EPTWhat exactly is so good about democracy again? What makes democracy a better government than any other form of government? Let's list the things that make democracy good:
a) As a governmental system, it is more stable because people accept the decisions made by "the majority." Which is basically to say, if something happens, since the people who are against it are outnumbered, they won't try and start something.
b) Because democracy is a system by the people, for the people, and since people don't enjoy wars that threaten their livelihoods, no democracy will go to war against another democracy.
c) Because we hold leaders to term limits, this reduces the possibility of tyrants taking over and destroying the country.
d) Democracies tend to be more tolerant of other religions, cultures, and ideas.
e) Democracies often have a Bill of Rights or a similar mechanism to prevent the government from wielding too much power.
Now, there are two ways to approach issues with democracy. One is in a sense of how our democracy is currently implemented-which is to say, why our system of democracy (the representative democracy) is flawed. The other is why democracy straight out sucks as a system compared to other methods.
Let's start with the former. Why our democracy sucks. The first one should be the most obvious: namely, because representatives are elected on 2, 4, and 6 year cycles, they will do what is most beneficial for them in 2, 4, and 6 year cycles. Which is to say, they tend to place an emphasis on the short-term at the expense of the long-term. It makes sense for two reasons: firstly, it doesn't make sense to support an initiative for 20 years down the road when you are unsure if you'll even be around 6 years down the road. Secondly, the people that vote in disproportionate numbers are the elderly. The elderly tend to look at the short-term, as they simply do not have as long of an expected life expectancy as someone who is 20. Thus, it is no surprise that the system tends to favor short-term initiatives. One could compare this to the typical public company, where CEOs are judged (and often paid) based on the annual performance of a company. The problem here is, what tends to happen is that to cut costs, employees tend to be laid off. This thus increases short-term profit, but will drastically impact production in the future.
People tend to look at the short-term, especially if they are less well-off. Why would I care about 20 years down the road when I can barely feed myself day to day? The problem is, growth doesn't work that way. You can't borrow against the future heavily and expect to not have to pay it back.
But that's not the purpose of this blog. As you see above, I don't say "why our democracy sucks" but rather "why democracy sucks." And the answer is because, democracies do not stay as democracies, especially when they are in a hegemonic position. Non-hegemonic democracies, such as Switzerland, tend to be more stable. Let's take a look at powerful democracies (not constitutional monarchies) over the years:
City-state of Athens: Formed the Delian League, an alliance of democracies. As the dominant power, it quickly centralized control over the league and formed the Athenian Empire, which then collapsed after a war with Sparta.
Roman Republic: Under Caesar, turned into the Roman Empire, which then collapsed to barbarians and later the Ottomans.
Venetian "Most Serene Republic." Turned into an empire, then collapsed to Ottomans.
Dutch Republic: Republic in name, but all "stadtholders," or leaders, came from the same area.
French 1st Republic: Became the 1st French Empire (under Napoleon), then collapsed.
French 2nd Republic: Became 2nd French Empire (under Louis Napoleon) then collapsed.
German Weimar Republic: Became 3rd Reich, then collapsed.
To be fair, almost all empires collapse in one way or another. But this is mostly due to their belligerence. The Athenians tried to stick their nose into minor affairs on the opposite side of Greece, and got Sparta'd. The Romans tried to expand too far, and bit off more than they could chew. Same with the Venetians. The Dutch got their ass bit because they were too busy dwelling overseas to deal with the threat next door. Napoleon, and later his nephew, both tried to bite off more than they could chew of Europe. So did Hitler.
My concern is not that monarchies or empires are a better way to rule. The concern is that republican government, if put into a position of power, quickly succumbs to its own tendencies. As soon as a republic gains significant power, it quickly becomes an empire: once Greece had boiled down to Athens vs. Sparta, Athens consolidated its power while Sparta did not: with the Romans, once Carthage had been wiped out, it took just 100 years for the inevitable fracturing of the republic for Caesar to take advantage of: with the French, the republic lasted less than 20 years before becoming an empire: Once Germany rose into a position of relative strength, bad things happened.
So that leaves one question. Does the US, with its policy of creating democracy throughout the world (similar to what the Athenians did in Greece) have a hegemony? If so, are we in the same position as Athens, when confronted with the relative oligarchy that is China today? Or are we an exception to this rule, if this is indeed a rule? Time will tell.
tldr you just got trolled
