What makes a democracy "work" is a set of established rules that secures the long-term development of the country.
If you only go by a set of established rules, you:
- are running (part of) your government by autocratic decree.
- still risk the population rejecting your form of "democracy".
Ancient Athens was a slave society rule by a small elite. Not a good example.
Who gets to decide who is smart enough?
Universal suffrage is a feature. It's a defensive mechanism against self-interested parties ignoring the needs of the people. You may see those less educated or cultured than as you as rabble, but the democratic process punishes that bias to ignore those people.
> The crucial thing is that members of such aristocracy must be quickly and easily replaced when fail or lost support.
Recorded human history suggests that "competent and educated" aristocrats fail to remove themselves individually or as a an empowered group.
Modern democracy isn't a gift of gods. History of the World is full of revolutions, civil wars, riots in basically every country in order to have what do we have.
One of the well-known examples is bailout of AIG. Informed and educated people decided to avoid bankruptcy of the biggest insurance company in the world, no matter what idiots in charge did with CDS. Majority would vote to punish the banksters, as they vote for all the stupid things.
Bad analogy. The goal of democracy is not to generate the best possible results for the country. If that happens then its the side effect. Democracy stands on the principle of "all citizens have equal rights".
How is failure defined or support measured?
What mechanism exists for quickly and easily replacing the EU beurocracy?
I think this bit from John Gray in the NewStatesman hits it on the head:
"As it is being used today, “populism” is a term of abuse applied by establishment thinkers to people whose lives they have not troubled to understand. A revolt of the masses is under way, but it is one in which those who have shaped policies over the past twenty years are more remote from reality than the ordinary men and women at whom they like to sneer.The interaction of a dysfunctional single currency and destructive austerity policies with the financial crisis has left most of Europe economically stagnant and parts of it blighted with unemployment on a scale unknown since the Thirties. At the same time European institutions have been paralysed by the migrant crisis. Floundering under the weight of problems it cannot solve or that it has even created, the EU has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that it lacks the capacity for effective action and is incapable of reform. As I suggested in this magazine in last year (“The neo-Georgian prime minister”, 23 October 2015), Europe’s image as a safe option has given way to the realisation that it is a failed experiment. A majority of British voters grasped this fact, which none of our establishments has yet understood." [1]
I think whether you believe in John Gray's politics or not, this is the crux of the issue, and rather than the 1% vs. the other 99%, it is more a matter of the 'elites' vs. 'the ordinary man' (and no, not "the stupid, racist, idiots" as they are called by even some of the so-called respectable journals). And by 'elites' it is not just about wealth, but education, and unquestionable feelings of superiority.
Go and try to institute your government of Philosopher Kings @dschiptsov, and see what happens when you ignore the common man, or worse, berate and try to hold him down even if he has more common sense than some of his university-educated peers.
I am happy about the Brexit vote, if for nothing at all but to disrupt the system, and make people stop and think, to reassess. To see so many adults whining like children, since the vote didn't go their way, to the point they are calling for a re-vote. What are they thinking? More people will go out and vote who thought it was in the 'bag' and stayed at home that day? Or that those they see as 'stupid sods' will change their mind, and see it 'their' way, the 'smart' way?
I don't know, and that's just it, I don't know what would actually be best, but I am Ok with that. Seeing the Remainers throw around financial comments about it being worse than the 2008 crisis don't really know numbers. When you couch the numbers as a percent of total market capitalization it is 4.7% for Brexit vs. 6.9% during the 2008 financial crisis one-day loss. Yes, $2 Trillion vs. $1.9 Trillion I believe. On the others side of the coin, the pound drops and the UK gets more tourists since it is a cheaper destination, and cheaper, more exports. People on any side are just afraid of big changes. Sometimes big changes are necessary in the long run.
It's the same reason that although I can't stand Hillary or Trump, I hope Trump wins to really shake things up back home in the U.S., since it seems nothing else does; Hillary would just be status quo at this point. Electing a woman POTUS shouldn't just be about checking that box, but about actually electing a true woman leader, not another political dynasty ala Bush. Can't we vote outside the box? Even though I am more libertarian or capitalist, I would have voted for Bernie Sanders. At least he showed some integrity.
Real change happens when people wake up and start really talking to their neighbor, or see them differently than before the wake up call that shook their world.
[1] http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/strange-deat...
From the time of ancient Greek only educated men could be able to vote. That accounts for obvious early success of democracy. It also correlates with the notion of the bell curve (there is a famous book) you like it or not.
The utopian idea that everyone shall be able to vote leads to things like Brexit or that unrepairable disaster modern authoritarian Russia turned into.
Patients shall not vote for hospital's rules and medical procedures or staff election. Qualified well-educated doctors should. Students shall not vote for what they going to be taught (due to being not yet fully developed and brainwashed by media), this seems obvious.
But the idea of necessity of some sort of competent and educated "aristocracy" is one of the major ideas in political philosophy. The crucial thing is that members of such aristocracy must be quickly and easily replaced when fail or lost support. This, by the way, is how most of professional communities and university facilities are organized.
Truth is out there.)