Why is Democracy Good and Bad ?

Go down

Why is Democracy Good and Bad ? Empty Why is Democracy Good and Bad ?

Post by JuvenelCuore Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:25 pm

I have to do an essay on a Winston Churchill quote so I might as well make it a debate because I have to address counterarguments, so what better way than to possibly have people who actually think democracy is not the best.

I am going to throw out the argument of accountability, and why democracy ensures it is met, and why it is better than in any other system.

There exists a cycle of accountability; the voter is held accountable for their vote in that the result is based on their vote, and they are thus also held accountable for whether or not they choose to vote or not. The leader that is put in power based on this democratic process is the decision of the public, and what the leader chooses to do once in office is that which he had promised during his campaign. The leader, therefore, becomes accountable for his actions once he is given the power to execute policies and reforms, and he has the free choice to either follow through as he had promised, or conversely, do what he chooses, within limits of course. Thus, if the leader is not satisfactory in that he has not held to his word, he can be held accountable for his actions as the democratic process grants the power to have him removed from office. It is in this democratic process of government that both the voter and the voted are responsible for their actions, and lack thereof. Once this concept becomes comprehendible, democracy can further progress toward becoming a utopia, but as Professor Wong opined, democracy is a growing and living organism which speaks to the notion that in order for it to grow, shortcomings are just as important as ideality.

Conversely, while leaders are held accountable in other forms of government, there is a distinction that has to be made; while a leader is held accountable, there is virtually no consequences or sanctions to follow his shortcomings. In fascist and communist regimes, for instance, it would be fallacious to believe that both Mussolini and Hitler were met with uniformity, or at the very least a majority of the populace support. It should be important to note that I am discrediting the support garnished on the basis of manipulation, which was evidently a large part of Hitler’s regime, and support gathered on the basis of fear, that is, fear of those in charge. Even in presidential republics, such as the United States of America, while the president is held accountable for his actions in that people will hold him responsible, removing him from power is constitutionally strenuous, with only the opportunity of impeachment available, assuming he has committed a punishable crime. Not to digress further, the fact of the matter is that a president essentially serves a fixed term, one which is unwavering, and thus, it is very likely that should an unsatisfactory president be voted into office, several years can be spent inactively engaging in lawlessness. In a democracy, however, the accountability ensures that those in power are effectively able to do what it is they had promised, for fear that they will be voted out should they not.

Anyone counter ? :coffee:

I will think of more points later, as per the discussion.
Banned (Permanent)

Club Supported : Liverpool
Posts : 4224
Join date : 2011-06-12
Age : 30

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum