Winston Churchill said “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms that have been tried…” A government is supposed to represent the people. People ought to be able to decide how things are run in their own country and democracy is the way to do that. So why was Churchill so critical of it? Well, he didn’t trust the common people too much. A lot of common people agree with Churchill though because, when done right, democracy is messy and that makes most people nervous.
However, the real drawback to democracy appears to be that it exposes the minority to the tyranny of the majority. But in modern democracy this majority is in turn exposed to the tyranny of a moneyed-elite minority that controls the debate and the levers of power. So the end result is that modern democracy exposes the powerless minority and the powerful majority to the tyranny of a super-powerful minority. It seems to me that this could be fixed by having a system that is set up properly.
A proper democracy, that serves everyone, is like a stool- it supports all those who rest on it. A proper stool must have 3 legs:
First and foremost, it MUST have a comprehensive set of rights that the state guarantees to all citizens (so if financial institutions, corporations or the majority try to act against the good of the community the set of rights will stop them- if the second leg of a true democracy is in place).
The second leg is that it must keep money completely out of politics (which will promote a government that acts for the good of the whole community instead of just the moneyed-elite).
The third leg is that it must have decentralized decision-making for it to be democracy in the first place. If decisions are centralized then they are made by the few but democracy is decision-making by everyone.
So it seems to me that the state should represent:
The right’s of the individual 1st,
The current will of the people 2nd
And the profits of business last