u3a

South Solihull

Democracy: still the “least worst” form of government?

We discussed a couple of Moral Maze episodes on democracy:

These were quite disappointing.  A few points were scored, but the debates never got down to definitions or templates for what would make a good democracy.  True, they went through alternatives to democracy: communism, anarchy, and autocracy, which might have advantages in times of great change or crisis- after all the Greeks abandoned democracy and elected a temporary tyrant when circumstances demanded - but power corrupts eventually and it is then very difficult to remove the autocrat.  Democracy can range from full universal participation (a referendum) through electing a delegate to representative democracy, where the electorate selects representatives who have the ability and character to represent them.  John Rawls did provide a model for democracy and its morality.  A characteristic of his democracy is that the lawmakers have to care for the whole of society that they represent and respect its shared customs and values.  While Rawls did not mind people getting rich, it could never be at the cost to or the detriment of the poorest in the society.  Our democracy has struggled since Mrs. Thatcher declared there is no such thing as society, and so much has become monetised that voters now tend to favour the candidate that brings them the most benefits at the lowest cost.  The old expropriate against the young.  The requirement to look after the poor already in society does throw a light on the arguments to control immigration.