what are some of the flaws of liberal democracy as opposed to minimalist democracy?
i define liberal democracy as a system with constraints on rulers/officerholders, checks and balances, civil liberties etc-
i define minimalist democracy as a system with free, competitive, frequent elections where the electorate decides who to choose as a leader, and then leaves most decision making power to teh leader, to be their representative
i know the obvious answer for most americans is that liberal democracy is much better, but im looking for a different perspective to show some of the flaws to the former as opposed to the latter...
and why liberal democracy might not work in some countries and minimalist democracy might...
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
1st: Checks and Balances mean that the liberal democratic leader leaves office when it's time. Tyrants(Old definition) didn't work in Rome, and they won't work now.
2nd: It is necessary to create a sense of continuity in your government. If the government changes directions every 6 months, it can't get anything done.
3rd: Tyranny of the masses. It is possible, and not correct for 51% of the populace to oppress the other 49%, even in a democracy. Your minimalist system would allow the peoples whims to get the better of them. The Constitution was designed to create a slow government, where the whims of the moment would be tempered by the terms. (Look at the staggered elections. To get a senate majority big enough to do anything really new, it takes 6 years, but the direction can be tweaked along the way).
Anyway, I look forward to someone pointing out the merits of minimalist...