Has Democracy helped the West recently? Has the lack of it harmed China?
Less individual freedom perhaps. But a worse standard of living?

The older I get, the more I realise Democracy does not work. Allowing everyone a say is ridiculous. Most people simply haven't a clue. They are morons, simpletons. They think in slogans and black and white. Their opinions are ill informed and bigoted.

They should have no say in voting.

I'm not sure what is better but clearly allowing "the public" any say whatsoever is absurd.

I am tired of lobbyists trying to get Cameron to talk about China's human rights record. Okay it isn't great, but it was much, much worse 35 years ago. A country China's size with 1.3bn people is not going to change overnight. Besides which he isn't there to talk about human rights - he's there to help sell a few Rolls Royce jet engines. You don't insult your punter after you have done a deal with them.

And you are right about Cameron telling them to 'embrace democracy'. Why fix it if it ain't broken - it seems to be motoring along quite happily compared to the 'showcase' broken democracies of the US and UK.

Democracy doesn't work,but the alternative is some form of dictatorship.
China works well as a dictatorship,but when you look at say it's neighbor Burma I'd have to say come back Blair and Major,we forgive you

I agree with JK - surely our brightest political scientists in Cambridge and Oxford can develop new models for organising society.

Democracy and Dictatorship have both failed in the 20th century. The Class system has failed - the Monarchy and Peasants has failed.

The 21st Century needs a new model which provides a voice but does not rely on spin and media manipulation and propaganda which since the 1930s has dominated rather than policy and fairness. We lurch from war to war because of democracy and capitalism.

It may be that pure capitalism is as bad as the Soviet communist model - both are extreme and dont work.

I think we could organise society in terms of local councils rather than nation states. Devolution of sorts - but not via political parties and voting the way we do now. Perhaps people could volunteer and serve for limited periods on these councils as a form of service to their community. We would all need to be quite idealistic and want the common good. Voting could then be applied to policies rather than to choosing between parties and ideology. It could work and a bright mind could develop such an idea and make it workable.

Any other thoughts ?

Marvelous how some dictators are feted and treated with great dignity whilst others (Saddam) are invaded and tens of thousands of innocents die in the process.

All to sell a few goodies.

Although not sure China could work as a democracy...too big.

The problem is that we don't have democracy as such, we merely have populism. Populism is about everyone taking part and having a say. Democracy is about everyone taking part and striving to make the best judgment for the community. Democracy, therefore, requires huge investment in education and an effective means of circulating information, and nations have never been able to convince their citizens to pay for this. So democracy is a system that is always waiting for undemocratic people to fund it. It all goes back to education.

Possibly votes should only be given to those who pass exams in management of social services; but, of course, none of us would bother to take them and only the better looking candidates would win. Better media photo opportunity for a better story.

People forget, but during the reform bill debates in the 19th century plenty of Liberals, including John Stuart Mill, were advocating double votes for university graduates because they took seriously the notion that political actors had to be intelligent, well-informed, responsible and virtuous. The sad thing is, today, one wouldn't look to universities for such qualities. You can coast to a 2:1 these days and still be no more than semi-literate.

Prunella Minge wrote:
The problem is that we don't have democracy as such, we merely have populism. Populism is about everyone taking part and having a say. Democracy is about everyone taking part and striving to make the best judgment for the community. Democracy, therefore, requires huge investment in education and an effective means of circulating information, and nations have never been able to convince their citizens to pay for this. So democracy is a system that is always waiting for undemocratic people to fund it. It all goes back to education.

well said Mizz Minge.

although I say we are verging on corporatism/fascism

JK2006 wrote:
Possibly votes should only be given to those who pass exams in management of social services; but, of course, none of us would bother to take them and only the better looking candidates would win. Better media photo opportunity for a better story.

But JK,the best looking candidates often don't win,otherwise you'd have been keeping Maggie company in '79