Is Democracy working or is is a shortsighted periodic dictatorship in reality?

Is the method by which we govern ourselves working or does it need to be seriously overhauled?



We seem to be plagued by short term-ism, dis-engagement of the electorate, a political elite that effectively buy their way into power and a crises management reactive approach to governance that creates as many problems as it solves.



The worlds troubles, such as the banking crises, political and religious extremism and environmental issues do not seem to be managed very well by this system and in a Corporation the board would have been sacked long ago.



Perhaps we need to seriously redesign the system, perhaps having multiple chambers, one that requires certain intellectual standards to attend and sits for more than five years.



It may be the best we have, but it can surely be improved and refined if so how?Is Democracy working or is is a shortsighted periodic dictatorship in reality?Awesome question. In essence we do elect a short term dictator. Let me ask you this. Of any of the policies enacted by government, have they ever consulted you? Or your neighbor? Or............

You see where I'm going with that. As with any country, the founding idea was a governement run by the common people. But you are right. Only the elite get power now and no, not every American can grow up to be president. That idea is just hogwash. Ask yourself this. Why would a man or woman spend ten times the salary they will recieve in the job just to get the job. Always be afraid of someone who wants something so badly. Again you are right. Changes must be made. But what? This current system , if continued will result in America becoming just another failed civilization as the Roman and Greek empires became.Is Democracy working or is is a shortsighted periodic dictatorship in reality?The problem with democracy is that it has to try and please everybody. Simply an impossible task, and so it ends up disappointing everybody. "Issues" that need to be tackled will always have a countermovement claiming there isn't any need for change, and as a result they are half heartedly implemented.

Your suggestion in many ways reflects how the House of Lords used to operate, with a large number of Hereditary Peers with no consituency or electorate or sponsor to please, which could oversee the actions of the Commons. Recent changes have led to increases in Life Peers, and the ability for the government to essentially appoint a cabinet of yes men.

You are correct in assessing that the Lords possibly could do with changes, and you are also correct that making an elected upper House has it's problems, which leaves the concept of having an upper house which is represented by experts from different field to advise the government does make sense. For example organisations such as the General Medical Council should appoint members to sit in this house.

The next problem is how do you assign seats to an upper house in a fair and representative way. How can you say one particular group is less influential and by inference less important?

Yes we could do with changes, but the possibility of huge resistance to such a move and the fallout that would cause means the governments will continue to dissatisfy everybody as equally as they can.

ski doo