Developing leadership and thinking skills
Whats wrong with democracy
In these times of age where parts of the western world is in war in Irak and Afghanistan fighting diktatorships and so-called terrorists (or freedom fighters), the western world is essentially fighting for the believe that democracy is a better way of living than diktatorship - or?
I would like to have some multi colored hat thinking concerning strenghts and weakness of democracy versus diktatorship.
This is a chance to get this forum started so I will just chip in some first impressions on thise subject. Feel free to join the discussion. Remember we should not be personal and criticize each other, we should add new ideas and ways of thinking. We are here for the joy of the debate, and to becomes wiser. We are NOT here to win an argument. The persons who contributes with value to the discussion wins general respect from the others.
Democracy:
1) The ruling power is on loan, meaning the prime minister and the government is subject to a vote to remain in power (typically a 4 year term)
2) Since government power is on loan, a democracy leader needs to distribute wealth more equally in the society to maintain power. Otherwise a majority will vote against the government. In general you might say that in a democracy the leader has to assert a minimum degree of balance in the society to not get the majority against the government. Democracies has shown historically to create more equalness and income distribution than diktatorships (but this depends of course of the diktator)
Even with a "good" diktator you cannot be sure who will follow when the diktator "steps down" from leadership. In a democracy the voters will have the "power" to decide who is in office.
3) Democracy is a slow form of making change to society since everything has to be negotiated and is subject to a higher form of consensus. In a diktatorship you can legislate fast and start implementing fast. However, in a diktatorship you risk having the majority against you, meaning that what you implement might not work in real life because of the peoples reluctance to participate.
4) You can say, that having the perfect diktator who believes in the values of the common good, and who listens and learns from opposition,will be a more effecient way of ruling and create a better society than any democracy. This is because it comebines the values of democracies with fast legislation and implementation. But again, we still don't know who will follow "in office".
5) Do we have facts: Yes indeed, unless dikatorships are having the benefit of natural ressources, then all democracies are both wealthier than diktatorships, and income distributions are more equal. Democracies in general has less poor people than in diktatorships, better social sectors, health sectors etc. These facts can also attribute to religion, climate zone, natural ressources etc. But the general point can be made - or is it so that democracies springs from different cultural backgrounds, so that demcoracies are formed from former religions and thus is regionally spread out in clusters.
I would like to have some multi colored hat thinking concerning strenghts and weakness of democracy versus diktatorship.
This is a chance to get this forum started so I will just chip in some first impressions on thise subject. Feel free to join the discussion. Remember we should not be personal and criticize each other, we should add new ideas and ways of thinking. We are here for the joy of the debate, and to becomes wiser. We are NOT here to win an argument. The persons who contributes with value to the discussion wins general respect from the others.
Democracy:
1) The ruling power is on loan, meaning the prime minister and the government is subject to a vote to remain in power (typically a 4 year term)
2) Since government power is on loan, a democracy leader needs to distribute wealth more equally in the society to maintain power. Otherwise a majority will vote against the government. In general you might say that in a democracy the leader has to assert a minimum degree of balance in the society to not get the majority against the government. Democracies has shown historically to create more equalness and income distribution than diktatorships (but this depends of course of the diktator)
Even with a "good" diktator you cannot be sure who will follow when the diktator "steps down" from leadership. In a democracy the voters will have the "power" to decide who is in office.
3) Democracy is a slow form of making change to society since everything has to be negotiated and is subject to a higher form of consensus. In a diktatorship you can legislate fast and start implementing fast. However, in a diktatorship you risk having the majority against you, meaning that what you implement might not work in real life because of the peoples reluctance to participate.
4) You can say, that having the perfect diktator who believes in the values of the common good, and who listens and learns from opposition,will be a more effecient way of ruling and create a better society than any democracy. This is because it comebines the values of democracies with fast legislation and implementation. But again, we still don't know who will follow "in office".
5) Do we have facts: Yes indeed, unless dikatorships are having the benefit of natural ressources, then all democracies are both wealthier than diktatorships, and income distributions are more equal. Democracies in general has less poor people than in diktatorships, better social sectors, health sectors etc. These facts can also attribute to religion, climate zone, natural ressources etc. But the general point can be made - or is it so that democracies springs from different cultural backgrounds, so that demcoracies are formed from former religions and thus is regionally spread out in clusters.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jan Jensen on -
Great to see some activity here, I will gladly join in when I'm back on September 22nd.
Jan
About
Badge
© 2009 Created by Janette Toral on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
