What is a good argument against Democracy?

Question

I need this for a History class debate, and I want to know some of your sources, ideas, and other governments that I could use against it. Why democracy isn't the best, examples from history?

Answer 1

Hitler. He won the 1932 election in Germany with about 33% of the vote. (Germany's multi party system made the n***s by far the biggest single party) Once installed completly legally as chancellor in January 1933 he then went about getting rid of democracy in Germany and setting up dictatorship.  

Answer 2

the word "Democracy" originated from Ancient Greece, Athens, Athens is the innventor of Democracy, and they truly believed that it was democracy. People had the freedom to vote, to ellect, to have saying in everything, but it was all just a cover of what was truly happening. Women had no rights, even though they said it was democracy women were not allowed to enter into government building, nor participate in the ellecton or decision making. They weren't even allowed to watch the olympic games. Democracy doesn't represent everyone equally, and beacsue it gives the right for everyone to say whatever they want it takes too long for problems to be solved and sometimes problems don't get solved just beacsue you are not important or popular, or sometimes just beacsue majority thinks that building a new road would be a reasonable thing to do instead of giving enough money for teachers domocracy can casue education and other morals to demolish because of the so called "benfit of the greater good".  

Answer 3

[The dignity of the human species] will be completely destroyed [if the population growth continues at its present rate]. I use what I call the bathroom metaphor: if two people live in an apartment and there are two bathrooms, then both have freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom anytime you want to stay as long as you like for whatever you need. But if you have twenty people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up times for each person; you have to bang on the door, “Aren’t you done yet?” In the same way, democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive. Convenience and decency can’t survive. As you put more and more people onto the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn’t matter if someone dies, the more people there are, the less one person matters.

– as guest of Bill Moyers on PBS

This sums up democracy

Socialism did experience failure, and many times the governments took Total Power (USSR, North Korea).

But Socialism works in many countries today, but usually as a Socialist Democaracy, as in Norway and Sweden.

I am also a firm believer in Anarchy, because it works.  It wouldn't work if you just forced it on people, but it will if you move gradually.

The most successful acount of anarchy I know was in Spain around their Civil War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_ana...

Answer 4

It allows for mandates to arise from sectors of society unqualified to dictate, like letting the polluters decide what the acceptable levels of poisons are.  

Answer 5

Ours (the U.S.) is not a pure democracy.  Rather, it is a democratic republic.  The best argument is that the idea of one person one vote  makes for a very time consuming and labor intensive election process.  This explains the reasoning behind having the electoral college system.

Answer 6

Why Democracy isn't the best...well, I suppose it would be the easiest government to take over. I mean, if enough people got together they could get somebody in on the inside and potentially destroy the country. Other governments are much more difficult to get direct access to.

Answer 7

Wow, honestly, you are going to be hard pressed to find something that is better than that. Don't get me wrong, it is by no means a perfect solution, but in the words of Winston Churchill "democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the others."

But if I'm hard pressed here goes:

Potentially benevolent and responsible Constitutional Monarchies. Think Britain where the Queen has more power. But, that could fail if you get even so much as one greedy and negligent ruler.

On a small scale you can try something like socialism or libertarianism. Both allow for the most freedom, without the establishment of a ruling class, persay. Problem is, socialism failed on a large scale, and libertarianism hasn't been tried, so there's no way to know.

Historically speaking, the deck is really stacked against you. If you look at all of the governments throughout the world, and all of the political writings throughout the world, the ideas of the classical liberals (Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes) are the ones that carry the most weight and succeed the most.

Answer 8

America.

Answer 9

Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. (Mencken ?)

The people are too passionate and stupid to run things. After all would you just go up to anyone on the street and ask him to perform surgery on you or fix your car? Than why ask a majority on what they think on moral questions, why not a professional (aka dictatorial philosopher).  (Plato)

Also, democracy cannot innovate because it consistently, and as a matter of mathematical certainty, prefers the middle solution. For instance on the question of war (or anything) 25 are strongly against, 15 are somewhat against, 20 are moderate, 35 are somewhat for, and 5 are strongly for. If someone proposes in favor of the somewhat against then everyone for will vote with the moderates, if someone proposes in favor of the somewhat for, then everyone against will vote with the moderates too.  Hence the median voter always determines and is always best served at an election.  

The politicians aren't accountable because if they vote badly they can always say that that was the way their committee voted. (Hitler, JS Mill, even some const. framers)

Democrats are never elected for a very long time and so have no reason to maintain the value of the resources at their disposal but instead always use them for the appeasement of their electorates.  (Hans-Hermann Hoppe a german economist)

Hope that helped -stupid democracy lover :)

Answer 10

That, in its effort to create egalitarianism, it ultimately ends up creating elitism.  Here's why; Thomas Jefferson envisioned a republic where ability, not birth, would determine high rank.  Problem is, once the people of ability obtain power, does not that create a new noble class, which was precisely what he was fighting against in the first place?  Another fault with Jefferson's arguments have to do with the assumption that the nobility of Europe are all incompetent buffoons.  Well obviously most of them have to have some intelligence and leadership qualities if their ancestors got to be Kings, therefore Jefferson's assumptions were erroneous.

What makes for a monarchy having pretty "thin talent at the top" has nothing to do with lack of ability from those born into it, so much as them growing up as spoiled brats.  The Britihs monarchy has lasted as long as it has because all British royals, especially potential male or female heirs in line to the throne, are treated with tyranical discipline.  In fact, the great majority of us are probably spoiled compared to the prison William and Harry lived in for most of their lives.

Leadership, is not so much about intelligence, so much as personality traits.  Intelligence can be developed; bomard a little kid with puzzles, brain, number games etc, and by the time he or she is 10, they will have an I.Q. of 160.  Anybody can be reared, if done the right way, to be super smart.  The Brits have known this for years, specially from Neurobiology research papers that I have read from Edinburgh University way back when.  While America is still stuck on the idea that you can not increase I.Q., at Edinburgh its Neurobiology department has known for years that the right rearing can make children more intelligent, it was they who discovered the fact that childhood is not about making new brain cells, but holding on to them.

Leadership involves using a group's best qualities, a personality that can exploit and use those qualities, all the while having a perception of things other people do not have.  Certain kinds of perceptive abilities are only passed down genetically, hence the need for a noble class, and a monarchy, as argued in days past.  What caused the incompetence was not lack of leadership abilities or qualities, so much as carelessness on the part of the royals parents to ensure proper upbringing.  Even the worst royal brat had leadership abilities; however, they were too bratty to ever use them to their fullest, hence the incompetence.  Also, hence the reason, why the people in charge of raising British monarchs, are borderline tyranical with their discipline; the British do not want their nobility or monarchy guillotined any day now.

As far as an argument though, go with the Jefferson thing; in its effort to get rid of monarchies and dynasties, democracies may unintentionally create them.

peace.

Answer 11

I think you should clarify with your teacher what is specifically meant by Democracy.

The United States is a Democratic Republic.  Not a Democracy per se.   Democracy is the underlying philosophy of our government.

Now for what you really want for your debate:

Point out the difference between a Democracy and a Democratic Republic.  It'll throw off your opponent.

The first person to argue the plagues of a total democracy was Plato.  He instead argued that the intelligentsia was the appropriate ruling class.

Essentially, in your debate you'll need to point out other forms of government --  absolute rule such as kingdoms and dictatorships and then messy democratic attempts.  

Messy democratic attempts include communism and socialist governments.   Why are these systems closer to Democracy?   Awwww...  that's when you go back to defining what a pure democracy really is.   When the philosophy of socialism and communism were taking hold in Russia and China in the early 20th centuries, there was this idea of equality in the purest sense, however, many of the typical pitfalls of pure democracies ended up shifting these governments into systems that weren't much different than the systems with which they overthrew.  The inherent flaw in a pure democracy is that it assumes every citizen has the capability and interest in ruling his own self and can do so in a balanced way.   The French Revolution is the PERFECT example of how NOT to conduct a government.  Over a course of 8 years, they went from a kingdom, to a tyrant democracy to a dictatorship.   Sort of reminds one of Russia and China history in the 20th century?  

Read why the founding fathers of the US were against pure democracy, and advocated representive democracy instead.  What you'll see is that there is a sway towards Plato's suggestion that those who are capable and interested should rule.   However, the Founding Fathers of the US through their wisdom embraced the idea that individuals had the right to choose who had that capability, and not place that capability through birthright or intellectual achievement.  It's this last part where the basis of your argument lies.  

-------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_demo...  

This is actually a decent synopsis of a pure democracy and provides some VERY good examples of what you are asking.

If you really want to score points with your teacher, visit your library once you have your outline and research some books for quotes from people who have argued this very question.  

I hope you enjoy the research.  

Answer 12

There is no such thing. Just ask the Chinese, the Cubans, the North Koreans any 17th century European, etc.

P.S.

Your History Teacher is on LSD.

Answer 13

I think you have the basic points in all of the excellent answers above.  To put some real world esample on the table:

The reason we have special interest lobbies is to protect the minority that could be unfairly overruled in a majority vote. They are necessary for this reason but also can lead to a form of corruption.  Perhaps it gives too much power to the minority when their interests are not in the interest of the general population.

Democracy invalidates the expert. This is to say that a majority of people will have no special or expert knowledge about which they vote, however the expert that does have the knowledge is made irrelevant.  A classic example is mandatory treatment for 1st time drug offenders. A professional judge should be capable of deciding who is a viable candidate and who needs to go to jail, after all he does this every day day in day out and consults with other professional experts.  But the mandatory sentencing law has taken that discretion and authority away from the judges.

Answer 14

The old saw is that democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding what's for dinner. There must always be checks and limits to the power of any government.

Answer 15

Democracy at its worst is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. When the most votes gets to decide, they can easily rob dissenting groups of rights and privileges. This ia one reason our Founding Fathers decided on a republic.

   Democracy is unstable. With no guarantee of smoothness at succesion of rule, the incoming government may very well reverse the policies and decisions of the previous one, only to be followed by another administration that reverses that one. This makes it difficult for a nation to plan for any long term strategies, such as where to spend money; on the military, space exploration, social services, etc.

   Democracy is potentially the most corrupt system. By this, I mean that the emphasis becomes winning votes, not on establishing the best policies. Groups will vie to "purchase" these votes, by lobbying, bribing, or even blackmailing those who can provide the votes. As people become disenchanted with the system, and choose not to vote, those who can produce blocks of voters(such as union officials) acrue even more influence. The one good thing about an absolute dictator is, how do you bribe someone who has everything? And once in place, politicians are beholden to those who helped put them there.

  Democracy is more emotion driven than reason driven. This is a subset of the majority rules argument. But when people can and do vote under stressful conditions, they often make the wrong choice. An example of this would be the Spanish American war. Fueld by "yellow journalism" the American public was riled into wanting to go to war. Imagine if a vote had been taken on September 12, 2001. Might we have gone to war with Saudi Arabia, or Afganistan,based on the emotional reaction at the time? Or decided to round up all Muslims and put them into iternment camps? Democracy can lead to that sort of excess.

  Those are a few arguments. Look at Athenian history for a few examples of how true democracy could go astray. But for all of those arguments, no other form of government has shown itsefl to be superior overall. All forms of government are open to abuse and corruption. At least with democracy, the citizens themselves are held to account, expected to prevent or correct those things when they happen.