anti-democratic musings
pragmatically speaking, i don’t think there’s ever a situation wherein it is noble to protect the concept of democracy for democracy’s sake but to the detriment of the prosperity and civility of the people.
if the democratic process will be a civilization’s downfall or a huge blow to its prosperity, the process must be denied to secure more favorable outcomes.
in extreme cases, allowing the people to elect leaders and enact policies may not only not be the best option for the people, but it may result in disastrous consequences for other nations; if this is to be avoided, a nation must then decide which person or body of persons are best qualified to make informed decisions for the good of the people.
but how does a nation decide who the qualified people are if not democratically? and if only some people get to decide who decides, then who decides who those people are, ad infinitum. that’s the paradox i currently find myself struggling with in my quest to reject democracy in favor of something better.
but there is one thing i’m certain of:
if the democratic process would elect a leader that is so grossly unqualified as to cause the nation’s downfall, then democracy was not an adequate system, or at the very least could be said to have had a major flaw, and democracy should not have been blindly idealized simply for its own sake.
