Ask HN: Is “democracy” the best thing we have to run a country? - vicpara
======
vicpara
Yeah, "the republic" and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship)
.

But still, it's all rotten. China is doing 50 year ahead planning where the
Western world has about 2 after general elections.

You rely on 2-3 middle men to represent your interests as they please.

In democracy you directly vote people not strategies, priorities or bills.

We haven't really seen much variety of democratic governments. It's a classic
recipe with the tinies twists. Some ideas: \- vote 5 people not 1 \- vote
plans, programs and bills instead of people \- vote priorties : education,
health, infrastructure ... subsidies ,military \- break down the 4/5 year vote
into smaller decisions and more often \- curate the list of candidates based
on results \- you get elected by vote but not achieving the promised plan/
results/growth/GDP/... effects takes you out

------
TheOperator
No country is truly run by a democracy. They're run by a combination of a
dictatorship, an oligarchy, and a democracy all fighting for power.

Dictatorial power has been flatly nessecary since the invention of nuclear
weapons because if the Americans launch nukes at you then you can't call a
meeting about it. You need a single executive decision makers.

Oligarchies are inevitable in democratic systems and are most visible in
"democratically elected" political parties massively controlled by a few
stakeholders promoting their own interests and trying to maintain their own
power. Quite simply making every decision a government makes through
decentralized direct democracy is impossible and some top down bureaucracy is
needed. Even something as small scale as hackee news has an oligarchy of
moderators.

What makes what we call "democracy" the best political system however is that
it uses a popular vote as a check on power for the other two elements and to
allow for peaceful stable transistions of power. The further one gets from
democracy the more the people are nothing but slaves to entrenched interests
who will inevitably abuse their power for their own benefit. Also democracy
can sometime benefit from the wisdom of the crowd which can occasionally be
more useful than the wisdom of individuals.

Systems like technocracy sound good at first glance. After all why not have
smart people run society instead of voters with an average IQ of 100? However
they severely lack long term sustainability as there is no way to enforce that
leadership stays merit based. In a true technocracy the leadership would
change constantly to account for changes in merit but people will strive to
maintain their own power. People will stonewall others and impede progress to
force them to do favors for them that can maintain their own power. Gradually
skill at trading favors and getting people to go along with you becomes a more
important factor in determining power and effectiveness. Eventually you end up
with a corrupted oligarchy headed by politicians rather than by experts.

------
vkaku
Democracy is a double edged sword.

You cannot run a proper democracy without taking absolute powers away from a
purely democratically elected government.

------
IpV8
Read "the republic" by Socrates. Lots of fun philosophical musings with anti-
democratic sentiment.

------
mimixco
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

\-- Winston Churchill

------
rajacombinator
No, it’s been known as one of the worst at least since the time of Socrates.
Not clear how your scare quotes are meant to be interpreted though.

------
thedevindevops
Meritocracy or Technocracy would be better but the difficulties of balancing a
budget and remaining competitive would still crop up.

------
jelliclesfarm
No. Democracy isn’t necessary the best choice.

Personally, I think monarchies are a better idea.

~~~
sharemywin
...As long as I'm the one running it.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
I wasn’t being facetious.

A monarchy doesn’t instill power upon a monarch. It’s a precarious position.
It’s often ‘off with their head’.

Think CEO of a very competitive and successful company. Wouldn’t be long
before they get ousted if they didn’t perform. But there is a balance with
everyone having their roles to play in a monarchy.

Imagine if a corporation is run democratically and everyone gets to choose how
it is to be run. The end goal would be maintaining the democratic structure
itself and not really pursuing sales targets or profits or creating products.

Democracy has been an abysmal failure usually. Likely more successful if it is
small(Scandinavia, New Zealand) and more chaotic with larger
populations(India). US is a republic but does have a democratic set up.

------
known
China prospered without Religion/Democracy;

~~~
sharemywin
just really good trade deals with the US and Europe.

