Thread: Bерите в демократию? / Do you believe in Democracy?

Originally Posted by LXNDR

can you tell who this YOU is? it must be someone with the authority higher than the President's if it's him/her/them who entrusts him this job. It could be the 'stupid crowd' like in most modern democracies, but you dismiss it. Who is this then? Aristocrats? Who are in turn appointed by whom?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Very interesting point. You do realize such interviewing implies there will have to be a "president's boss"? So, my questions for now are, who will be holding such a post, how will they be hired, and what will they be doing after the president gets elected?

You both didn't read my message apparently. Those should be public tests (literally) with certificates. Some agency or research group can devise up these tests so that by passing them any able citizens could elect and be elected only if they are qualified. And who is the 'president's boss' when we talk of democracy? It's people, right? In fact I'm not only sugesting a one-time test but annual confirmation too. Having this system established we can be sure that our leaders are sane and prepared for the job and they are elected by sane and responsible people.

Originally Posted by Ramil

You both didn't read my message apparently. Those should be public tests (literally) with certificates. Some agency or research group can devise up these tests so that by passing them any able citizens could elect and be elected only if they are qualified. And who is the 'president's boss' when we talk of democracy? It's people, right? In fact I'm not only sugesting a one-time test but annual confirmation too. Having this system established we can be sure that our leaders are sane and prepared for the job and they are elected by sane and responsible people.

ok, but under true democracy these conditions and tests would have still to be approved by the majority of the voters on a referendum for example, otherwise that would not be a democracy
so i don't see how you can skip the 'stupid crowd' and stay democratic at the same time

and as a sidenote i don't think we should use limits of Greek democracy for justification of the idea of its unattainability in the modern conditions, we simply have to regard modern democracy as development of the ancient Greek democracy

Originally Posted by LXNDR

ok, but under true democracy these conditions and tests would have still to be approved by the majority of the voters on a referendum for example, otherwise that would not be a democracy

Why? Again, it has to do with ability. You don't approve driver's test system on a referendum, right? You don't approve doctors' licensing system on a referendum. It just has to be public that's all.

Originally Posted by LXNDR

and as a sidenote i don't think we should use limits of Greek democracy for justification of the idea of its unattainability in the modern conditions, we simply have to regard modern democracy as development of the ancient Greek democracy

Right, and I just described what changes I would like to see in it. Moreover, we could also skip the presidency at all. All major policies should be determined by direct voting of able citizens (thus, skipping the necessity of parliament at least). We now have the technology for direct democracy (without representatives).