I actually think representative democracy is even better than any system of direct democracy.
Simply because political issues these days are co complex that often only experts can view them properly.
While Switzerland works rather well, California has practiced a form of dorect democracy in the last 10-15 years which has now practically ruined the state. Simply because people again and again vote for new expenditures but also constant tax cuts.
The sums do not add up. And do you think the voters take the blame? Nope, they blame the politicians!
With freedom comes not only rights but also obligations. Like the rule that the sums must add up at the end of the day, even if that means giving people bad news.
This is why representative democracy is better. And explains why Scandinavians left a system of directr democracy and changed to a system of representative democracy.
Even when it comes to democracy, we must be pragmatic. Democracy only works as an organic system, not as a superimposed principle. Afghanistan is not even a country, just a historically unfortunate combo of cultures that are extremely uncomfortable with each other. In a free and fair election in such a country, the first thing people would vote for is for the country itself to split!
Democracy and naivety do not match.
2009/12/13 Special Kain
I know that it's a fairly pretty picture, but it's quite exhausting. There's way too much anti-intellectualism amongst Swiss people. University students are constantly being dissed and discriminated against: to the vast majority of people university students are theorists only that have spent too much time in their ivory towers, being completely detached from «the real world».
I've recently graduated, but I still get same rejection. University equals bullshit, that's how people see me. Anti-intellectualism as a problem in democratic societies is as long as the notion of democracy itself, see Plato. All opinions and whims are treated as equal, as if the political equality of all people would justify such nonsense. But there's anti-intellectualism anywhere, simply because both dictatorships and democracies live in fear of a bright mind's smart conclusions.
It's really tiring. I wonder if it's resentment. Anyone who's different and has a strong desire to stand out is discriminated against. That's why there's no praise of plurality in Switzerland. And what are democracies without pluralism - or with pluralism «on the paper», but not in their thick heads? It's nothing. But Switzerland is famous for its xenophobia and dismissal of individualism. You can't help but becoming a cultural radical when living in Zurich. ;-)
Betreff: [Ushta] Re: Zoroastrianism in Tajikistan - Regarding Democracy
Datum: Sonntag, 13. Dezember 2009, 15:42
I find Swiss democracy amongst the best BECAUSE it is so close to a direct democracy.
--- In Ushta@yahoogroups. com, Special Kain
> Dear Rory
> Switzerland is not the Â«most democraticÂ» country in the world, it's simply Â«closestÂ» to a direct democracy. There are different forms: liberal or constitutional or representative democracies ... and so forth.
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Democracy
> I've recently become interested in so-called liquid democracy, thanks to my studies in political communications and the rise of Pirate Parties in several European countries.
> Democracies are formal decision-making processes only. If people aren't well-educated and only exposed to populistic gibberish, they probably won't be able to make the wisest choice possible. Long-term thinking on the basis of solid information management isn't very popular in modern democracies, simply because anti-intellectualis m is one of the biggest threats to democratic societies.
> Ushta, Dino