3 ms·

Mad rulers are also quite normal for much of human history, the theory was that Democracy would relieve us of that particular problem. https://www.youtube.com/

Mad rulers are also quite normal for much of human history, the theory was that Democracy would relieve us of that particular problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqsBx58GxYY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqsBx58GxYY This is one of the most insightful videos I've ever seen on society and governments. It describes Anacyclosis, where political systems evolve in a recurring sequence driven by corruption and decay. Democracy will eventually decay. It's not permanent. You can see it now live where democracies elect more and more radical leaders.

hostyle 1y ago
> Democracy will eventually decay. It's not permanent. Can a (more or less) two party system where the population hovers around 50/50 support for each side truly be called a democracy?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Can a (more or less) two party system where the population hovers around 50/50 support for each side truly be called a democracy? Unless democracy has never existed, and thus has evidence for being unable to exist, sort of like communism, yes. It’s flawed. But it’s more than in line with historic systems. (Not all of which failed due to populism.)
the_other 1y ago
"Democracy" will exist (as an idea) for a long time. What's currently happening in a lot of countries is that entrenched powers are actively disrupting the use of democracy in those countries, and some subsets of the populations of those countries are also losing trust in it as a useful system. Even this "decay" isn't inherently "bad" (assuming you are pro-democracy). There are numerous other decision mechanisms, and many of them are inclusive and transparent. Some of them might work for various levels of civil organisation, should The People want to give them a try. If a country replaced its democratic voting system with one of these others, you could still call that a "decay of democracy", but it might actually be good for the country. (For the record, I don't think authoritarianism and its associated decision systems are good for large, general purpose bodies like countries.)

hostyle 1y ago

> Democracy will eventually decay. It's not permanent. Can a (more or less) two party system where the population hovers around 50/50 support for each side truly be called a democracy?

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Can a (more or less) two party system where the population hovers around 50/50 support for each side truly be called a democracy? Unless democracy has never existed, and thus has evidence for being unable to exist, sort of like communism, yes. It’s flawed. But it’s more than in line with historic systems. (Not all of which failed due to populism.)

the_other 1y ago

"Democracy" will exist (as an idea) for a long time. What's currently happening in a lot of countries is that entrenched powers are actively disrupting the use of democracy in those countries, and some subsets of the populations of those countries are also losing trust in it as a useful system. Even this "decay" isn't inherently "bad" (assuming you are pro-democracy). There are numerous other decision mechanisms, and many of them are inclusive and transparent. Some of them might work for various levels of civil organisation, should The People want to give them a try. If a country replaced its democratic voting system with one of these others, you could still call that a "decay of democracy", but it might actually be good for the country. (For the record, I don't think authoritarianism and its associated decision systems are good for large, general purpose bodies like countries.)