The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 Points

Democracy isn't the best form of government

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 52,378 times Debate No: 17568
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Overtime, a democratic government has been seen to be a negative way to run a country. The government doesnt seek out what is best for all citizens but only does want the majority of them want. A government such as a democracy, waste a lot of money campaigning and puts and unneeded strain on the economy for funding purposes. Therefore, when being compared to a communist government, there are more effective ways to run a country!


I accept, I look forward to our debate!

When claiming a system is bad, you most compare it to other systems that might take its role; it's meaningless to list the costs of Democracy without a point of comparison to determine how much of them might be saved by doing something else, and what other things are lost or gained in doing so.

Communism is not something that stands opposite democracy. Communism proposes a system without classes and with common ownership of the means of production [1]. This is not a method of governance, but rather an economic system, and is better compared to concepts like capitalism. Democracy is simply a system of governance whereby decisions are made according to the wishes of the majority [2]. There is nothing stopping a country from adopting a democratic communist way of life.

You cannot claim democracy is not the best form of government without either demonstrating a better alternative or advocating a lack of governance.

Debate Round No. 1


Like every government system, democracy has positive and negative effects towards society. Throughout time, democracy has proven to be a defective way to run a country. In the world we live in, a democratic government is a potential danger to civilization and at any point in time it could lead to a disaster. Within many countries in past and present times, a representative democratic government puts an unneeded strain on the economy for funding where money could be used elsewhere. In the end, a democracy doesn't seek out what is best for all citizens but simply does what the majority wants. For a democratic government to work there are many changes that will need to be made for it to be the best form of government.

First of all, because we don't live in a perfect world and we have realized that man is a fallen creature, a democracy could easily lead to disaster. In a democratic government, the majority has the power to destroy a minority. Throughout history there have been many examples where the majority has had the power and destroyed the minority. For instance, in Germany in 1933, Hitler and his National Socialist Party were voted in by the majority. From here, Hitler then incorporated his power into the Nazi dictatorship with his strong sense of racism and plans for world domination. During this time, Hitler produced a novel," Mein Kampf," dedicated to Thule Society member Dietrich Eckart. The novel was an autobiography and an exposition of his ideology about racial purity which also incorporated future plans Hitler had which any German citizen could have read and used against him. Although at first, German Jews assumed that Hitler would not last long due to the fact, the nazi movement was so much against basic German traditions of cultural and religious tolerance. In the end, if the democracy had not been seeking change, in the year 1939, the Holocaust wouldn't have occurred. Therefore, collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries wouldn't have systematically killed between 11 and 14 million people, including about six million Jews, in concentration camps, ghettos and mass executions.

Secondly, in some countries, a democratic government seems to be increasingly about money. Throughout the past ten years, the United States of America are an obvious example where millions are spent on elections with big events and advertising campaigns. This is not what democracy is about and it discourages countries from moving along the path to democracy. In the United States, democracy plays a role of being a hypocrite itself as it undermines the very idea of democracy. Democracy isn't when money is involved to the extent that it is in the U.S.A. Therefore, when mass amounts of money are involved, it becomes elitist and corporatist because only the elite and rich businessmen can afford to fund the campaigns for congress let alone for the presidency. For example in 2009, the campaign for the White House cost $1.6 billion and the whole 2009 election overall including senate and House of Representatives races cost $5.3 billion. With large amounts of unneeded advertising being used, it leaves the question of, "couldn't that money be used somewhere else?" Although the United States of America is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, 13 percent of people living there, live in poverty. Of the other 87 percent of people living in the United States, 14.6 % of the households struggle to put enough food on the table. With such struggle to survive already, it doesn't help that in 2010, the unemployment rate in United States was 9.4 % .( Trading Economics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic) Finally, in a study of international health care spending levels published in the health policy journal Health Affairs in the year 2000 found that the U.S. spends substantially more on health care than any other country in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and that the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median by most measures. The authors of the study conclude that the prices paid for health care services are much higher in the U.S and it will continue to rise. (Wikipedia) Furthermore, with the lack of education, unemployment and money, it becomes next to impossible to afford health care. Therefore in many minds, the millions of dollars used to advertise elections are a clear waste of money seeing as there are any other ways to run a country such as autocracies that avoid this immense expense by avoiding elections.

Thirdly, in many points in history and today, countries have been led by representative democracies. In a representative democracy, an elected leader is chosen to run the country with the best interest of all citizens. With the world not being perfect, it's simply impossible for an elected leader to take into consideration every idea from every citizen. Therefore, the government doesn't seek out what is best for all citizens but simply does what the majority wants.

For a democratic government to work successfully they have to listen to the majority while taking into account the feelings and lives of the minority. Every citizen would be involved in government, and would take a strong interest in the way that their government works. There would be elected citizens that would be monitored to make sure that no one part of government had more power then another. From here, all citizens would be heard and they'd have full satisfaction in the way there government was being run. For example, the comparison between the U.S democratic government and the Cuban Communist government leave many differences. In Cuba, a communist government has free education and health care which provides the citizens with a proper education which overtime helps provide money. With Cuba not being one of the wealthiest countries in the world it's hard to believe that it's 6th out of 108 countries for the lowest rate of poverty with 3.2%. Also with other facts in comparison to the United States, the U.S has an employment rate of 9.4% where Cuba only has a 1.4%. Finally, with over powering facts such as these, a communist government could have a better impact then a democratic government. Therefore, I believe that a democratic government isn't the best form of government.

In conclusion, a democratic government has negative aspects and is a defective way to run a country. Democracy always leaves a potential danger of a poor elected leader such as Hitler to cause danger to society, unneeded economic strain by poor funding, and poor involvement of all citizens on ideas on how to run a country successfully. Throughout history and in our future, a democracy will never be permanent due to the fact every democratic system has there flaws and doesn't cover the demands for all citizens leaving then in a sense of poor security. Therefore, I believe that democracy isn't the best form of government.


I remind Pro again, that it is meaningless to say that one form of government is "bad" without showing either that some other form of government is better, or that having no government at all is preferable. His argument can be divided into the following points:

The majority is not necessarily correct, and can cause harm to the minority.

As Pro has not suggested some other superior form of government, we are left asking, "what is the alternative?" Does he propose a monarchy, where a lone figure can cause harm to the majority? You cannot simply list a negative of one option while neglecting to discuss other options to compare it to. All options have pros and cons, it is only in the comparison that one option can be called "bad" as a whole. Pro's choice of Communism as a superior form of government is irrelevant as I stated before, since communist ideals are about economy and social status, not governance, and are in fact entirely capable of being implemented alongside Democracy.

Democracy in some countries has become "about money".

Discussing the failings of a particular implementation of a concept does not disprove that concept as a whole. In fact, Pro himself states "this is not what democracy is about", thus distancing these implementations from the core ideal and further destroying his argument that these implementations show that the concept of democracy is bad. The topic of debate is not "U.S. government isn't the best form of government", it is "Democracy isn't the best form of government".

Many countries use representative democracies instead of true democracies, and a representative cannot take every citizen's ideas into consideration and thus must default to the majority.

As with my previous point, attacking specific implementations does not disprove the whole. Furthermore, I ask Pro: how would you go about taking into consideration the ideas of every citizen? As with before, Pro does not propose an alternative. It is easy to criticize one system when you neglect to say what would work better, and thus cannot be criticized in return. As it stands, all these arguments prove is that governance is hard.

At the end, Pro suggests a system whereby a "good" democratic government could be formed. This does nothing to disprove Democracy as a concept. Quite the opposite in fact, if it is indeed a good implementation, that would prove that Democracy does/can work. Thus I see no need to address or refute his arguments there.

In summary, Pro must propose an alternative to Democracy and show why it is superior before he can say Democracy is bad. He has not yet done so. Instead, his focus appears to primarily be on attacking the US implementation of Democracy, which does not disprove Democracy as a whole.
Debate Round No. 2


McNichol forfeited this round.


I suppose since Pro has forfeited this round, I will forego making any new arguments and simply summarize and conclude.

Pro has made a number of criticisms regarding democracy, and suggested that Communism is a superior form of government. I have pointed out that Communist principles do not stand opposite Democratic ones, are not an alternative to Democratic procedures of government, and could be implemented alongside Democracy. Thus, Pro has not provided a true alternative to Democracy, making any criticism of Democracy meaningless. It is impossible to say something is bad without showing that there exists something which is better.

Additionally, most of Con's criticisms center on particular implementations of Democracy, and do not show that fundamental tenets of Democracy are themselves flawed. His own suggestions for improving them still fall within the boundaries of what would be called a Democracy, hence his own vision of a good governmental structure supports the idea that Democracy is effective.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by SenorSwanky 7 years ago
I don't agree with a direct democracy either. A representative republic works best. An improvement on how representatives are chosen and what issues are part of a political platform can be found here:
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar are even, though Pro looses conduct points for his forfeit. While Pro did make an impressive effort in his case, he failed to understand that his burden of proof was to show at least that democracy, in comparison to other political systems, was flawed or worse. Thus, Pro's entire second round is invalidated, or prodigal, since he only discusses the costs of democratic societies, but not other governments and societies. Con effectively pointed that out in his rebuttal.
Vote Placed by Double_R 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. Pro never even made an argument to affirm his own resolution. In the words of Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."