Should Democracy be abolished?

[Xmara]

I’m waiting for op to suggest a better system.

For all of its flaws, democracy is the best system. Sure you may not get a great person in, but at least you can vote them out the next time the election rolls around.

The problem with Authoritarianism is that the person who calls for it never sees themselves as part of the disenfranchised folk.

I need to make a list of great NS quotes now so I can add this.

[Salus Maior]

I wouldn't go that far, frankly.

The majority of historical monarchs (that is to say ones that had actual power) were mediocre at best, with both the truly deplorable and genuinely righteous being exceptions to the rule. Thus the incessant dynastic struggles, weak centralized state (and often no state at all), technological near-stagnancy and other dismal factors characterizing the Middle Ages straight up through the Early Modern period. Monarchs lasted as long as they did because of tradition and individual greed, with both the nobility and clergy playing their parts so long as it benefited them to the detriment of the lower classes. They died out or were otherwise subverted when technological development and sheer demographics made the maintenance of their historically autocratic positions impossible.

The average monarch wasn't good or bad, just extremely average.

To be honest, that's leadership in general. Democratic or otherwise.

The democratic process isn't an assurance of exceptionalism, it's that the most charismatic, most wealthy, get the seat. And there's few republican leaders that I can think of that were at all exceptional and not simply average or mediocre (or even accomplished anything).

Your assessment of monarchy is, again, shallow and generalized. It doesn't take into account other factors surrounding issues in the Middle Ages, it doesn't distinguish Feudal monarchy from other forms, and obviously has a socialist/communist bias. It also fails to take into account that the last great European monarchies were destroyed from the outside and forcibly made republics by the Entente at the end of WWI, even when certain countries preferred to keep their monarch (namely, Austria).

[Salus Maior]

Serious answer: no, but universal suffrage should be. Only people who know wtf they're talking about should be allowed to vote.

The problem with Authoritarianism is that the person who calls for it never sees themselves as part of the disenfranchised folk. IF it shows up, they're always part of The Party (or appropriate faction)

Oof, owie. I've never heard that one before.

It's almost as if some people believe certain points of view should rightfully be censored, and are not all willing to play fair by everyone's political preference).

Actually, who am I kidding, that's literally everyone (whether they admit it to themselves or not).

[United Imperial Systems]

So I have been thinking,in democracy many times we see problems such as indecision because of the range of different political parties and ideologies and the government could collapse because of this bickering and indecision.

Have monacrhies/dictatorships been doing any better?
Look at Russia mate, because of undecision, bickering and a range of different political parties becoming more desperate, it resulted in a civil war putting in power a totaliterian government that was anything but communist.
Don't get me started on France.

There is also the notion that everybody can be equal,that even a criminal can vote.

Are all people not equal then?

There is also shortsightedness in politicians as they do not think of the long term benefit of the country instead they think of what they can do in 4 or 5 years to get re-elected.

And dictators do the same, but they care about staying in power forever, not through re-election though...

In a election,it doesn't matter who is the most intelligent,most hardworking or the most qualified,you just have to be the most popular.

Ditto for monarchies, but you have to be born to a monarch, being popular is optional...

People in dictatorships or authoritarian regimes can be told to live modestly because they have to follow the orders of the state but in a democracy they would think about themselves and not of the greater good of the nation.They would oust the politician who told them that and re-elect a new one who would tell them that everything in fine.

Yeah, and in dictatorships people get fucking executed for going against the party.
I'm sorry that I like having freedom, I'm such a terrible person now, ain't I?

In a democracy you only need 50.01 percent of the people to agree with something and you can do it without thinking about the 49.99 percent.Touqueville called it "tyranny of the majority".

Tyranny of the minority is better?

What do you think?

That it's the worst idea I've ever heard, worse than internet license.

[Salus Maior]

Are all people not equal then?

No, of course not.

[United Imperial Systems]

Are all people not equal then?

No, of course not.

Elaborate.

[Salus Maior]

No, of course not.

Elaborate.

Some people innately have advantages over others (and no it's not about race). Some people are stronger than others, some people are smarter, some are more capable of leading and others are not, some people can carry on conversation and socialization and others can barely get a word out. Everyone's different, and not necessarily equal on any kind of observable scale.

[United Imperial Systems]

Elaborate.

Some people innately have advantages over others (and no it's not about race). Some people are stronger than others, some people are smarter, some are more capable of leading and others are not, some people can carry on conversation and socialization and others can barely get a word out. Everyone's different, and not necessarily equal on any kind of observable scale.

Different people can still be equal, if you're weak, you can train yourself(I'm not talking about people who have diseases, such cases are very rare), if you are stupid, you can learn, ditto for conversation and socialization.
That's what I mean under equal, if someone has something, I can get it.
When it comes to Monarchies, you cannot rule a nation if you are a low-life peasant, you cannot coup the monarch, because only people up high have any sort of influence.
That sort of equal, not the "Oh you're physically weaker" bs.

[Vsyerossiya]

Absolutely.

To hell with freedom. Society needs order. Dissidents be damned.

So people's abilities to live their lives don't matter.
What is the point of life, to you?

To achieve collective societal goals, not indulge their petty egos.

I take my inspiration from military-style organization. No, I'm not a militarist (advocate of martial society), but military-style chains of command combined with their collective unity offer an alternative to democratic chaos.

[United Imperial Systems]

So people's abilities to live their lives don't matter.
What is the point of life, to you?

To achieve collective societal goals, not indulge their petty egos.

Or in other words, "Fuck the people, glory to the party/race/nation/insert baseless reason here".

[Prussian Polish Commonwealth]

*looks left*
*looks right*
yes, kind of.

[Salus Maior]

Some people innately have advantages over others (and no it's not about race). Some people are stronger than others, some people are smarter, some are more capable of leading and others are not, some people can carry on conversation and socialization and others can barely get a word out. Everyone's different, and not necessarily equal on any kind of observable scale.

Different people can still be equal, if you're weak, you can train yourself(I'm not talking about people who have diseases, such cases are very rare), if you are stupid, you can learn, ditto for conversation and socialization.
That's what I mean under equal, if someone has something, I can get it.
When it comes to Monarchies, you cannot rule a nation if you are a low-life peasant, you cannot coup the monarch, because only people up high have any sort of influence.
That sort of equal, not the "Oh you're physically weaker" bs.

That's overly optimistic, and ignoring that even everyday people can have unconquerable obstacles in these sorts of things, even if it's only down to their attitude.
And how are they equal if one has to work to get what another person is born with? What if the person with the natural inclination to something works with their advantage and gets even better than the less inclined who has to work just to get where the gifted person already was? You can't accomplish everything, one has to accept their own weaknesses and accept when other people are better. Otherwise you just make yourself miserable.

Why should the low-life peasant coup the monarch? What makes him qualified to rule instead of the monarch? Does being a shitty serf farmer make one leader quality or anything close?

[Hurdergaryp]

I hope this is just another natural part of the NS Summer, to be honest.
wtf kind of an idea is "let's abolish democracy"?

A typical NationStates Summer idea, commonly proposed by some shady individual hiding behind a throwaway account made recently.

[Lone-Star Texas]

Abolished no, but replaced with a Republican system with checks and balances. The people should have the right to overthrow the government if necessary. Honestly I’m not stating that America is the absolute best nation. But there’s a reason why it’s lasted so long. The nation may be swayed by those who are in high places. But it’s still a country that’s more free than most. Anyways no democracy should be replaced with a republic. If not replaced reworked in some way

[United Imperial Systems]

That's overly optimistic, and ignoring that even everyday people can have unconquerable obstacles in these sorts of things, even if it's only down to their attitude.
And how are they equal if one has to work to get what another person is born with? What if the person with the natural inclination to something works with their advantage and gets even better than the less inclined who has to work just to get where the gifted person already was? You can't accomplish everything, one has to accept their own weaknesses and accept when other people are better. Otherwise you just make yourself miserable.

Yeah, you can't accomplish everything, no one can, but it doesn't make you any better than I am and vice versa.
My point is, that as long as I can do just what you can, I'm an equal to you, sure, you may be stronger than me, but I can still go out of my way and become even stronger.
One has to also understand that there is no person that wasn't born with serious issues(Which is again, very rare) can't be bad at everything, which again, means that he/she is different, but it doesn't mean they are better/worse than you are overall.

Why should the low-life peasant coup the monarch? What makes him qualified to rule instead of the monarch? Does being a shitty serf farmer make one leader quality or anything close?

Why should a Monarch who lived in luxury their entire life rule? What makes him/her more qualified to rule instead of the peasant? Does being a shitty gold-spoon in mouth monarch make one leader quality or anything close?

[Nimzonia]

Unless you want to trawl through the history books looking through every monarchy and royal line, you can't really say that the majority of monarchs were bad, especially not 'in fact'. That's just arrogance.

If they were, why did they last so long and modern nations be built from them? If they were all bad, the world wouldn't have advanced and monarchy as a system probably would have fallen apart centuries, or perhaps thousands of years ago.

I'm of the opinion that it's far more reasonable to assume that the vast majority of monarchs generally did their job well, or at least well enough, explaining their longevity and how nations advanced under them.

Monarchy is not really a system that can "fall apart", because rule by strongmen is the default state of humanity. If a monarchic regime collapses, it tends to be replaced by another monarchic regime. Monarchy didn't last so long because it was good, it lasted so long because it was among the simplest forms of government. All you needed to do to be a king was have more followers than anyone else and then kill all your rivals.

[Salus Maior]

Yeah, you can't accomplish everything, no one can, but it doesn't make you any better than I am and vice versa.
My point is, that as long as I can do just what you can, I'm an equal to you, sure, you may be stronger than me, but I can still go out of my way and become even stronger.
One has to also understand that there is no person that wasn't born with serious issues(Which is again, very rare) can't be bad at everything, which again, means that he/she is different, but it doesn't mean they are better/worse than you are overall.

Why should the low-life peasant coup the monarch? What makes him qualified to rule instead of the monarch? Does being a shitty serf farmer make one leader quality or anything close?

Why should a Monarch who lived in luxury their entire life rule? What makes him/her more qualified to rule instead of the peasant? Does being a shitty gold-spoon in mouth monarch make one leader quality or anything close?

Yeah, I would objectively be better than you, at least in certain areas. We wouldn't be equals.

Lol, take your Naruto speech somewhere else. You can say "well, I [i]can/i] become better than you!" that doesn't mean anything. You can say whatever you want, that doesn't mean you actually can or will.

Difference certainly brings about some thought about whether certain people are better for certain things, like leadership, or anything really.

The Monarch is at least trained in the ways of the court, and in how to run a country and maintain the balance of power (at least ideally). A peasant serf would likely not even know how to read, let alone lead in any kind of real sense, and likely a lifetime of learning wouldn't get him to where the monarch starts from.

[New Excalibus]

W-What is the point of this thread? You'd think this would be an easy question. The answer is obvious.

Kill them all! Democracy be darned!

[The South Falls]

Yea peeps, remember, this isn't a feudalistic society.

[Uiiop]

Abolish Non-Democracy and give Democracy new clothes.

[Painisia]

Ok, tell me if there are other alternatives? A hyper-authoritarian fascist regime, the socialist "utopia", a corrupt feudalist monarchy, complete anarchy, a theocratic priest-rule or just another crypto-authoritarian regime like China and Russia?

[Kand Sovi]

Democracy shouldn't be abolished!
My goal is to make sure we are a free nation and that we always maintain a democracy. We don't act as like a dictatorship at all.

[Prussian Polish Commonwealth]

Ok, tell me if there are other alternatives? A hyper-authoritarian fascist regime, the socialist "utopia", a corrupt feudalist monarchy, complete anarchy, a theocratic priest-rule or just another crypto-authoritarian regime like China and Russia?

Constitutional Monarchy, except the monarch isn't as much of a figurehead?

[Prussian Polish Commonwealth]

Democracy shouldn't be abolished!
My goal is to make sure we are a free nation and that we always maintain a democracy. We don't act as like a dictatorship at all.

this is NSG m8

[Kand Sovi]

Sorry about that mistake, I just told you that we should never abolish democracy