give at least 2 argument against reprasentive democracy
Answers
Answer:
Leaders keep changing in a democracy. This leads to political instability.
Democracy is all about political competition and power play. There is no scope for morality.
So many people have to be consulted in a democracy.It leads to political instability.
Explanation:
Hope it helps.....
Answer:
Hope you understand it.
Explanation:
Why representative democracy rather than a dictatorship:
Due to structural reasons, dictatorships can hardly ever be benevolent. A dictator can’t rule alone; he can’t police the streets alone, he can’t collect taxes alone, he can’t build stuff alone. So he needs his key supporters: generals, regional managers, burreocrats to do most of his works. If they decide not to, he’s out of power; either deposed or turned into a symbolic figure.
Problem is, that any money spent on improving the lives of the population; like schools or hospitals, is money not spent buying loyalty of those key supporters. It is money that a potential rival can offer to his key supporters if they make him the dictator instead. Money spent on the population is a voulnerability.
And even if his key supporters are loyal, they tend to face the same problem, just one level down the hierarchy.
You will find rare examples of benevolent dictators, but in nearly all cases the trend will be, that under specific historic circumstances spending money on the population ended up bringing more money into the treasury than it cost
For the most part though, you’ll find that dictatorship will have a strong tendency to put every bit of disposable income into buying important loyalties and they will have a much lower standard than the population.
Why representative democracy rather than direct democracy?
Few reasons:
1. referendums are expensive.
2. Most people aren’t particularly knowledgeable on legislature. There aren’t any real limitations with regards to education on who can get elected into representative bodies, but at least those people are paid full time to examine law proposals and vote for it. Also they have people to council them.
3. Most of the population isn’t interested in politics that much. Sure, the representatives can get out of hand and we need occasional elections where we need to get somewhat informed to decide on whether we should replace them or not. Depending on the country we might even have some elements of direct democracy like an occassional referendum. But even in those cases, a lot of the population will complain about how much they’re bombarded with politics. Even before referendums, people who actually open the debated law and read it are rare. And given how boring those things tend to be you can hardly blame people for prefering to watch a tv sitcom or playing a videogame.
And a true direct democracy, that would pass ALL the decision to the people, well, it would be that on steroids.
I’m a law student, I don’t have a job, but I don’t think I could come anywhere near making an informed decision on every law that needs to be decided on. Now what about some hard working guy that spends most of his time trying to feed his family?
So I say we’re better off having some people paid to do that work for us; while we keep some mechanisms to keep them in check.
Other options?
There are of course a number of other systems like anarchy, liquid democracy, aristocracy, etc.
I don’t know if you care about any of them, I honestly believe representative democracy (with elements of direct democracy like the referendum) is the best we’ve got; so you can ask me with a comment and I’ll make a case about those too.