Enlightened Despotism vs. Direct Democracy

[Tani Coyote]

Question: Which governing system do you feel is better, if you must pick one? Enlightened Despotism, or Direct Democracy?

Pros and Cons(from my perspective, anyway. I may have left things out on accident):




Direct Democracy

Direct Democracy is commonly thought to be the best form of government due to the fact that it represents the people's will quite well. With almost no middlemen or bureaucrats, decisions remain transparent and fully under the power of the people. Keep in mind this definition does not necessarily mean LIBERAL democracy.

Pros - Empowers the commoners the best, by giving everyone a vote. Bureaucracy can be minimal(this had both pros and cons too) as most issues are handled by the common voters. The lack of a true government can make this many a libertarian's dream. The government, being elected by popular vote, is also less prone to fall into oppression.

Cons - Dictatorship by the majority is possible; without some sort of bureaucracy to enforce and put laws in place, what's popular becomes what's right. Minorities will easily be oppressed for much longer than they might have been under a representative system. People easily get caught up in populist fury, and can elect demagogues like the Funny Moustache Man. Liberal democracy may or may not exist under this system, due to the first point mentioned. The electorate, if not properly educated, will also be very ignorant and prone to stupid decisions. This system is also quite time-consuming and impractical in larger settings, though this can be mitigated somewhat through new technologies.

Quotes in reference to it(primarily critics):

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson

"I reject any form of government that gives an idiot's opinion the same weight as Aristotle's." - Author Unknown




Enlightened Despotism

Enlightened Despotism is another way of saying what we would call benevolent dictatorship. The "Despot" here usually refers to an absolute/hereditary Monarch in the past who had embraced the principles of the Enlightenment. In other words, it combines the authority and power of dictatorship with many freedoms that could be found in a liberal democracy, ideally anyway. Please use it in the context of benevolent dictatorship, which can act outside the trappings of a monarchy.

Pros - The Despot generally acts in the interests of their people. Decisions are usually quick and efficient, without a legislature or judiciary to hold up decision-making; there is also a lack of elections. Rights and freedoms, under the ideal model, will be granted. Leader may be intelligent and bred for the role in a hereditary ED.

Cons - The system is prone to unpopular decisions due to the fact the people's will often is different from what's good for them. Wars and taxes can be far more easily blundered into, in addition to overall expansion of government power. Unless the ED liberalises near the end of a regime or chooses a successor based on merit, a new dictator - without the enlightened and benevolent principles - can take power and quickly turn a despotic paradise into an Orwellian Hellhole. In a version based on might makes right, the Despot may or may not be competent. Under hereditary enlightened despotism, the leader may have been bred for the role, but they may also be incompetent or sinister. There is almost no constitution in an enlightened despotism, letting the Despot have free rein over everything should the people not try to overthrow the despot.

Quotes:

"Everything for the people, nothing by the people." - Joseph II of Austria

---



My personal choice is hard to reach. While a democracy keeps the people genuinely happy and cuts down on government bureaucracy, it may not be the wisest or most efficient model due to voting and intelligence issues. Enlightened Despotism is quick and efficient with decisions, while it also grants great benefits to it's people, but it has the downside that a less-than-savory individual can succeed after the Despot's death. ED also runs the risk of an incompetent ruler, not to mention how the ruler's decisions are unchecked and they may do whatever they want regardless of their opinion; the enlightened part could easily vanish.

Overall, however, I side with an Enlightened Despotate. Half the people don't vote anyway, it's much faster when reacting, it destroys the mob's power, and provided the Despot always chooses a like-minded successor, it secures basic rights and liberties.

Anywho, discuss!

 

[aronnax]

In a perfect world, where the leader is an intelligent, forward-moving, freedom loving man, the Enlightened Despot is by far the most efficient form of government.

However, a direct diplomacy can recover from a bad leadership faster than an Enlightened Despot.

The Enlightened Despot will be better...If it was me that was in charge.

 

[Camikaze]

If I had to choose one, I would have to choose a perfectly benevolent despotism. But that goal is almost unattainable; there will always be abuses of it, which would thereby make it not a perfectly benevolent dictatorship. And, assuming that I had the power to choose that option, I would also have the power to un-choose it, if it ever got really bad. So, there wouldn't be too much risk involved with the choice.

 

[aronnax]

Why cant it ever be a balance of both? Have a direct diplomacy system and a strong monarch/leader. Then just put in some rules to balance their power. Like, I dont know, make it so that the people can have a direct vote on things, but that the leader can veto it, but the people can veto the veto if they attain a certain number of votes. Something...

 

[Camikaze]

What would be the point of the veto after the first vote? You know how many people are either for or against something, so a leader vetoing it, leading to another election with similar results, presumably leading to another veto, leading to another vote, etc., would be a very tiresome process.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Why cant it ever be a balance of both? Have a direct diplomacy system and a strong monarch/leader. Then just put in some rules to balance their power. Like, I dont know, make it so that the people can have a direct vote on things, but that the leader can veto it, but the people can veto the veto if they attain a certain number of votes. Something...

George Washington could have had a system like this had he chosen(the people wanted to make him King for goodness sake!), but he chose not to. I imagine he saw that it was impossible for dictatorship and freedom/democracy to live side by side forever, and such a system would be inherently unstable. A powerful President in this role would do all he could to try and increase his power, as has been done with the historically-weak office of the President of the USA. As well, the examples of the Constitution being trampled on are quite numerous, all the way back to Jefferson's moral crisis with buying Louisiana.

I propose another solution: a meritocratic representative democracy. Abolish things such as voting age, and replace it with an examination that determines your knowledge on the workings of politics(what terms mean and such, maybe some economics/history, etc.) If you pass it, you can vote. If not, you cannot. This voting license keeps people who aren't in-the-know about politics out of it, while it also deters people who don't intend to be lifelong voters from entering. The electorate would greatly shrink, and politicians would probably be more reliable/responsible as they have a smaller group to cater to. Those who don't pass have interests, however, and should be able to send non-voting delegates to Congress. The qualifications for being an active politician wouldn't be this test, but that can be discussed elsewhere.

On the position of the Presidency, it's fun trying to find the exact powers. Congress is the strongest branch of government, but it lacks any true leadership in most cases, and as such a single, powerful executive is needed to counter, to execute laws and decisions. The Modern American president is already pretty powerful, so he doesn't really need any help. What needs reform, I feel, is the makeup of Congress. Empower third parties, get rid of districting and winner-take-all elections, etc. The more divisive a legislature is, the more it will need leadership, and if the President - who's requirements should be tighter to guarantee more competence and integrity - can fill this role, we can have a de facto Enlightened Dictatorship, but the "dictatorship" will dissipate if the "dictator" bites off more than they can chew.

Edit:

@ Camikaze:

Bingo. Great point. It's a neat separation of powers. It helps the Executive branch keep any radical simple majority plans in Congress at bay, while the veto can be overturned if enough votes - representing the will of the common people - manage to defeat it. This way, no radical, spur of the moment decisions are made, while the President can't exactly obstruct progress either.

I don't know off the top of my head if the veto's automatically overriden if the first vote had enough support to overturn a veto in the first place, but if not so, there should be. (i.e. if it takes 3/4 of the legislature to overturn, a veto, and 4/5 of the legislature voted to pass something, obviously, the Executive shouldn't be able to veto it at all, as they would lose anyway)

 

[Racsoviale]

In theory we have a democratic dictatorship here in scandinavia (constitutional monarchy), where the despot(monarch) has limited power over the government. I'm not too knowlegable in norwegian and swedish constitutions, but here in denmark the monarch has the power to abolish the government(and infact shares the legislative power with the government) but in reality it is pretty safe to say that if the monarch ever does such a thing it will get ousted from power very shortly thereafter. On an interesting sidenote I just thought about the Iranian arrangement of power, which is quite close to an enlightened democratic despotate, ie you have a vote for seat of power alongside a constant despotic ruler(this is mostly from a theoretical standpoint)

 

[cardgame]

I'd take benevolent dictatorship any day of the week, if it was truly benevolent that is.

Direct Democracy is subject to too many things, such as misled public opinion & propaganda (That means you, FOX)
I also agree with Thomas Jefferson's quote

@ racsoviale: Iran is not the most benevolent (or enlightened) place in the world, is it?

 

[Winner]

"I reject any form of government that gives an idiot's opinion the same weight as Aristotle's."

This!


I believe that representative democracy is the best we can have right now, but if (somehow) it could be ensured than an enlighted despot remains sane and true to his title for the whole reign and that he chooses and equally capable man to succeed him, I'd take Enlightened Despotism over direct democracy any day.

 

[Grisu]

It's kinda funny that most people here seem refer to the ideal version of an enightlened despotism while the use the worst case version of a direct democracy.

in the real world, direct democracy (while not being perfect by far) works much better and more stable than an enligthened desptism, IMHO. And in a perfect world, where a enlightened despotism would be possible, direct democracy would lose most of its downsides as well (such as mob rule, electing demagogues, etc.)

 

[Winner]

I propose another solution: a meritocratic representative democracy. Abolish things such as voting age, and replace it with an examination that determines your knowledge on the workings of politics(what terms mean and such, maybe some economics/history, etc.) If you pass it, you can vote. If not, you cannot. This voting license keeps people who aren't in-the-know about politics out of it, while it also deters people who don't intend to be lifelong voters from entering. The electorate would greatly shrink, and politicians would probably be more reliable/responsible as they have a smaller group to cater to.

I proposed the EXACTLY same thing on this forum few years ago, only to get accused of being an authoritarian, an elitist and other, far worse things. Tread lightly or the mob will trample you.

 

[Winner]

It's kinda funny that most people here seem refer to the ideal version of an enightlened despotism while the use the worst case version of a direct democracy.

in the real world, direct democracy (while not being perfect by far) works much better and more stable than an enligthened desptism, IMHO. And in a perfect world, where a enlightened despotism would be possible, direct democracy would lose most of its downsides as well (such as mob rule, electing demagogues, etc.)

Hint: Switzerlands form of democracy is not the kind of direct democracy which is presented in the OP.

Your form of gov. is a very specific brand of representative democracy which relies heavily on referendum.

 

[Kozmos]

I'm telling you if we ever build an AI and merge it with a human (so it understands the social factor) I'm applying for citizenship in whatever state the AI/human overthrows. Benevolent technocratic dictatorship ftw.

 

[Munch]

Interesting thread, can we get a poll? Just with the two options in the OP.

As was commented by KaeptnOvi, people seem to be comparing the pros of a Benevolent Despotate with the cons of a Direct Democratic system. For instance just looking at the music charts makes me think that direct democracy could be just as dangerous as a flawed dictatorship! It is a tough choice between the two though, using the OP definitions of the two systems. As it stands I would lean towards the despotism, even though I'm not sure quite how the despot would be 'chosen' initially. Perhaps it could be done democratically , perhaps too with the public able to veto any of the despot's measures with a certain percentage support, but maybe that suggestion isn't in the spirit of the discussion.

In either case it is a dictatorship, the question being in who do you trust more?

 

[bhsup]

Enlightened despotism is still despotism, so no thank you. I'll go with the train wreck of direct democracy. After if fails, some form of a representative republic can rise from its ashes.

 

[Winner]

Enlightened despotism is still despotism, so no thank you. I'll go with the train wreck of direct democracy. After if fails, some form of a representative republic can rise from its ashes.

Or a particularly nasty form of unenlightened despotism

 

[Camikaze]

Enlightened despotism is, by definition, good. It is impossible to have a bad form of enlightened despotism, for if it was so, it would no longer be an enlightened despotism. So there is not really any harm in choosing that option if it is truly available and guaranteed to remain enlightened, or benevolent.

 

[bhsup]

I reject that utterly BS definition. "Enlightened" despotism still allows no freedom for the people, so it's not good.

 

[Camikaze]

I reject that utterly BS definition. "Enlightened" despotism still allows no freedom for the people, so it's not good.

Well, if you go with the narrow definition of 'despot', sure, but if you broaden that to include anyone who takes absolute power, then not necessarily, and certainly not when the qualifier 'enlightened' is added. Someone who is enlightened would realise that people having freedoms is a good thing. Therefore, if they had absolute power, they would make that come about, through their power (albeit excluding the whole voting thing). Unless, of course, you disagree that it is enlightened to think that people having freedom is good. It's kind of a less=more situation.

 

[Bast]

If I were a ruler I would go with Enlightened Despotism.

If I were a mere citizen, I would actually not prefer either of them.

So Enlightened Despotism wins.