I'm not talking about the benefits to the individual either...

In this day and age of beuracracy and all the obstacle courses in the legal system, the appeals and appealing the appeals and all the money that gets wasted because of this... one wishes there was a person who could just get something done in a cost effective way.

Democracy, a wonderful idea when it comes to individual freedom (from responsibility), allows businesses to thrive in an enviroment where they have control on how they do things - with some limitations. The problem with democracy is that every vote counts and is the same. Your local villiage idiot has the same sway as the village elder, people aren't elected because of their skills but because of their ability to impress the masses. To put it bluntly, get enough idiots voting and you'll get an idiot voted.

Now, the problem is we get stuck with these people till so many years are up and the next popular choice comes along or somebody's term runs out. Why do we allow people to be elected based on mundane things and allow good leaders to be replaced because of a piece of paper written so many years ago?

Most countries are so scared of corruption that they end up spending more money on anti-corruption methods than any corruption could possibly mount to and if the anti-corruption method doesn't cost alot of money it's often stupid and not in the best interests of a country.

In a society where judges have the power to say "No, you comitted this crime and you're NOT getting away on a technicality and in fact I'm going to punish you more harshly because you dare tried to walk out of here an innocent man." is a place I'll be happy to live in. Given technology there is nothing that can get past unnoticed or at least unrecorded.

There are many times when I wish we had leaders who weren't just figureheads with fancy titles but were actually people who had authority and had the power to enforce the decisions they make, otherwise what is the point of electing them? Better to have a country run by a person who can make logical decisions often based on common sense than be ruled by a book of law that is rigid and unchanging.

I agree - we need leaders that lead. But they don't get elected based on their skills, it is merely a popularity competition. I can't really give examples without soundly elitist, region-ist (?), and downright arrogant, so I won't. But suffice it to say, my vote doesn't count because for every one of me, there are ten people who vote on leaders because they lives near them or because they only know one side of the important issues.

But then again, you can't take away votes from uninformed people, because then it would turn into only rich people voting, which would bring us back to 17th century Europe.

What should happen is some neutral group makes up a list of topics and explainations of the issues that the leaders are debating, so when people vote, they know both sides and can make their own decision. But no, it is more important to pay for the runners' faces on big billboards saying "Vote for me."

The other problem is that politicians will make decisions based on keeping them in office and not decisions that will benefit the country in the long run.

It's more important to stay in office than make your country prosperous. Let's not forget that 6 months of political downtime spent before an election pretty much just focusing on looking better than 'the other guy' rather than actually leading the country.

I'm not really sure what it is that you're recommending. It sounds to me like you'd cheer on a benevolent dictatorship - am I reading you right...?

Pretty much, Aik. I believe specialisation is the key component when it comes to human progress. However I find it shameful that the most important job in any society: the role of leader, is not a specialist job, rather a job that any Tom, Dick or Harry(et) can hold based on something that has nothing to do on how well they would perform their job or task.

Democracy is great, but why can't there be a mixed type of government where only those who are certified to be a member of goverment can become members of government? The people in charge are in charge because they're good at their job and they have the freedom to make unpopular choices that benefit the country and not just the voting masses. I don't see why a welder or a baker should honestly have any say in matters of policing or finance (for example) but they would be the first people I'd approach if I wanted to know how to seal a hull breach or feed a large group of people using only water, milk, wheat and heat.

I guess this topic has been spawned by a whole political scene in New Zealand where the leader of the opposition party has been suspected of having an affair with somebody... and frankly I wonder why this is important at all? The guy could go home, dress up as a french maid and let Vin Diesel spank his bottom five shades of blue with a rubber chicken and you know what? It doesn't reflect his ability to lead the country in any way, so why should we care where he sticks his penis in his own time? Just another example of how popularity dares dictate how a country should be run rather than the person's ability to run a country.

Benevolent dictatorship is impossible, in my opinion. power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. You couldn't have that much power and NOT abuse it.

However, I do agree with what you're saying about specialisation. Democracy has turned into too much of a hoop-jumping popularity contest. I guess the whole affair matters to people because they feel a politician who has an affair lacks moral integrity.

Hmm, well, I strongly disagree with you on the solution to this problem. A benevolent dictatorship isn't feasible. Who appoints the dictator? How do you assure that they're benevolent? How do you get rid of them if they stop being benevolent? Is this dictator going to be beneficial for everyone or even the majority of people - or will they favour the elite/whoever?

(deleting rest of post - don't want to get into that because I know it'll just turn to slop :p )

Perhaps it would be better to vote parlament-parties with agendas for the coming term instead of indivituals. Would be easy to judge who succeeded and who didn't, and personal charisma would have little to do with voting.

The problem comes when you try to decide who are certified and "best" for leadership? How to do that? Isnt that what elections are supposed to do? This line of thought is very appealing in theory but the only possible result would be a dictatorship and lack of freedom.

I understand that the current system is all great in a huggy-kissy dance jovily under rainbows and love your brother kind of way, everyone gets a say and everyone counts but that is the fundamental flaw of democracy.

How to solve this problem? I have no idea honestly. Everyone seems to value the whole democratic idea as the government to end all governments and to suggest anything undemocratic is often met with much hostility and is shunned even before you can suggest an alternative. What is more is that the very notion of limiting personal freedoms is immediately reguarded as a 'slippery slope', that by limiting one personal freedom the government will never cease to limit personal freedoms.

The question I have to put before you people - all people I'd consider intelligent and considerate - is how do you create a system of government that is protected against internal corruption yet is elected based on its ability to run a country rather than on how many public relations hurdles it can jump?

I'm not sure I agree on all counts. The system does maintain checks and balances, but the checking is out of hand.

I believe that the party system is the real problem. They reign in the more extreme members while promoting the ones that are more popular and the best ass kissers as opposed to the ones best suited to lead.

In Canada, I don't think that Stephen Harper got elected because of the Conservative platform or his personal Charisma (had trouble thinking that one without laughing so loud I'd wake my parents). He got elected because enough people were sick of the Liberal Party and they didn't think that the NDP were good for the country (they need their voice heard, but I don't think they should have power).

I don't like the idea of one man with absolute power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. From corruption to abuse is a small step that you don't notice until it's too late.

I like the Democratic system, but the government needs to collectively grow some balls and define the nation they want. And if people there don't like it, they should vote for a candidate more to their liking or move.

Okay - without getting too specific - I think the solution to this problem is more democracy, not less. Direct democracy removes the problems your talking about as far as I can see - people are no longer voting for people but rather are voting on issues.

I'm a firm believer in meritocracy, given that there'd be several possible ways of proving oneself to be fit to rule among the best. Every succession of generations will choose those values again and again which they want to pass on, consciously or not.

The leaders should be chosen from the few who's skills and values meet the current needs of everyone, not just of those who have the money and the power to affect policies to their own benefit.

Ah, I'm being naive here. :doh: Puppets-on-a-string will do just as well, but it would be a nice thing if the powers that be who pull the strings would think further than fattening their bellies with more wealth and power. Figureheads don't need to be smart, they have a team of experts to make decisions for them, a word here, a little nudge there will go a long way and soon the leaders will think that they came up with those brilliant ideas.

So maybe more democracy could be a better thing. How much money would you need to buy every person in a nation?

Yes, my country has the same problem. The party which was elected in the last elections had 35% of the votes and I can say %30 of it was people who has low educational and low economical status. And I think the other 5% had some dirty benefits. I think there are 2 solutions to that:
1) Educate all the people very well, so they can see everything( the more reasonable one)
2) Shoot all the idiots from the head ( the more attractive one)

Well, the two aren't mutually exclusive...

:p

arghir

though you were from the US at first

arghir

though you were from the US at first Sorry but I have no idea about what you mean. Can you explain?