Then it was " democracy by the people , for the people and of the people"
Today it is " democracy by the politicians, for the politicians and of the politicians"

How about some public funded leave in bali.

Then? When?

95% of people are too insipid to handle living in a democracy !

As Winston famously said:

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

is Mise,
you have been here long enough to remember the several times I posted that Democracy is the worst form of dictatorship !
Democracy is fine if you don't give a damn about your fellow citizens & others in need !
A criminal can say "I'm a good bloke" just as a leftist can say Democracy is for fairness !

The system is not at fault. It is people who fail the system. Even the best system can become a miserable failure in the hands of uncivilised people who manage it. Blaming the system is like beating around the bush. People who manage the system are the real culprits. Only in a civilised any system can function effectively.

Ezhil.

Democracy is actually like "spell-check": type Ezhil, for example, and before your very eyes, Ezhil is converted to Ezekiel.
What were your choices in that particular action? The choice available to you though, is to convert Ezekiel back into the original input form, Ezhil.

But the difficulty is, of the billions of people living globally under democratic conventions, which two of those people would agree to what form democracy should take?

So the problem with democracy is who controls the outcomes.
Simple answer to that one is politicians.
Then it becomes a simple question of what is a politician by definition.

Firstly, politicians are corrupt. No politician is pure in his view, or even necessarily motivated to protecting democracy.

Secondly, politicians are awash with vested interests. Compromised.

The aeroplane of democracy is really in autopilot; adjusting to the whims of the weather, just like the guiding forces of politicians, who we perceive as being in the pilot seat, and every now and again, taking back control from the autopilot, and making little personal adjustments attempting to make his and those involved in his vested interest circle, comfortable.

So you see, democracy is doomed, as is any other "system" which may replace it.
Doomed because at the heart of human nature is a control freak, always to a greater or lesser degree than his fellow human neighbor.

Humans a greedy little creatures that want everything for themselves. We once had a guiding star called Christianity, which if allowed to influence the human destiny, would alter its joint psychology, and encompass the concerns of others as a priority to our own selfish and vested interest motivation.

Dan

Dan,

"But the difficulty is, of the billions of people living globally under democratic conventions, which two of those people would agree to what form democracy should take?"

Me and my wife.

Is Mise

http://youtu.be/9B9rjRzlWtU

Democracy at work..."let's agree to disagree".: Domestic bliss, (almost).

Dan.

what form democracy should take?"
Is Mise,
There's only one form of Democracy & no country is deploying it !

"The system is not at fault. It is people who fail the system".

That's stating the bleeding obvious. So what's the solution? Do away with people? Import Martians? What? Because it's a dead cert that people aren't going to change.

Individual,

You don't 'deploy' democracy, as if it's ready-made, you have to build it and vigilantly maintain it.

And yes, as Churchill indicated, it's a miserable, irritating and never-finished form of social participation, it makes demands on all of us, but it sure beats any form of fascist dictatorship that you might hanker for.

Joe

A benevolent Dictator would be preferable to the many "democratic" heads of State presently.
The problem is that people wouldn't allow any benevolent or decent person to be at the helm because it'd mean voluntarily curbing excesses !

Let us not deviate too much from the main issue.The primary aspect to be considered is that no perfect system can ever be found out. As somebody has pointed out the system in vogue should evolve as and when required. Are not the governments changing the constitution when something irrelevant is detected? The main point here is that only when the society is civilised enough can any system deliver the goods.
There are no benevolent dictators on earth.

Why are politicians to blame? Local representatives of the people live and hear the voice of their electorate. However when they get elected they are removed from the people and only hear the voice of the Party, bureaucrats and advisers, other politicians and international leaders. They live in an international bubble of ideas, United Nations, Paris Accord etc. They are influenced to think Globally for the developing nations and the conflicting tribes. So their view of the local changes for a broader field. The Demon is they want now to solve the World's problems.

governments changing the constitution when something irrelevant is detected?
Ezhil,
They should but they don't ! Equality in Taxation is not being changed. So, when do Govts actually change part of the Constitution to ensure an even playing field ? They haven't changed the persecution of victims & the protection of perpetrators. People are allowed to go bankrupt whilst still remaining wealthy & owing others !
What should be changed right now ?
Let's try some real Democracy for a change !

Ezhil: You ask "Are not the governments changing the constitution when something irrelevant is detected?"

Well perhaps this question was more rhetorical than not. But if you did want an answer to it then I would say that it, at least in the case of the federal constitution, doesn't change as much as you seem to be claiming it does. For example, the last time the Australian Constitution was changed was back in 1977. Indeed, over the last 120 years of federation there has only been 44 proposals to amend it and of those only eight were approved. And of those eight, only three have any real direct effect on the everyday life of citizens like you and me whereas the others were administrative/technical changes or changes that effect the states-commonwealth relationship more than citizens directly. These three were the 1946 amendment regarding social services, the 1967 amendment regarding aborigines and the part of the 1977 amendment that gives the citizens of territories the right to vote in referendums.

Also there are quite a few parts that remain in our constitution that many would today consider to be irrelevant. Such as the fact that New Zealand has a right to become a State. So, in theory, all it takes for New Zealand to become a state is for her to say that it is one and then instantly they're the seventh state of Australia. However, I feel that most Australians today wouldn't accept this and thus should be removed (or at least amended so that it also requires approval by referendum of Australia's existing citizens.)

Additionally, there are many bits that many would consider missing or incomplete. For example, as far as I remember*, the constitution doesn't define the role of the PM nor does it have much to say about the actual practices of the holding/running of Parliament. Instead it leaves these to be derived from our inherited English traditions and left to evolve organically over time.

* Note: it was over 25 years ago that I read the constitution so my memory may be a bit hazy here.

Governments cannot change the Constitution without a referendum in Australia. But then, this Ezhil is not Australian, nor does he live in Australia.

We need only a democracy that delivers. This is possible only when it is in the hands of civilised people. After electing men and women who amassed wealth illegally, as presidents, prime ministers and legislators how can we think of a functional and just democracy?

My comments are international in character and I don't aim at particular country.

We must change the political scenario that prompted people to say that politics is the last resort of scoundrels.

Oh, what tosh, Ezhil. Would you rather live in Communist China; some African country with a lunatic dictator; somewhere that doesn't even claim to be democratic - North Korea, perhaps. What's wrong with you. Did someone pinch your lunch? What the hell do you expect? Something that doesn't exist and will never exist, I suspect. Get over it! Democracy is not perfect, but it's the best thing available.

ttbn

Your outbursts are unwarranted and unexplainable.

Get a life, you miserable whinger.

ttbn
Only for people like you greatmen have already said " only they who live for others live; all others more dead than alive"
You can keep your nonsense opinions with you and don't expose your primitive quality in a public domain.

cannot change the Constitution without a referendum in Australia.
ttbn,
And, who can instigate a referendum ?

To be pedantic it actually requires a special sort of referendum in that it is not just a simple standard majority of eligible voters that approves an amendment. Instead it requires a double majority: where the double majority is a majority of states by each state's registered voters (so there is a majority in at least 4 of the 6 states), and by a majority of voters overall nationally. Voters in the territories count towards the national majority (since the 1977 referendum) but don't count (obviously) towards any particular state.

[Also, the actual proposed change is first a formal a bill of parliament which has to be successfully passed by special rules above and beyond what normally applies to ordinary bills.]

it actually requires a special sort of referendum
thinkabit,
So, who can actually instigate a special referendum ? Two drunks in a Pub ? A High Court Judge & a Politician ? Lawyers, Academics, Builders & Labourers?
I say let's look at the flaws or rather no longer relevant parts of the Constitution & adjust them accordingly !

I say no Public office holders should be allowed to have a say !

individual: "So, who can actually instigate a special referendum ? Two drunks in a Pub ? A High Court Judge & a Politician ? Lawyers, Academics, Builders & Labourers?"

I'm not certain if your asking this for an answer. But as I said in the last post: "Also, the actual proposed change is first a formal a bill of parliament which has to be successfully passed by special rules above and beyond what normally applies to ordinary bills." So a referendum to change the constitution can only be initiated by a politician in parliament.

The process is similar to how normal bills (ie: potential future laws) are introduced but does however have a few additional/different requirements. Most importantly it requires an absolute majority* of both houses or it requires one house to pass it twice by absolute majority with at least a few months (3?) between the votes.

*(absolute majority here means : a majority of all the members of the house. Not just a majority of those present at the time of the vote.)

Whoops, I did it again: "your" in my last post is "you're". Why do I continually make this mistake only to find it immediately after posting?

Voting is an important activity in a democracy. Elections decide the fate of a country for a specific period apart from its long term impact. In most countries the voting age is around 18 years.The youth are a volatile group who are swayed by personal considerations rather than public good. In my opinion these young people are not mature enough to choose the right candidate. Being children themselves how can they choose a suitable adult who is going to govern. Youth are fascinated by money, cinema and other entertainment. They may not understand what public good is.
Age is the only variable which can be universally applied. All other specifications such as "married people" etc. etc. may become highly subjective. When people reach certain age say 21 years or more it is likely that they might have been exposed to the complexities of life and therefore will be in a position to understand what is personal and how it affects the interest of the public. Understanding the functioning of societies is the most important aspect that will decide the quality of voting.