Her point in the Ireland thread is that BOTH routes are going to be pointless but at least regular referendums ("i"?) keep our rulers relatively honest.

I'm not so sure. I'm becoming attracted (and we can all see the dangers) of BENIGN AUTOCRACY.

Easier said than done. Honest people (like Thatcher was and I suspect Blair was when I first met him in the early 90s) start with good intentions and then deteriorate.

So an autocrat can even quicker be ruined by power.

But at least a well intended individual can make decisions and do things fast, right or wrong - and change things if they go wrong.

JK you've lost the plot lol;)

Show me one example of autocratic rule in an advanced society that hasn't degraded into despotism,and that has actually worked better than democracy.

I've lived and worked in the former CCCP,Turkey & Iraq.I've seen first hand the disasters they cause,both during and after.
Clever people tend to make the worse politicians,'know it all' syndrome has generally been a disaster...just ask Martin Bell about the Bosnian Serb leadership in the early 90s...highest percent of university professors in that government of any in the world,and they committed genocide!
Those are dangerous thoughts,and let's hope you do not get a chance to rue them.

JK2006 wrote:
referendums ("i"?)
Referenda, JK, though referendums is quite acceptable.

In theory, JK hasn't lost the plot at all, though in practice, I suspect SE is quite right. If you could find an intelligent, compassionate leader, immune from corruption and abuse of power, then a benign dictatorship would indeed be the best option. They could , as JK states, act quickly, but also adopt sensible long term policies, which democratic leaders cannot, as they need to look for short-sighted quick wins to avoid being voted out in five years time. The chances of such a person existing, however, are too low to consider in reality.

To answer SE's request for an example of autocratic rule which hasn't descended into despotism, I might suggest Ataturk. Turks weren't even allowed surnames until his reforms, and he made the country secular. That HAS to be a good thing. I must add that I am no expert on the life and times of Ataturk, so am not sure what he did to his opposition. I can guess.

My intention is not to give an answer. I do not have one. Democracy is fundamentally flawed, but is there a better plan? Human nature being what it is, I have my doubts, but I do not accept that more referendums are the answer. Denise was right on the other thread, stating that most votes are based on empty media sensationalism, but surely the answer to that is to keep votes to a minimum. A vague vote for a political party every few years is more than enough. SE may also be right that once people see the result of their excesses, they would become more moderate, but I ask this: would you accept the state sanctioned murder of a possibly innocent citizen in the belief that it would teach the populace a lesson, if that innocent citizen was someone close to you?

Anthony,if you think Ataturk's rule was an example of benign dictatorship then I suggest you go live there.A democratically elected government is about to be turfed out due to a constitution introduced by an army dictatorship.
It will of course depend a lot on if you dislike religion in politics,...but democracy that reflects the will of the majority has to be better than autocracy........a fair example here is the current uncertainty of the Turkish financial markets...investors won't invest in uncertainty.
At present Turkey is involved in a civil war with the PKK,another direct result of secular ataturk policies,no chance for compromise.
All in all a bad example,sorry to have to point it out...still waiting for a good one.

I think that the main problem with the UK is that the safeguards within our system, which used to prevent any government from abusing power, have been wittled away. This included the hereditary peers who put country before politics being replaced by ex MPs whose main loyalties are still to their party. The rights of the accused, to the presumption of innocence. The misuse of the Parliament Act to push through unfavourable legislation. The creation of new terror laws which basically sweep away the established rights of citizens, detention without trial, increased surveillance, increased databases, etc.

Safeguards built into our system over centuries, for good reason, have been disabled in less than a decade, enabling abuse of power to a remarkable extent.

Even well intentioned individuals can be corrupted or make mistakes. Our system, to an extent, prevented those individuals' errors from endangering the nation - until changes were made.

Now .. anything can happen.

Solihull Exile wrote:
Anthony,if you think Ataturk's rule was an example of benign dictatorship then I suggest you go live there.A democratically elected government is about to be turfed out due to a constitution introduced by an army dictatorship.
It will of course depend a lot on if you dislike religion in politics,...but democracy that reflects the will of the majority has to be better than autocracy........a fair example here is the current uncertainty of the Turkish financial markets...investors won't invest in uncertainty.
At present Turkey is involved in a civil war with the PKK,another direct result of secular ataturk policies,no chance for compromise.
All in all a bad example,sorry to have to point it out...still waiting for a good one.
Ataturk modernised the Turkish state, drew it away from the evils of Islamic fundamentalism, and modernised the education system. He removed barbaric Sharia law, introduced forward thinking education at Istanbul university, and founded Ankara university. He introduced the railway system, and freed women from the oppression which Islam imposes upon them. He said:
"If henceforward the women do not share in the social life of the nation, we shall never attain to our full development. We shall remain irremediably backward, incapable of treating on equal terms with the civilizations of the West." Seventy years after his death, women are still suffering under the moronic backward Islamofascist cavemen ruling Iran, and many other Islamic states. He was a visionary.

He did try to introduce a multi-party democracy, but this was thwarted at every turn by the threat of extreme Islam.

To blame a man who died in 1938 for a current event in Turkey, which seems to be your only argument against my suggestion, appears a little lame to me.

There seems to be an attitude that the current poor Government should be swept away by the good sense of the electorate.. erm... how do you think this Government got there in the first place if not by the very people whose good sense is being held up as the pinnacle of perfection.

The origional argument was about a western country replacing democracy with despotism,and being better for it.How on earth is this case replacing democracy?
Seems our arguments have diversed onto different paths,so best to agree to differ.
You haven't shown an example of a change from democracy,but have shown an example of a change from one despotism to another.
The origional Ottoman empire was indeed a great sucess in its day,but by 1918 had only survived because of outside interference from Britain and France,not allowing Russian influence to spread into the Dardenelles.


As for Ataturk not having a direct influence on modern Turkey you obviously have not been there.Had you have done so your comments on this matter would have been very different.
The whole of the current military government's constitution are based on his policies.He literally appears EVERYWHERE,banknotes,schools,all government buildings...even school children have to swear allegiance to the Turkish state,and his legacy every friday evening after the finish of school.
Again I have worked and lived there,and seen how devisive they can be.

And finally do not forget the current PKK fighting stemmed from this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Turkish_coup_d'