Firstly, let me apologize if this post seems confusing and poorly written. This is not an essay, it's more like me talking to myself, hence the somewhat "flow of consciousness" feel to it. This is me trying to remind myself why Democracy (as practiced in Western countries) is still the best form of government we have, even after disastrous and depressing results like we had back in October, when my first gut reaction is "bring the Emperor back! Death to the Republic!". Anyway, this was the prologue.
The case against Democracy
A lot of the traditional arguments for democracy rest on a bunch of assumptions that are nothing but illogical "sacred cows". Like the "1 person 1 vote" principle. The argument that the people who contribute the most to society should have more say is at the very least as good as the argument that everyone should have an equal say. The argument that only people who make a net contribution should have political say is likewise just as good. Another sacred cow is the notion that a candidate who got 51% of the votes is somehow a more legitimate representative of the "will of the people" (which doesn't even exist) than the candidate who got 49%. Fact is such differences are so small they're irrelevant, a different result might be achieved if elections are held one day after or before the actual date. And of course there's no reason to believe one is more representative of the majority (which is nothing but a collection of individuals with conflicting views and interests, not a solid block with a common will).
My case for Democracy
Despite what was said above, Democracy as we have it, with "1 person 1 vote" and "majority rule" is still the best system. Not because everyone is entitled to the same say - that is illogical and silly - nor because there is such thing as "will of the people" represented by a candidate who got 50%+1 of the votes. But because this system has shown to be the most conductive to personal liberties, alternance of power and limited Executive powers. A limited Democracy in which only certain groups get to vote is a quick way to get cliques and self-serving interest groups that get in the way of the emergence of new elites. Alternance of power would be much smaller, and thus the government would grow comfortable and (even more) corrupt. Likewise, while there is no real additional legitimacy to candidate that got 50%+1 of the votes compared to one who got one less, such system makes for predictability and apparent legitimacy, which is important for stability. And precisely the fact that there is no such thing as "will of the people" make such majoritarian system appealing. The government will almost inevitably be composed to coalitions of conflicting interests, keeping Executive power permanently in check. So, in a crazy but actually pretty straightforward way, majority rule is the best protection for minority interests. Provided such rule needs to be renewed every few years.
That's it. Please forgive me if it sounds incoherent or ranting. It was an argument with myself that I felt like writing down.
The case against Democracy
A lot of the traditional arguments for democracy rest on a bunch of assumptions that are nothing but illogical "sacred cows". Like the "1 person 1 vote" principle. The argument that the people who contribute the most to society should have more say is at the very least as good as the argument that everyone should have an equal say. The argument that only people who make a net contribution should have political say is likewise just as good. Another sacred cow is the notion that a candidate who got 51% of the votes is somehow a more legitimate representative of the "will of the people" (which doesn't even exist) than the candidate who got 49%. Fact is such differences are so small they're irrelevant, a different result might be achieved if elections are held one day after or before the actual date. And of course there's no reason to believe one is more representative of the majority (which is nothing but a collection of individuals with conflicting views and interests, not a solid block with a common will).
My case for Democracy
Despite what was said above, Democracy as we have it, with "1 person 1 vote" and "majority rule" is still the best system. Not because everyone is entitled to the same say - that is illogical and silly - nor because there is such thing as "will of the people" represented by a candidate who got 50%+1 of the votes. But because this system has shown to be the most conductive to personal liberties, alternance of power and limited Executive powers. A limited Democracy in which only certain groups get to vote is a quick way to get cliques and self-serving interest groups that get in the way of the emergence of new elites. Alternance of power would be much smaller, and thus the government would grow comfortable and (even more) corrupt. Likewise, while there is no real additional legitimacy to candidate that got 50%+1 of the votes compared to one who got one less, such system makes for predictability and apparent legitimacy, which is important for stability. And precisely the fact that there is no such thing as "will of the people" make such majoritarian system appealing. The government will almost inevitably be composed to coalitions of conflicting interests, keeping Executive power permanently in check. So, in a crazy but actually pretty straightforward way, majority rule is the best protection for minority interests. Provided such rule needs to be renewed every few years.
That's it. Please forgive me if it sounds incoherent or ranting. It was an argument with myself that I felt like writing down.
