Is democracy the best form of governance?

This resource is a wikidebate, a collaborative effort to gather and organize all arguments on a given issue. It is a tool of argument analysis or pro-and-con analysis. This is not a place to defend your preferred points of view, but original arguments are allowed and welcome. See the Wikidebate guidelines for more.

Subject classification: this is an Philosophy resource.

In the Western world, the majority of countries are democracies. Most of these countries have a representative democracy – people elect a number of representatives who make decisions on their behalf regarding the governance of the country. There are many other forms of government. Plato categorized governments into five types of regimes: democracy, oligarchy, timocracy, tyranny and aristocracy. According to him, this last form of government—where the most qualified citizens form the ruling power—would be the best. Although absolute monarchies were common in the past, democracy is now taken for granted by Westerners. But is democracy really the most ideal form of government? Or could there perhaps be an even better form of government?

Democracy is the best form of governance

Pro

• Argument for In the history of humanity, there has never been a form of government better than democracy. Assuming that freedom and peace are two important core values of a well-functioning society, democracy is the best system to achieve this.
  • Objection The period between 96 and 180 AD was a golden age for Rome—the Empire was stable, there was relatively much peace and prosperity flourished. During these years, the Empire was governed by the Five Good Emperors: Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. At that time, Rome was an autocracy under imperial rule. Thus, an autocracy can also be a good form of government, provided that the rulers have the best intentions for the people.

Con

• Argument against In a democracy, everyone's vote has equal value. The vote of someone who has absolutely no understanding of politics and never follows it is worth as much as the vote of an interested 'expert' who closely monitors political debates every day. This is not fair. Only people who understand what they are really voting for should be allowed to vote.
  • Objection The fact that people may not understand politics does not mean they don't know what they desire. If someone earns little and is poor, they should be able to make their voice heard so that their ideals (earning more money, better working conditions, etc.) can be realized by a political party that pursues their ideals. Everyone should have a voice in this.
  • Objection Being an "interested 'expert' who closely monitors political debates every day" doesn't mean one knows a lot about the subject or even remotely as much as experts of the subject discussed such as scientists having read a large corpus of partly disagreeing, partly old and new, diverse literature on the subject and its complexities and nuances.
• Argument against Democracy is vulnerable. The iron law of oligarchy states that all forms of organization, including democracies, inevitably become oligarchic. For example, those with a lot of financial resources or economic power have or can have a lot of political power.
  • Objection It would be difficult to establish neutral unbiased effective methods to ensure those who vote have such understanding or that their vote is weighted according to their both contextual and subject-level understanding.
  • Objection The fact that something is vulnerable does not mean it cannot be the most ideal. You can make a vase out of solid iron, but it will propably function less well and look less beautiful than a ceramic vase.
• Argument against A semi-democracy would be the best. A new kind of institution should be established consisting of a small group of the most well-intentioned and wise individuals in the state who can think deeply and extensively about complex issues while considering the opinions of society. These wise people, who are impartial and do not publicly have a political affiliation, should be elected in a representative parliamentary democracy by the parliamentarians who, in turn, have been elected by the people.
  • Objection Who or what determines who can apply as one of the "most well-intentioned and wise individuals"? People should be able to apply for this somehow and be allowed or rejected to participate based on something. So what would this "something" be?
    • Objection People who apply to be elected members of this new governing body should, for example, be able to prove several things, including 1) that they can make a significant contribution to philosophy, 2) that they have an open mind and are open to all ideas, visions and opinions, and 3) that they are not influenced by external factors, such as political parties, governments, or organizations. The elected representatives must expose their entire personal and professional life to the public, allowing everyone full transparency. Based on a screening conducted by various members of different political parties within the existing parliament, it is determined whether candidates are accepted or rejected.
      • Objection Doesn't this go against privacy? No one would apply as a candidate if they had to expose their entire life.

See also

• Is a world government desirable?