Is anyone who has the ego......

[orlok]

....to attempt to become leader of their respective country actually the kind of person one would want to run the country?

IMHO anyone who is after that power is utterly unsuited to the role of PM or president etc.

And please don't tell me they do it because they want to make a difference.

comments please.

rgds

OrLoK

off to bed to be ill with icky flu nastieness.

[HasimirFenring]

A personally ambitious person is not necessarily a bad leader for a nation.  If we are to take the extremely cynical viewpoint, as you are, then you must at least concede that politicians want to be relected.  The easiest way to win enough support to do that is (in a democracy) to do some (even if it isn't much) good for your country.

Generally, I think Plato would have agreed with you. 

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

-Winston Churchill

[Caid Ivik]

If we are about Platon, I would turn the problem: why people ABLE to lead the country couldn't be forced to rule it?

[TMA_1]

sure those kinds of people could rule a country, people who are extremely hungry for power, or to put it nicely are "ambitious". The key is, would they make good and healthy rulers? no, most likely they wouldnt. See the problem with that kind of mindset is it is selfish, and generally can lead to a lack of sensitivity towards the people. That is my opinion though anyways.

[Acriku]

The people who want to run the country mostly do so due to their own agenda that they're pushing. They think it is right, that it will make this country better, and be better for the people. I don't see why they can't be good or healthy rulers. I don't see at all a relationship between the two.

[Dude_Doc]

It's always hard to know what the people wants, because people are different and have different goals. Some believe that capitalism is good, that it makes people want to work more, that there is a sence of control, some think communism is better because it offers people equal chances and justice. You can't simply force people in believing what's right and what's wrong.

Being a politician is hard, but being a dictator is easy. I think most politicians want to be something in between.

[TMA_1]

being a dictator is extremely difficult, and can be done in a right and wrong way. I highly suggest to never think being a dictator as something simple and stupid. It is probably the hardest way to rule since you do not usually have any checks and balances, and because of this you have the responsibility laid completely on you. You do not have usualyl a cabinet that can take part of the blame, or you dont have a congress that can take power away from you, or can overrule you. I think it is closed minded to think that because you are a dictator that it means you have no possibility of being a good leader, or that a dictatorship is always the most evil way to rule. It is ethno-centric, since we live in an age of "democracy", we generally think that the supposed rule of the "people" is the only way to go.

[orlok]

Ok, from all the other posts it seems that most people do not believe that true democracy can work.

As true communism has never been achieved, and a dictatorship is not really the best form of govt.

What form of government can work?

is it? (as it sounds quite good).....

An anarcho-syndicalist commune?.

Who take it in turns to act as a executive officer for the week.

All the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, and a two-thirds majority in the case of more major events?

let me know your thoughts.

LoK

[Andrew]

I think it was in Dune where there was a quote that a person must have power thrust upon them

It required constant mental cleansing to face up to the fact of her great power

over the Sisterhood. I did not seek this power. It was thrust upon me. And

she thought: Power attracts the corruptible. Suspect all who seek it. She

knew the chances were great that such people were susceptible to corruption or

already lost.

From Chapterhouse Dune, may be what I am thinking of.

[orlok]

also i must point out my ideal government was taken directly from the script of Monty Pythons' Holy Grail.

but still think its good.

suprised no ones noticed.

or am I showing my age again?

LoK

[nemafakei]

Ah, drat. I should have spotted that one. I noticied it was a bit odd, but couldn't put my finger on why.

[exatreide]

Heinlin Democracy  ;)

[Caid Ivik]

Like Henlein? I would call it "healthy fascism"  ;D

[orlok]

I dont know Heinline's view of democracy.

Can anyone explain it, in simple, easy to use terms that come in an aerosol container?

Not all of us are super clever :(

rgds

LoK

[exatreide]

Okay

Citizens and Civilans..

He use's it in several books, but i have only read Starship troopers and parts of a cat who walks through walls, both good reads.

Democracies became corrupt and bloated with beuracy and corrupt greed

[nemafakei]

In what sense, exactly, was Sparta democratic? They officially had kings selected from an aristocracy and a tiny minotity of 'true' Spartans subjugated a massive Helot population.

Need I name the sorts of people who were inspired by Sparta?

[exatreide]

Democratic in part

"Spartan government was an odd affair, but its overwhelming characteristic was stability . The Spartans, in fact, had the most stable government in the history of ancient Greece (some historians call this stability, "political stagnation"). At the top of government was the monarchy; the monarchy, however, was a dual monarchy. Below the monarchy was a council which was composed of the two kings plus twenty-eight nobles, all of whom were over sixty, that is, retired from the military. The council debated and set legislative and foreign policy, and was the supreme criminal court. Below the council (or above it), was an assembly of all the Spartiate males (a democracy, in other words)

some website..

[nemafakei]

"Spartiate males"

All 600 of them or however many of them there were by the end of the Peloponnesian war. In a country of tens of thousands of Helots - that's democracy? While you've still got a ruling monarchy? Democracy in part, perhaps, but a tiny fraction-part.

[Caid Ivik]

In democracy, everyone considered as human has a citizenship and all citizen rights with it. Heilots shouldn't be counted, as greek spirit didn't thought about them as true humans, if you understand me, they were simply lessers. Like those thin ones in Henlein's Troopers. Citizens had to serve in military, but could at least participate at popular senates, both genders, or one for family, I think. True power was in hands of closed aristocracy: blood played role here, not military skill, they were descendants of the founders. Even fascism as we know it is closer to democracy, as there you could at least join the party ;D  But sure, that's why Sparta was so stable and winning one war after another.

[nemafakei]

So if I officially defined humans as 'believers in God', would that be fair?

Or as 'believers in His Holiness George W Bush II': could I then annull any non-bush votes on the grounds that they were made out by non-humans?

Slaves were ανθρωποι, humans, just not πολιται, citizens, or ελευθεροι, free men.

[orlok]

ok,

if i can interject here.

moving away from the democracy/sparta thing (but feel free to continue the discussion :) )

What is the fairest and best form of government (if indeed there can be such a thing)?

Has it ever been implemented?

Has it worked in real life?

Also ta for the heinline Info

sorry to interrupt.

Rgds

LoK

[Caid Ivik]

So if I officially defined humans as 'believers in God', would that be fair?

Or as 'believers in His Holiness George W Bush II': could I then annull any non-bush votes on the grounds that they were made out by non-humans?

Slaves were ανθρωποι, humans, just not πολιται, citizens, or ελευθεροι, free men.

Democracy doesn't have fairness in its definition.

[exatreide]

Orlok, Henlein democracy...even though it hasn't been practiced...yet ;)

[nemafakei]

In which case, Caid, the democracy of which I speak will always be very different to the democracy in the terms you think of it. Bear this in mind in future debates.

Orlok...

What is the fairest and best form of government (if indeed there can be such a thing)?

In short: A system of potentially total participation whereby individual decisions are made by impartial and informed adjudicators. The selection criteria would have been based on a combination of minimum criteria for government (qualifications in subjects where expertise is required), impartiality (no party has a vesed interest in manipulating the decision one way or the other), and a random element for the rest.

This would, by necessity, have to be complemented by an economic overhaul which approportions wages by effort and contribution to society, such that personal financial pressure cannot be put on those making any given decision.

Has it ever been implemented?

No.

The random selective element worked fairly well in Classical Athens, but this is only one element.

Has it worked in real life?

Well, it's never been tested so no, not yet.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, if you call this politeia a democracy, then I must agree with you, as its perfection  ;D  Problem is that even in fascism can potentially whole population participate on governing: by entering the party and making a carrier there, as we can say that structure of fascist party is close to a modern mercenary army or ecumenic hierarchy (and I want no comparision, as I myself am a catholic...), all enter the game with same chances. Altough the system is in fact an oligarchy.