“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

- James Madison, Federalist No. 51

Akemi Gaines at Real Life Spirituality left a comment on Secrets Of The Millionaire Dropouts, saying she questioned whether democracy was the best form of government.

Back in 2000, I watched the Great American Think-Off debate, with the topic of “Is Democracy Fair?” (Ironically, this was just a few months before Florida had to recount its votes in the Bush-Gore election.) There were many questions posed with no easy answers, such as “If democracy isn’t fair, then what form of government is better?” and “How can you defend democracy, when Hitler came to power through democratic elections?”

In the end, the audience voted that democracy was fair. (See anything ironic about that?) If I recall correctly, the winner’s main argument was that while people are mostly apathetic, when things really get bad enough, they’ll vote for change. (Though apparently, they’re willing to let things get really really bad first.)

But while we might be able to agree that democracy is fair at least to some extent, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the best way. Akemi pointed out some of the problems:

“History has shown democracy fails. In ancient Greece, it deteriorated to mob rule. In modern times, it has become a popularity contest, manipulated by the media. The French Revolution turned to a horrible blood bath and only a brilliant man who enthroned himself could end it.

This is because we cannot agree with what we don’t understand. So our intelligence limits our decision making (= vote). Think what might happen if a company (even a medium size one) is run by democracy. I am sure it will go out of business soon.

But then, when we entrust the pros who know better (sometimes called rulers, sometimes politicians), it creates a perfect ground to breed corruption. We are in a catch 22.”

The part about running a company by democracy reminded me of The Office, when Michael and Jim were both made co-regional managers of Dunder Mifflin’s Scranton branch. Of course, nothing got done because they were too busy trying to overpower each other. As Oscar sarcastically said,

“Look, it doesn’t take a genius to know that every organization thrives when it has two leaders. Go ahead, name a country that doesn’t have two presidents. A boat that set sail without two captains. Where would Catholicism be, without the popes?”

And that’s with just two decision makers. Yes, democracy is very inefficient by nature. Autocracy is very efficient, but then, you take your chances. Oligarchy is in the middle, but who decides who’s on top?

It’s a tall order to fill; a form of government that doesn’t rely on voter rationality, wants what’s best for everyone, enforces checks and balances on itself, and gets things done without red tape. Maybe Churchill had it right:

“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 all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

• Will You Be A Victim Of Voter Fraud?
• The Problem With Voting In America: Too Many People Do It