• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Democracy debunked?

mike3

Master Poster
M
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
2,466
Hi.

I saw this:

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/...ugh-for-democracy-to-flourish?sdsrc=popbyweek

"The inability of the incompetent to recognize their own limitations is a story that has been covered before on Slashdot. But, what happens when you apply that finding to politics? From the article: 'The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies. The research shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. If people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments...democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders."'"
Click to expand...

(original article HERE: http://news.yahoo.com/people-arent-smart-enough-democracy-flourish-scientists-185601411.html, and the guys who did the study are none other than Dunning & Kruger of the famous Dunning-Kruger Effect and this is apparently even related to that in a way)

But what can be done? After all, it would be impossible to educate everyone to the level of expert on all the different fields required. Note that even, e.g. an expert of "tax politics" is not going to be an expert on every issue of politics. Like science, politics has many complex fields, and one simply cannot master it all in a lifetime and so must specialize to a single field or small group of fields. So it seems there is an insurmountable problem here.

Someone else quoted the following in a reply:

How about this one then:

"We are now in a period where there are mediocre men everywhere. People have opinions but no knowledge, and leaders are made in the image of the masses. Democracy is only tolerable because no other system is." --Dean Acheson
Click to expand...

So is that it, then? There simply cannot be any system better than democracy? And I'd also point out that the mentioned mediocrity is impossible to alter, for as mentioned, one cannot be expert in so many fields, thus must be mediocre in the vast majority of them. If there is really no better system, then how can democracy be made to work as best as possible -- how can the problem mentioned, if perhaps impossible to solve completely, at least be mitigated to the biggest extent possible? (Since obviously, training everyone to expertise in a ton of fields is an impossible job)
 
Last edited:
mike3 said:
So is that it, then? There simply cannot be any system better than democracy?
Click to expand...

The various other ones that have been tried have ended poorly.

And I'd also point out that the mentioned mediocrity is impossible to alter, for as mentioned, one cannot be expert in so many fields, thus must be mediocre in the vast majority of them. If there is really no better system, then how can democracy be made to work as best as possible -- how can the problem mentioned, if perhaps impossible to solve completely, at least be mitigated to the biggest extent possible? (Since obviously, training everyone to expertise in a ton of fields is an impossible job)
Click to expand...

Well the standard aproach is to have civil servants who are experts in their field.
 
geni said:
Well the standard aproach is to have civil servants who are experts in their field.
Click to expand...
Is that what they call somebodys' somebody over there?
 
Last edited:
'The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea.
Click to expand...

Really? I don't believe in that assumed assumption.
 
It seems to me that you have to think through your normative commitments before trying to pick a system of government best suited to achieve them. If you're looking for the most efficient and informed policymaking, democracy almost surely isn't the best choice; some kind of technocratic oligarchy would work a lot better. But to the extent that you're concerned with popular sovereignty and believe that moral legitimacy of government can be derived only from the consent of the governed, democracy (or some modified form of representative democracy-- let's not quibble about definitions of "democracy" vs. "republicanism") is the only way to do it. The fact that ultimate power therefore by definition rests in the hands of "mediocre men" under that sort of system is an inevitable consequence.
 
Last edited:
Clearly democracy is the worst system of governance ever devised, except for all the others.
-- Winston Churchill

McHrozni
 
I always thought that the primary purpose of democracy was to allow for bloodless regime change.

An benevolent dictator's country could easily surpass a democratic country given the same starting resources. The problem is that leaders die,and the people who replace them are not always benevolent.
 
lopeyschools said:
I always thought that the primary purpose of democracy was to allow for bloodless regime change.

An benevolent dictator's country could easily surpass a democratic country given the same starting resources. The problem is that leaders die,and the people who replace them are not always benevolent.
Click to expand...

Yup. In addition few dictators remain benevolent after an extended period in power. With no checks and balances, the results can be pretty dismal. See Zimbabwe for example.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
Yup. In addition few dictators remain benevolent after an extended period in power. With no checks and balances, the results can be pretty dismal. See Zimbabwe for example.

McHrozni
Click to expand...
I don't think Mugabe was ever "benevolent" by any stretch of the definition. But you are still right.
 
In practice it seems to me that 'benevolent dictator' is about as viable as 'separate but equal'.
 
cwalner said:
In practice it seems to me that 'benevolent dictator' is about as viable as 'separate but equal'.
Click to expand...
I would say Julius Nyerere was fairly benevolent dictator. He also failed at pretty much everything he attempted, and had the good grace to step down when his failures became impossible to ignore.
 
Mark6 said:
I would say Julius Nyerere was fairly benevolent dictator. He also failed at pretty much everything he attempted, and had the good grace to step down when his failures became impossible to ignore.
Click to expand...

The same could be said about Ashoka, except that I don't think he failed. But they are rare. Most non-democratic rulers are not like that. Though the degree of oppression varies. There is a difference between the Moroccan monarchy and the Kim dynasty.
 
Mark6 said:
I don't think Mugabe was ever "benevolent" by any stretch of the definition. But you are still right.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not the best example, I agree, but I think Mugabe was relatively close to a benevolent dictator between mid-1980s and mid-1990s or so. It doesn't matter, we agree on the main point anyway ;)

McHrozni
 
The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea.

No it doesn't. The democratic process actually relies on the assumption that people have the right to govern themselves.

Nowhere is it assumed that they'll be any good at it--only that they have the right to be responsible for their own decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom