6 ms·

The say democracy is one of the most inefficient forms of government in existence. Way more inefficient, for example, than a benevolent dictator. However, democ

by ythl 10y ago

The say democracy is one of the most inefficient forms of government in existence. Way more inefficient, for example, than a benevolent dictator. However, democracy is the only type of government that is effective at mitigating tyranny. Here's to hoping Thailand can prevent such a fate for itself in the future.

danharaj 10y ago
> However, democracy is the only type of government that is effective at mitigating tyranny. Is that actually true? We have so few examples to work with, and one of them includes the Weimar Republic.
- Retric 10y ago
  Stability is another issue, the path from democracy > tyranny can be really fast. Russia, Iran, France, Germany, Thailand, Eygpt, etc.
  - jpatokal 10y ago
    Which of these were genuine democracies before sliding into tyranny? I don't think Egypt, Russia or Iran have ever been actual democracies, and Thailand's been flip-flopping between military rule, monarchy and limited democracy for the past century.
    - danharaj 10y ago
      Even the United States has many features you would expect from an ingenuine democracy. What makes a democracy a true democracy? Even if you have "free and fair elections" structural issues can systematically marginalize certain people and erase their voice.
    - Retric 10y ago
      You can look at any country and claim they where not a democracy even the US (lacks direct voting, only 2 party's, gerrymandering is endemic, etc). Egypt held several elections from 1924 - 1950 with multiple party's participating. Iran was a democracy in 1953 prior to the CIA coup. Russa had real elections after the USSR's fall. Now, if you say they need to hold elections X, times and hand over power several times before it's a real democracy that's IMO fair. But, you can still find plenty of examples including ancient Rome.
- adiabatty 10y ago
  A single counterexample doesn't falsify a generalization.
  - tetromino_ 10y ago
    A single counterexample? Pick almost any country in Europe or Asia that had democratic periods in its history, and you'll see a time when it quickly slid into authoritarianism or outright dictatorship. England under Cromwell's Protectorate, France under the Napoleons, Italy, Austria, Spain, and Portugal under their respective fascist regimes, Poland under Pilsudski, Lithuania under Smetona, Japan under Konoe's and Tojo's shintaisei, Korea under Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan...
- gumby 10y ago
  And more usefully the first, second and third French republics. Not to mention the US's second constitution prior to its 13th amendment, or for that matter the CSA. Then there are cosmetic democracies like China, most of the 'stans, Zimbabwe....the list is long. in fact I suspect countries with a cosmetic veneer exceed true democracies, which if nothing else points to the moral strength democracies seem to have. To paraphrase Groucho Marx: "Democracy is crucial if people are going to support the government. If you can fake that you've got it made." (Despite all that I remain a big fan of democracy.)
  - flukus 10y ago
    I'd say most if not all of those "true democracies" only have a veneer of democracy to some degree as well.
- mikeash 10y ago
  I think the true advantage of democracy is that it allows for an orderly transition of power, and provides people with non-violent ways to address their grievances with those in power. In a few months here in the US, we're going to have a new leader, and virtually nobody is stockpiling guns and food in preparation for the event. From a historical perspective, this is remarkable. (I think I saw this in that big neo-reactionary FAQ/refutation that's on the web somewhere. Not mine, anyway!)
  - stephenr 10y ago
    The people who want them already have stockpiles of guns
majewsky 10y ago
Democracies are ineffective since multiple people are involved in every decision. So you can safely argue that the whole point of a democracy is to be ineffective. In fact, when I try to imagine "effective governments", it always results in a dystopia.
nextweek2 10y ago
Actually the saying is: Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. It's a way of saying democracy isn't perfect but at least it has the potential to evolve.

by ythl 10y ago

danharaj 10y ago

> However, democracy is the only type of government that is effective at mitigating tyranny. Is that actually true? We have so few examples to work with, and one of them includes the Weimar Republic.

Retric 10y ago
Stability is another issue, the path from democracy > tyranny can be really fast. Russia, Iran, France, Germany, Thailand, Eygpt, etc.
- jpatokal 10y ago
  Which of these were genuine democracies before sliding into tyranny? I don't think Egypt, Russia or Iran have ever been actual democracies, and Thailand's been flip-flopping between military rule, monarchy and limited democracy for the past century.
  - danharaj 10y ago
    Even the United States has many features you would expect from an ingenuine democracy. What makes a democracy a true democracy? Even if you have "free and fair elections" structural issues can systematically marginalize certain people and erase their voice.
  - Retric 10y ago
    You can look at any country and claim they where not a democracy even the US (lacks direct voting, only 2 party's, gerrymandering is endemic, etc). Egypt held several elections from 1924 - 1950 with multiple party's participating. Iran was a democracy in 1953 prior to the CIA coup. Russa had real elections after the USSR's fall. Now, if you say they need to hold elections X, times and hand over power several times before it's a real democracy that's IMO fair. But, you can still find plenty of examples including ancient Rome.
adiabatty 10y ago
A single counterexample doesn't falsify a generalization.
- tetromino_ 10y ago
  A single counterexample? Pick almost any country in Europe or Asia that had democratic periods in its history, and you'll see a time when it quickly slid into authoritarianism or outright dictatorship. England under Cromwell's Protectorate, France under the Napoleons, Italy, Austria, Spain, and Portugal under their respective fascist regimes, Poland under Pilsudski, Lithuania under Smetona, Japan under Konoe's and Tojo's shintaisei, Korea under Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan...
gumby 10y ago
And more usefully the first, second and third French republics. Not to mention the US's second constitution prior to its 13th amendment, or for that matter the CSA. Then there are cosmetic democracies like China, most of the 'stans, Zimbabwe....the list is long. in fact I suspect countries with a cosmetic veneer exceed true democracies, which if nothing else points to the moral strength democracies seem to have. To paraphrase Groucho Marx: "Democracy is crucial if people are going to support the government. If you can fake that you've got it made." (Despite all that I remain a big fan of democracy.)
- flukus 10y ago
  I'd say most if not all of those "true democracies" only have a veneer of democracy to some degree as well.
mikeash 10y ago
I think the true advantage of democracy is that it allows for an orderly transition of power, and provides people with non-violent ways to address their grievances with those in power. In a few months here in the US, we're going to have a new leader, and virtually nobody is stockpiling guns and food in preparation for the event. From a historical perspective, this is remarkable. (I think I saw this in that big neo-reactionary FAQ/refutation that's on the web somewhere. Not mine, anyway!)
- stephenr 10y ago
  The people who want them already have stockpiles of guns

majewsky 10y ago

Democracies are ineffective since multiple people are involved in every decision. So you can safely argue that the whole point of a democracy is to be ineffective. In fact, when I try to imagine "effective governments", it always results in a dystopia.

nextweek2 10y ago

Actually the saying is: Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. It's a way of saying democracy isn't perfect but at least it has the potential to evolve.