Why Is It Good To Be Unemocratic?

Arguments against democracy are evident now, more than ever throughout the recent political turmoil that has been seen globally from Brexit to the election of Donald Trump. With this in mind, it can be argued by political theorist and philosophers alike, that public policy should be controlled by skilled experts on the matter at a time when democracy seems to be failing us. This is relevant in Jason Brennan's article: “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” where he argues for an epistocracy that resembles a democracy through its checks and balances. The concept of an epistocracy has roots in Plato’s Republic where he argues in favor of the skilled and wise to govern over the common person is too “ignorant” to have a say–which

New leaders began emerging from the class who had been educated in colonial schools of in Western nations. Although they embraced Western ideas, they no longer felt the need for foreign rulers to be present in their countries. Since they had been educated with the same principals as the European nations, it was their belief that they were suited to run their home countries. Also, Western leaders had never truly exalted true democracy and now the new class of leaders were eager to introduce these ideals (Spielvogel and McTighe 236). In a political cartoon of two men pulling a foreign leader, it depicts the men struggling to pull the cart behind them. This is illustrating how the leaders from Europe already put in the hard work to develop their country into the democracy it has become. Now, the native people must put in the same amount of work in order to achieve the goal of a true republic. The hard work of the people leads to the rise of the new class (Document 2). The Western structure has been completely implemented into the lives of these people and they felt prepared to continue the traditions and practices the foreign leaders had conveyed. This led to the continuation of modernization which would help bring the developing nations to the structural level of the European

For example, if the people had no say in who was selected as candidates how could they be certain their opinions were given and received by the leaders. If you don’t know who your candidates and what their feelings on your problems and opinions are then you are not having your say in

As the most widely adopted form of democratic government there are many strengths associated with a parliamentary government. The parliamentary system is often praised for the fast and efficient way in which it is able to pass legislation. The reason this is possible is because unlike a presidential system the legislative and executive power in a parliamentary system are merged together. Due to this fusion of power legislation does not have to undergo a lengthy process and therefore laws can be formulated and put into place much quicker(Bates, 1986: 114-5). Another advantage of a parliamentary system is that the majority of the power is not held by one individual head of state but rather is more evenly divided among a single party or coalition. One of the main benefits of this is that as there is more of a division of power a parliamentary government is less prone to authoritarianism than a presidential system. Juan Linz argues that a presidential system is more dangerous due to the fact that; “Winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the presidential mandate”(Linz, 1990: 56), this sharp line between winners and losers increases tension between these two groups and allows the winner to isolate themselves from other political parties (Linz, 1990: 56). Due to this tension and isolation a presidential system is at a higher risk of turning into an authoritarian regime than a parliamentary system.

In America, our political system was just as greatly influenced by Caesar, which would create a place for democracy, where both classes of wealthy or poor, every citizen’s voices and opinions would be heard in our country. However the elites still resort to “gentlemen’s history” by arguing that whether the ignorant that believe that politics and history are only about power, the elitist still believed that living this way was the only way for them.

“... Has nobody observed that as soon as the government becomes the property of a separate class, it starts to grow out of all proportion and that posts are created not to meet the needs of the governed but of those who govern them?...” (Sieyès).

People do not much like being told what to do; however, people elect rulers to do just that and are angered when things do not go their way. People do not much like making hard decisions, but do not like to agree with people who make them instead. The ultimate debate when taking a position of power then becomes whether to let the people have a voice in making a government or to build one for them to follow. The best way to govern is to make a government for your public to follow, an authoritative government. Authoritative governments benefit people more by creating equality among for their populations, having a faster law making processes, and establishing a better instilment of discipline and moral consciousness.

Aristotle says that justice is thought of as equality among all, there is a disregard to merit (p.172). In a society, there is usually more poor people and because there is this demand of equality then the majority rule (p.174). Mob rule is then authoritative. All governments have their forms, which are good and are bad. Democracy to Aristotle is not the best regime because it is ruled by the poor or the ones that need from the government. Government is not chosen by those who pursue virtue, but instead pursue wealth. The democratic principle is that of freedom, wealth, and birth. Not virtue. He believes the best regime would not be exactly a democracy but a polity that would be a combination of freedom, wealth, birth and virtue. The best regime has ideal conditions in which it becomes a predictable regime and consists of values, choices, the inanimate, elements of the class of workers, and the education of rulers. Democracy has a big defect in that it does not have intelligence or wisdom. It is the rule of many. It is based on the idea of happiness by following pleasures (p.48). Democracy comes into play when the majority revolt against the oligarchy because of the ideas of freedom. The problem with it is that people are pursuing their pleasures, not thinking of the state as a whole. There is unity based on pleasure. Before long, everyone is pursuing their own pleasures and there is an undermining of authority

      There are two main types of political systems, one being a presidential system and the other being a parliamentary system. Both of them have their own benefits as well as their own disadvantages. No political system can be perfect or can always have stability, but shown in history there are successful countries that use either one. Also there are countries that have failed with one of the two systems.

The oligarchy government Has 5 different equality in voting Effective participation, Enlightened understanding, Citizen control of agenda, In conclusion(

Undemocratic figures are the infection, for the democratic system. It quickly, and desperately needs medicine.

In the modern world, most of the countries have democratic government, which means that decisions are made by the people, who rule and govern the state. However, there is not a single state that practices perfect democracy due to different reasons. Governments are too big, which makes it very complex for every citizen to have a voice in decisions. Or, governments are claimed to be democratic, but in practice they can be close to authoritarian or even totalitarian regimes where one person has a power to make and enforce laws. Political power is not allocated evenly among all members of society, so, in this or that way, governments tend to fall in the hands of the few, whom we can call the elite or the power elite.

For some, conformity is an unthinkable evil in American society. All individuals living within a community conform in some way to social norms, yet to label someone a conformist is akin to labeling them ignorant and unoriginal. However, conformity - and its associated impacts - are as integral to the functioning of society as the principles of nonconformity. Conformity is often positively utilised to induce positive social change nationally and internationally. It prompts dissemination of workload, provides protection (‘strength in numbers’), and encourages strict rule enforcement. Although less appreciated than non conformists, conformists and their resulting principles play a vital role in the smooth conduction of society.

Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they

After looking more closely at the PDI, which shows the extent at which the lower members of society with fewer powers, accept and expect that power