Posting a big, grand topic to get this place some activity.

So, politics is all about how we govern ourselves. We've got a shitload of different theories which claim to describe how to best govern ourselves - A whole bunch of competing political ideologies (libertarianism, communism, socialism, capitalism etc.).

The question is which ideology is best for society? If one ideology doesn't hold all the answers, what sort of 'ideological combo' would work best? Maybe you think one ideology holds all the answers but there's some parts of it that you disagree with.

So I want to know which ideology/ideological mix you think would be best for society and I want you to explain why it's best.

Democracy with a healthy dose of technocracy, rather than a single political ideology.

If that leads to socialism, free capitalism, liberalism or what ever combination of multiple ideologies., then be it.
The rights of all to be a part of choosing what kind of society they want to build outweigh possible benefits of pure technocracy or dictatorship.
I'd rather not have a singular ideology. I'd rather find the unifying beliefs and desires among the people of the society I'm trying to benefit, democracy is the only true way to find that.

If then the people want socialism, let the people have socialism.

I don't really think there truly is a "best" form of government. Every single one of them has their flaws.

Personally, I'd think that a form of democracy, in theory, would be the most effective. But even then, if you take a look at where the United States is at, even its own system has flaws. We boast about how the people have a say in the inner workings of our government, which in theory is true, but we really don't.

I don't know. It's just a matter of opinion. I'm interested in hearing more.

I do believe that people should weigh heavily in the politics of their country, but at the same time, I don't. I'm just glad that the USA has a system of checks and balances to counteract what could be.

Meritocracy.

This isn't Wibbles. Put effort into explaining your answer.

It depends on the situation. Realistically, a lot of political systems will struggle or fail due to human nature. Theoretically, these very same political systems are likely the optimal political systems if you could assume perfect conditions. Ultimately, it comes down to how much human is involved in the political system, because humans are ultimately the irrational decision maker that ruins otherwise functional political systems.

For example, in practice a dictatorship or other monarch-based systems are usually flawed due to a large amount of political power being concentrated in one human. This means that this power is easy to be misused, due to a lack of checks because of a single authority with power, and it makes power fluctuate on the condition of the person in power. However, in a theoretical perfect situation of an infallible, fair, and immortal monarch (essentially a god), a monarch-based political system would work fairly well, as power is concentrated in a stable and just source. The weaknesses in a practical monarchy become the strengths with the right person at the helm, due to the nature of the political system. However, due to human nature, this perfect being for a monarchy will likely never exist, making monarch-centric political systems inherently a flawed structure.

Meanwhile, in practice, a democracy is usually a more stable form of government, due to the people in political power being held in check by the people they represent, and other balances within the system. However, democracy has it's own flaws in practice due to, again, human nature throwing a wrench into the system. Politicians are supposed to make decisions that benefit their populace, but these decisions are difficult to make, and often have multiple answers with no clear way to predict success for a lot of them. Furthermore, not all politicians will act in the best faith of the populace, and the populace may not be informed enough, or motivated enough, to protest about it. The balance against power abuse can fail to check the abuse due to the public obliging the abuse of the person in power. In addition, democracies are often ineffective when the population is too large, yet it is most effective when the population in the democracy is almost equal, if not equal, to the population that will be influenced by the decisions of the democracy. That being said, democracy is generally more stable as a political system due to tools in place to moderate the political system from overreach.

But, in a theoretically perfect environment, democracy becomes inefficient. If every individual is a perfectly informed citizen, and each politician is motivated and population-driven, then democracy slows down effective governance because the very same tools intended to balance powers will also slow governance. Election cycles require the efforts of politicians to be divided away from their core job of governance. Furthermore, actions within a democracy are subject to scrutiny from the population of which it serves, which further bogs down governance, as informed decisions are not reached overnight. Also, democracy is built around compromise. Unless every politicians can agree on the right course of action to take 100% of the time, then the very nature of democracy will slow governance because compromise will be necessary for progress to be made among dissenting parties. And if all politicians did agree on the same course of action 100% of the time, you might as well do away with democracy and replace it with a monarchy, as it would functionally be accomplishing the same thing.

Basically, I think every political system works in an isolated bubble that sustains the right conditions for it's success, it's just those conditions may not be replicated in reality. There's characteristics with any form of governance that can be both a strength or a weakness, depending on how that characteristic is used. Concentrated power is fine if the person in power is omnipotent and benevolent, democracy is fine if the population it represents is informed and active, and the politicians involved, but fallible. Capitalism is fine as an economic system if checks and balances prevent economic Darwinism. Socialism is fine if the limits of government influence is checked at population necessities. Communism is fine if the resources available meet the needs of the population and the distribution is impartial.

What ultimately matters from the political system is, in my opinion, that it meets the needs of the worst off in society. We don't measure a society's worth by how well off the people at the top are, but by how well the people at the bottom are. Who cares if the emperor of the nation lives in decadence if his people subsist off dust and decay? A political system never succeeds, in my eyes, unless it can meet the necessities of everyone it is supposed to represent and protect. If a person at the bottom of society can go through life without basic existential worries, then we've given that person the bare minimum of decency.

There are different forms of democracy however, and some forms get rid of politicians entirely. The system you've described is a representative democracy, a democracy containing people that we elect to represent us (politicians). Right now (just about every) representative democracy in the world is a democracy in name only, they're essentially oligarchies (controlled by the political elites).

A representative democracy unfettered by corruption might be impossible. If it were possible (through removing representatives), would we even want that? Look around at your average fellow citizens. These are not the people you want deciding geopolitics.

What's your opinion on direct-democracy (or some similar variant)? Democracy that removes any corrupt middlemen and goes straight to the will of the people.


I agree that for system to be called the best, best means the best for everyone.

Direct democracy is inefficient and susceptible to group think. It requires all citizens to be informed about what they're voting on, which is impractical in reality. The average person can't be expected to understand the intricacies and consequences of political decisions, and specialists are almost required on principle because of the complexity of modern society. Let alone expecting all that from the bottom half of the intellectual spectrum.

More importantly, direct democracy has to follow the will of the majority, when the will of the majority might be counterproductive to the benefit of the population, or actively discriminates against a minority of the population. The protection of the underrepresented is required for a democracy to not degrade to an oligarchy. This protection is hard to accomplish in a direct democracy without the democracy no longer being a direct democracy.

I really like the politics from neptune.
They are so high evolved and took democracy to the next level by respecting individual opinions by each and every individual

Democracy in general is slow, inefficient, and often leads to corruption in it's representative variant if not kept in check.

Autocracy while fast, succeeds or fails on the person with the most power, and often leads to nepotism and nonsensical decision making depending on how far detached from reality the leader(s) are. Also, the power plays for people in the upper-middle positions seems to be more important than actually doing their jobs.

On the topic of direct democracy:
One thing I really liked regarding this topic came from Mass Effect from all places. The Asari had a direct e-democracy governing their decisions. That's something I'd be intrigued to see implemented in the real world, since we do have the technology to achieve it. It would probably be a clusterfuck, but at least we'd see how it works out.
I don't really think it'd be affected by group think that much, since that phenomenon mostly occurs in live crowds. You could think about issues in the comfort of your own home, and just vote however you feel like.
There probably would be parties similar to current democratic ones, but I doubt that they could reach that wide of an audience with proper legislation implemented (can't pay people to vote with you, etc).