Ask a Reactionary

[trader/warrior]

A system of government "functioning" really involves it having to work on a large scale though. Ultimately on a global scale for more utopian visions.

If you had thousands of independently functioning democracies that have numbers of people that amount to small villages (where a single voice has real influence as Tover is after), in a modern world there would be so many influences, entities and organizations working on a much larger scale that these democracies wouldn't hold much governing power at all. We'd inevitably end up with something larger anyway IMO. And with the only public institutions that can be influenced by the common man being tiny powerless things, that larger "something" probably wouldn't be very nice.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think 'good' in politics always has to be defined in relation to other things - too often you end up with people essentially arguing that whatever isn't perfect is worthless, even to the point of not being worth improving.

 

[Borachio]

And with the only public institutions that can be influenced by the common man being tiny powerless things, that larger "something" probably wouldn't be very nice.

Which is essentially what we have now. At least, that's what Mr Guard seems to me to be saying. And I think he has a point. The influence that the electorate has on legislative bodies is minimal, and amounts, at most, to a 5 year mandate. (Which I think is better than nothing, but still...)

I disagree with him that an absolute monarchy would be better. But I don't know what the solution to the "non-functioning" of our democracies is, either.

I think democracies work much better when the electorate are "electrically" involved in the issues at hand, like we saw with the Scottish referendum to some extent, and like, apparently, the Danish experience. That is, when people think that what they're voting about really matters and that their votes count.