realpolitik that democratic leaders do - right?

Of course these were good monarchs, and I personally like most of them, but they were nowhere near your earlier description of what a monarch should be like. They had more in common with Vladimir Putin (another autocrat I admire) than with your description of an ideal monarch. They weren't the "national personifications of their countries", and they certainly didn't represent all their people in an even-handed and unbiased manner. They had their own personal ambitions and pursued them. Those ambitions just happened to be good for their countries.

If the king is the country, then what the king wants would therefore be good for the country, no (excluding any with mental disorders which would certainly disqualify them from the position of monarch)? Ivan the Terrible was asked by his people to come back after leaving the nobility in charge, who sought to benefit themselves and leave the commoners and serfs in the mud. Poland-Lithuania collapsed not because of the monarchy, but because of the nobility, especially the traitors in Targowica. Too much power with the nobility has always led to problems, particularly with French kings as well.

Exactly, a good king must always work for his people so that all benefit from their deeds.

[Community Values]

If the king is the country, then what the king wants would therefore be good for the country, no (excluding any with mental disorders which would certainly disqualify them from the position of monarch)? Ivan the Terrible was asked by his people to come back after leaving the nobility in charge, who sought to benefit themselves and leave the commoners and serfs in the mud. Poland-Lithuania collapsed not because of the monarchy, but because of the nobility, especially the traitors in Targowica. Too much power with the nobility has always led to problems, particularly with French kings as well.

Exactly, a good king must always work for his people so that all benefit from their deeds.

How do you prevent a bad king?

[NeuPolska]

Exactly, a good king must always work for his people so that all benefit from their deeds.

How do you prevent a bad king?

A constitution and proper protocol to allow the peaceful shifting of power to another member of the Royal family.

[Alvecia]

How do you prevent a bad king?

A constitution and proper protocol to allow the peaceful shifting of power to another member of the Royal family.

Problems arise when the person in power refuses to give it up.

[Genivaria]

How do you prevent a bad king?

A constitution and proper protocol to allow the peaceful shifting of power to another member of the Royal family.

So not absolutism than.

[Genivaria]

A constitution and proper protocol to allow the peaceful shifting of power to another member of the Royal family.

Problems arise when the person in power refuses to give it up.

Indeed, not every leader is a Cincinnatus, some are Caesar's.

[Community Values]

How do you prevent a bad king?

A constitution and proper protocol to allow the peaceful shifting of power to another member of the Royal family.

A constitution enforced by what?

The people? The nobles? The Military? The King?

[Genivaria]

A constitution and proper protocol to allow the peaceful shifting of power to another member of the Royal family.

A constitution enforced by what?

The people? The nobles? The Military? The King?

Which again highlights the gap in logic here.
"We want a wise autocrat."
How do you check that they won't become a tyrant?
"There will be limits on the autocrat."
And the autocrat allows this to happen why exactly?

[Infected Mushroom]

Exactly, a good king must always work for his people so that all benefit from their deeds.

How do you prevent a bad king?

Specialised Education

Make the Kings get a degree in Royal Governance.

[Genivaria]

How do you prevent a bad king?

Specialised Education

Make the Kings get a degree in Royal Governance.

Y-you're joking right?

[United Muscovite Nations]

How do you prevent a bad king?

Specialised Education

Make the Kings get a degree in Royal Governance.

I don't even know what this means.

The best way to prevent an autocrat from abusing their power is to make sure there are legal means to remove the autocrat; the most obvious being military coup.