If there’s no solution within democracy then maybe it’s time for a solution outside of democracy
It's a serious point though, but unfortunately one that has copius evidence that the outcome of that approach is worse, not better.
The problems with democracy are evident (brexit being a poster child.) The democratic successes are equally good (South Africa, Northern Ireland).
The primary problem with alternate systems is that there's no way out. Once you have an authoritarian approach, if you don't like the authority you SOL.
Basically it's all the worst bits of democracy without any of the up sides.
Ultimately people vote, (or don't care) and get to live with the consequences.
So considering how severe those consequences are, something would need to be done to prevent that outcome if that’s the trajectory you’re on.
The electoral system is unrepresentative (the more representative system used to elect the mayor of London was recently changed to FPTP). The upper house is composed of people nominated by the government, children of nobles and bishops.
In the last few years, the traditional behaviour expected in Parliament — not to lie — has been lost.
As the most recent example, when Johnson resigned the election[1] for his replacement was heralded as a win for the Conservative party. The campaign centred around green policies. The Conservative party has fewer votes than Labour + Green, but still takes all the power.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Uxbridge_and_South_Ruisli...
This whole thread and story has folks explaining how this has been a slow creep over 30+ years.
I'm not sure how rampant official corruption, cronyism, a skyrocketing murder rate [1], crumbling infrastructure, dwindling regional influence, and a deeply polarized civil society can be considered a democratic "success".
[1] - https://www.groundup.org.za/article/how-bad-murder-in-south-...
At 46 murders per 100k per year, it might just be the worst intentional murder rate in the world right now.
But Apartheid was a problem several magnitudes larger. World pariah status, 80% of the population subjugated, colonialism at its worst. Democracy (the White vote in 1990), the national vote in 1994, lead to a revolution without a civil war.
Of course it has not lead to utopia, and democracy has challenges there, as it does elsewhere, but the authoritarian regimes before were far, far worse.
The "genius" of democracy is that it guarantees that at least half the population is in that group, because a popular vote can dethrone the government. That doesn't mean they are the only group the government is paying off to stay in power, but better to be in than to be out.
One of the problems we have currently is that the population is aging, meaning it's more rational to cater to old people who on average dislike change. This eventually leads to stagnation or even regression.
That's a twist on the Churchill quote.
Churchill didn't say there are no better alternatives. Just no better that we've tried.
- How so?
- What can be done to fix it?
- Is there a viable path to getting there?
the parent comment to me sounded like democracy as it exists in the UK basically led them down this path and now has them stuck in a death spiral
Currently the UK vote is based on trying to get about 1/3rd of the country, in specific places, to vote for you, not 50%. It's a flawed democracy that has gradually evolved from an even more flawed democracy but now lags the state of the art by some margin.