Is a Democracy the best system for a government?
Debate Rounds (3)
Furthermore, leadership is needed in society. Pack animals can be sorted into two catagories, betas and alphas. Betas follow alphas, they can't lead, they lack the will to start something without another starting first. Humans work in the same way, there are alphas and betas. Alphas are strong leaders, necessary to the advancement of humanity. They help the tribe, pack, or nation, and are willing to take risks and do difficult things for the sake of success. Betas are the opposite, they are not bad and are also necessary to soviety. They follow their leader whether they are right or wrong, and are the driving force of success, under the proper instructions. Democracy is when betas nullify leadership and create a nation ruled by betas. Betas, by nature, cannot rule, they cannot take initiative, they cannot do what needs to be done, and they cannot successfully lead a nation.
To conclude, society does best sticking to older, set ways. Democracy by nature would be doomed to fail, and the only proper way to have success would be to have a strong leadership that can make better decisions. The common people are simply unable to lead a nation.
I would appreciate if my opponent would offer a better solution instead of pointing out all the flaws democracy has. Why am I saying this? I believe that it would be almost impossible to find a system that will be perfect for every single member of the society. Democracy is the best solution because everyone gets equal rights, everyone can participate. My opponent stated that common people can not make decisions about the nation. What?! Common people are what the nation is! That is also very discriminatory. Is tyranny better that democracy then?
I would now like to rebut the part about the alphas and the betas. I see democracy differently. First of all, not all alphas,when given the opportunity to rule, want to do what is actually best for the nation. For example, I'm sure you'll agree Hitler was an alpha, but did that make him a desirable leader? No. When it comes to democracy, I would say that the voters are betas and the politicians are alphas. The betas have a right to choose their leaders and their leaders are going in the direction their voters had chosen, because they are the ones giving them power with their trust and votes.
You ask for a better system than a democracy, I could argue that a monarchy is even better than a democracy. Monarchy, while I don't think it is the best system, is better than democracy in several ways. A monarch is educated and trained at a young age before his rule. He understands economics, politics, and current better than the average person, this is what matters. The vote in democracy is won by the average person, for that is the majority, the average person does not study economics, nor politics. The average person also is unable to have the same perspective as a ruler, making his scope narrow. Let's consider the general population, they are neither wealthy nor powerful. This is because, on average, the common person is not as intelligent as those in a higher class. The common person lacks the education, or even the "street smarts" in order to move up in life. While not all rich and powerful people are geniuses, and while not all common people are less intelligent, this holds true for the majority.
You argue that since the people of a nation are infact the nation, that they know what's best for it. This is not true. People do not know how to generate wealth simply because they have money, they do not know that the world revolves around the sun simply because they live on it. They need knowledgeable people who specialize to inform them. That is what a leader truly is. A specialist. Just because a person is their own person doesn't mean they know how to make the best decision for themselves. True, they have freedom to make decisions, but this freedom becomes a bad thing when the wrong choice is made. A leader then is needed. A leader, who sees society as a whole from above, who is an alpha capable of making decisions, is needed. A leader knows what's best for the people as a whole because that is purpose of a leader, he creates unity and direction in society, he has a final say. In a democracy however, there is no unity, or direction.
To avoid further misunderstandings, I would like to define democracy. Democracy has some general values, such as rule of majority, which means everyone is involved in the decision-making process. They participate in this process by voting to elect representatives. One of the most important values that democracy defends is the protection of the human rights of all citizens which is ensured by the rule of law, because the laws apply equally to all citizens. When it comes to forms,there are many variations, but there are two basic forms of democracy - direct democracy and representative democracy. Republic is a form of representative democracy, so republic is, indeed, a democracy! Direct democracy, for example, exists in Switzerland, a country that can serve as a role model with their great educational system and high standards of living, they are one of the wealthiest countries in the whole world. I guess democracy isn't so bad after all, if we follow their example.
Someone who conducts genocide, can not be anything but a terrible leader. He did not make Germany successful, he made Germany pay for the damage he made years after the war. No economy, industry, nor science can be successful when there is a war. He did not focus on improvement, but on killing. And by saying Hitler was successful and that his way of ruling is better you are saying you prefer to be killed over having a chance to live and have rights.
There are so many facts that can help prove that monarchy isn't the best system. North Korea is a great example. The monarch decides even what kind of hairstyle is allowed. How can that be a good system? You argue that monarchs are informed, capable, well prepared. Well, throughout history we have examples that show us that isn't true. The last czar of Russia, for example. Monarchy encourages nepotism. The monarch has all the power, and in the case the people are not pleased, they can do nothing about it, whereas in democracy they can simply not vote for the same person in the next elections. In case a monarch dies and there is no one to take his place, there is chaos, the whole system collapses, which often results in civil wars.
Switzerland? Switzerland is a nation with a parliament. While the people of Switzerland may control the social realm, politics and the economy is handled by the Swiss parliament. They have been victims of multiple wars because of their neutrality policy.
Hitler was successful, however, in reviving Germany. To suggest that killing makes him a terrible leader is a subjective, emotional argument and it makes no sense to say that genocide made him bad at his job. The United States has been responsible for 20-30 million deaths (http://www.sott.net...). Yet you consider the U.S to have the best system of government.
To address your statement on monarchy, North Korea is not a monarchy, North Korea is a satellite state, created by China and the Soviet Union. It is a vassal (in a sense) to China and has no ability to change its situation because of China.
I will end by saying that there are bad tyrants, I will not defend them all, but having a tyrant is by far more effective than having a democracy, a tyrant can accomplish goals with ease and he is much more intelligent that the common people, only the goals differ. Democracy is ineffective, slow, ununified, and run by idiots, that is its great failure.
First of all, throughout this entire debate, when talking about the flaws of democracy, my opponent was focusing on all the wrong ways democracy is implemented, not focusing on all the differences between democracy and other systems. When we take a closer look, we can then come to the conclusion that in spite being flawed, democracy is the best among other systems. In the first round my opponent stated that democracy is the most fair system, and I completely agree with this statement. I am not going to ignore some of the dark sides that my opponent pointed out. Yes, it is true that in some of the countries that are going through the implementation of democracy there is no freedom of speech, there are corrupt politicians etc. We have to take into consideration that those problems exist mostly in countries that have made a transition from communism to democracy, their democracies are still a work in progress. But democracy is the only system that encourages change. Democracy is not oppressive, because when there is a problem, such as corruption, there is always something that can be done in order to solve the problem. That is not the case with other systems. For example, my opponent stated that even tyranny and monarchy are better than democracy. I strongly disagree. When the power is given to only one person, and that power is absolute, than that person does not have to justify their actions, they have the chance to do whatever they want, the power will be in their hands until they die, no matter what. In tyranny and monarchy there is no freedom of speech, people get killed for expressing their opinions, democracy is based on the participation of citizens in the politics.
My opponent also stated that democracy is run by idiots. That is not a fact, that is a personal, non-objective opinion that has no depth, elaboration nor value for this debate. In the eyes of my opponent, Hitler was effective. I would advise you to read The Diary of Anne Frank, there is plenty of evidence of his great leadership skills there. I bet there are plenty of people who talk with great nostalgia about the time they feared for their lives just for not fitting into the mold a psychologically troubled person created and believed was just.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.