an authorities government is better than democracy
Answers
Explanation:
Democracy is probably the best political system, but major decisions would be better taken by means that do not create “winners” and “losers.”
Democracy is literally “rule by the people.” This sounds like a great idea, until you see which people wind up ruling, and how they rule. I’m joking… or am I?
Even those who think Democracy is the best way of doing things don’t claim it’s perfect. Winston Churchill famously said:
No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Of course, democracy can be implemented different ways. Some countries have many political parties and electorates that aren’t particularly polarized. The vote thus splits several ways, requiring the parties with the largest portion of the vote to form coalitions with others until a clear majority is attained.
In America, there are fewer parties, a more polarized electorate, and thanks to the quirks of the Electoral College, it’s quite possible for someone to be elected President even if another candidate gets more votes.
If you find yourself wondering whether there’s a better way, you may be an American.
The problem with democracy as implemented is that one group “winning” too often means some other group losing.
So… is there a way around that?
Yes.
It’s called consensus and it is “rule by the people” to an even greater extent. Governance by consensus still involves debate, and that debate can be passionate at times. But the goal is to arrive at something that works for everyone, and not have one side “win” and others “lose.” It takes a lot of work, a lot of time, and potentially, a lot of participation.
The United Nations prefers to do things by consensus, with voting being a “last resort” if divergent views simply can’t be overcome.
At the UN, you’ll hardly ever see anything put to a vote - and the conference officers would be in a near panic if the idea even came up, since voting is done so infrequently most of them can’t remember how the vote-tallying system worked!
Of course, when it comes to actually reaching a new global agreement on something, it takes years and years. There’s work currently underway to create a treaty on marine biodiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction, which people have been working on for over a decade now.
The Quakers (a Christian denomination, officially the Religious Society of Friends) also prefer to do things by consensus.
Interestingly, they implement it in a bottom-up grass-roots manner. Local “monthly meetings” have a “meeting for business” once a month, and if there are decisions to be made, they make them by consensus. Monthly meetings within a particular area or “quarter” will get together once every three months to discuss business, and meetings within a broader area, perhaps an entire metropolitan area, meet once a year to discuss business. And there is some communication between the yearly meetings through conferences and committees, as well.
If there is a social issue of great interest, it will be brought up first at the local level. Some monthly and quarterly meetings will take action on it before others, and it will gradually filter upward to yearly meeting. It can take years for a position to be adopted at high levels.
Increased effort and time are clear disadvantages to consensus. Another disadvantage is that things there isn’t consensus on simply won’t be acted on until there is consensus, which can make it a poor choice for dealing with emergencies. The big advantage, though, is that the end result tends to be something that everyone can at least live with. It’s a very non-polarizing way of doing things.
If, like me, you live in America and are accustomed to American democracy, you may think that surely consensus could never be of any use for anything here.
Well…
The Declaration of Independence was created by people working together, debating content and style, until they reached consensus.
The Constitution was created by people working together, debating content and style, until they reached consensus.