Democracy just doesn't work anymore (A tale of two political systems)

I'm not sure that it would be more complicated than getting a proper functioning democracy. If everybody has a say and no one agrees politics are bound to become (stay) complicated

 

Ideally, they would not be the ones of course but I could imagine they might be the ones that have some idea how the people that would make that determination would be a satisfying representation of the people.

 

A meritocracy with a robust anti-corruption engine would be much, much, much better than a democracy, hands down. A very interesting and "boundary pushing" talk, as advertized. I particularly liked how he said that neither Obama nor Bush could have made it in China as even a small town mayor; the demands in terms of skill and intelligence are simply too rigorous. It's really an alien system to us in the West, but it seems to be doing something right in it's own ways.

It seems ironically that the biggest problems facing China's government are those brought about by western plutocrats corrupting things up; just like in Africa.

 

Don't see that arguing that your prefered system may be a feasible alternative to democracy is gona pull it off topic. Making comparisons is ,surely, allowed?

 

I think any form of government can work well when all the governed agree to how it is employed. Problems occur when government envelopes more people who find themselves becoming isolated from having any say in their government, and nowhere to go.

 

In Europe theres long been attempts to address that via Proportional Representation in all its versions. In the UK the smaller '3rd' Party,The Liberal Democrats were/are advocates of this electoral method.

Problem has been that it tends to create coalitions of representatives from right across the political spectrum. Far right trying to compromise with far left & both with moderates. Theres a lot of cancelling out & compromising to the point that decisive direction is lost.

UKs stayed with 'first past the post winner takes all' system but Devolution of limited powers to Scotland,Wales & Northern Ireland has ,I'd say,been succesful in addressing,to some degree,the issue you highlight.

 

The system is there to ensure one thing, control. The world will never be run perfectly 1) because it is full of arrogant egotistical people who are too concerned with appearance and power. 2) we are not robots, but unique individuals with our own thought processes and opinions. Not so easily led anymore.
It's seems to be all about how nice the priminister or president is...not how competent..they just spew out words scripted for them...they are puppets. We run our countries for them so they can make even more money to buy more weapons, oil and anything else they desire. If we all stopped...then what?

 

If we all just stopped then the entire system would just fall apart.

 

But the last remark is the sociological state of undecided beliefs for the individual's opinions in dutiful action. People may be more "action" than simply believing for the choice they made at the moment. When someone acts it is a matter of giving the concept to another's mind consenting to Him in either political or economic motives, possibly blind courage at War. Without the materially perceivable object from all sides there is no "governance" for the government's Work-well.:sultan:

 

Stopped what ,Voting,going to work,paying Taxes? Maybe. Could be a kind of passive resistance. I'd agree largely with all you say but is it not true that in either a Constitutional Republic or a Democracy it s participants have a responsibility too-to be actively involved in seeing to it that the Govenors do respond to the wishes of the Governed ? And if thats not the case the representatives are then replaced at the next election.

 

I thought it was an interesting talk. There's a critique of it here which also makes some fair points. (Not sure if links work or are allowed - sorry mods if I've broken a forum rule).

hxxp://blog.ted.com/2013/07/01/why-democracy-still-wins-a-critique-of-eric-x-lis-a-tale-of-two-political-systems/

Some further points I would consider significant:

1) China is only 1 example (lots of other "communist" states have not survived the collapse of the USSR)
2) When considering political or any other development, one needs to keep in mind that it's an endless process - so China has been able to grow rapidly due to a large cheap labour force and for other reasons. The political development may be a symptom rather than a cause of the growth.