Cav's Place

An opinion piece called “Is Democracy Overrated?” was published on the BBC site and, while the author may not go as far as he should and may not emphasize the points he knows will prove particularly unpopular, I have to say that it’s a rather unexpectedly frank analysis at a time when such a debate is particularly relevant. Granted that the opportunity provided by the current situation in Egypt could not be missed if anyone meant to publish such a piece, but that in itself seemed a highly unlikely scenario when it came to the major media outlets from countries that, as the article implies, see democracy as the ultimate solution in itself.
This is, of course, a long discussion, but I did like how the article pointed out how some of the worst aspects of totalitarian regimes don’t directly stem from the fact that the people don’t have any say in the major decisions, and also how the fact that they do have a say doesn’t in any way mean that all, or in fact any, rights and freedoms are guaranteed, that conformity doesn’t continue to be enforced or that those who are different aren’t ostracized in democracies just as well, though the exact definitions of “different” and “ostracized” may differ. It’s true that it also makes some points that I see as unnecessary or even detrimental to the argument, making it rather obvious that the author was either afraid to continue it properly or is far from convinced that it’ll be right to do so, but the piece nevertheless remains a good starting point, perhaps the most notable phrase being: “Orthodoxy, conformity and the hounding of the dissident define the default position of mankind, and there is no reason to think that democracies are any different in this respect from Islamic theocracies or one-party totalitarian states.”

That said, while I won’t get into the whole discussion once again now, I did find myself submitting a comment there, which I’ll also add here now, since it pretty much covers my view of the issue:
Of course it is overrated. Democracy is largely tyranny by majority, though if you want to get specific it’s not even a majority that chooses. It is unreasonable to expect the choices made to be correct or fair, the freedoms of all to be in any way guaranteed or even desired, or justice to be appropriately served. The only two things to expect from a democracy are for responsibility to be spread among many, so none will feel particularly responsible for the failures, and for quite little to actually get done.
When you are in a minority, it’s hardly relevant whether your rights are being stripped away and your views silenced by the majority or by a single person, and the more you differ from the generally accepted norm, the greater the risk for that to happen, regardless of the system of government.
What we need are leaders who are fit to lead but definitely don’t wish to do so, people who want to do good for the world and for others without putting themselves above the others. We need leaders who’ll guarantee everyone’s right to live as they please as long as that doesn’t cause environmental destruction or unjustified harm to another. We need leaders who’ll be willing and capable of doing whatever it takes to uphold this simple rule, crushing those who would harm without proper justification and those who’d try to prevent people from living their lives as they see fit despite their lifestyles not causing unjustified harm equally, while otherwise encouraging all to find and follow their own path, make up and speak their own mind and generally overlooking a society adapting itself to fit all the individuals it’s made up of instead of one forcing the individuals to adapt to it.
If we’ll get that, how those leaders are selected and who they are is hardly relevant. If we don’t, however, anything else we may get is like a choice between getting hanged or burned alive: One is more painful for a brief amount of time, but in the end both kill you just as well.

To conclude, history proves that the majority is hardly ever right, whether we’re talking about a majority in absolute terms or of the majority of those who make themselves seen and heard, so any choice made or any course of action supported, directly or indirectly, by “the people” is almost certainly wrong, or at the very least far from the best one possible at that particular moment. The goal, therefore, must be to figure out which minority, small group or, far more often than most “democrats” or “liberals” would ever admit, individual is most likely to not only make the right decisions, but also to possess the willingness and the ability to enforce them in the most efficient manner, obviously without jeopardizing the outcome or wasting resources by striving to obtain additional benefits for themselves, and grant them the opportunity to do so. Anything else means simply walking farther down one wrong path or another, and therefore getting farther from the right one.