Was democracy a good or bad thing?

Democracy has its problems but I think its generally a better form of government than autocracy because the leadership has to more directly answer to the people. Obviously people don't always want what's best for the country and don't always select good leaders but compare it to two different autocratic systems of government, a one party state such as the soviet union where leaders are selected by an oligarchy of fellow party members, and a hereditary monarchy where leadership is inherited through birth.

In a one party state the trails of choosing a leader tend not to select for who is actually the most capable administrator, but rather who is the most savvy (or brutally efficient) operator of party politics. This is how you end up with complete butchers like Stalin in a position of supreme executive authority.

In a hereditary monarchy you have a leader who has been trained since their very first days to be a leader, which is something of a compelling idea. However for every great man produced by this system we've seen countless examples throughout history of incapable and uncaring men put in these positions who were not even close to being up to the task that was put in front of them.

And this brings us to the fundamental problem with an autocratic regime, what do you do if you end up with a shit leader? You have two options, wait who knows how many years until he dies while the country goes to shit, and there's no guarantee that his successor will be any better. Or you can rise up against him in a revolution that will throw the country into chaose and cause a great deal of needless suffering and death. And you STILL don't have any guarantee that whoever manages to take control after the revolution will be an improvement.

As disappointing as democracy can be at times it really is the superior system of government.

Democracy really is shit, the problem is that it's a slow burning shit.

It was ok.

True but even at a marginally larger scale the average mediocrity you obtain is sufficient to reach decisions that are good enough. That's especially true at a local level. I have been following the Swiss voting process for some time and have been impressed by how good decisions were on average for local "votations" (at the canton level or below). Turns out people are a lot more careful when deciding whether a bridge should be built or not over their town's river than when voting for national-level issues.

>Democracy has its problems but I think its generally a better form of government than autocracy because the leadership has to more directly answer to the people.

I think that pure autocracy is actually pretty rare historically thinking. Oligarchy is much more prevalent.

Your point only considers republics rather than proper democracies.

Talk to people and you will find out for yourself why democracy is and always has been a bad idea.

A bad thing, feudal monarchy + fascism is the future

>that are good enough
>good enough
That's such a governmental thing to say.

My job involve working with members of parliaments. They are often incredibly ignorant and "broadly" stupid. That is, they are genius idiots. They have a lot of acumen when dealing with electoral and party issues but completely unable to work on legislation on their own. Basically all the work is performed by assistants and lobbyists working for interest groups the MP is tied to. He just gets told how to vote during sessions or is occasionally given a ready-made piece of legislation/non-paper so that he can put it forward.

Well Switzerland isn't doing that bad.

Might be due to the fact that Switzerland doesn't use the mentality of "good enough." "Good enough" leads to shit like Flint, Michigan.

No wonders these lobbyist and special interest groups are so keen on democracy.

no, that was racism

Constitutional monarchy is the best system, when democracy becomes so corrupt that it cannot sustain itself, the política system shifts to límited constitutionalism. When monarchy goes to shit,reforms are forced for it to survive and perish.

Republicanism leads to generalissimos and commies

You misspelled "Good enough for them niggers"

Democracy's a good idea, but it's never been tried.

Bourgeois "democracies" are basically oligarchies with nominal elections, people's democracies were essentially one-party dictatorships.

>what a great comment and contribution to this discussion

Actual oligarchies are the fucking best then.

No risk of populism and tyranism kek.

1. Because the average person is too stupid to understand how a law or practice will actually work if it is implemented.

2. Tyranny of the majority.

>wanting your government to actually do work instead of doing the bare minimum makes you a fedora lord
Heinlein had a point

You have to consider the demographics of switzerland, Their system wouldn't work in Africa and probably not in the U.S.

So... A administrative nationalist republic?

Interesting post, really need to start a process of decentralization desu.

Lol this.

The thing is, I support OP in America's case.

Emperor Trump?

>left map lists the red sections as roman empire

you really can't tell that that map is the turf augustus inherited from caesar, pompey, and every consul that made rome what it was in that day?

sure, i wouldn't mind living in an empire.

>Republic is an evil, aggressive and expansionist asshole
>Empire is a nice, passive until attacked and defensive empire

>yfw Republicfags think their Govt is peaceful when they started more wars
>yfw it was then and is now popular to go to war because it ensures re-election

Democracy is a means for which riches can fight against the kings and other powerful organizations.
Commoners that "believes" democracy works are those who expect normal distribution of opinions to happen when the samples are not randomly selected. First of all, as there are inequal state of understanding on what is really best for all due to limited access commoners have on information, there is no way the majority of opinion will ever represent the best. How can we even assume that of those people who vote, which are samples, contain what is really good for everyone? We live in pursuit of personal interests. Democracy should be named societal darwinism.