Fewer than half of young Australians believe democracy is always preferable to other forms of government, as trust in institutions wanes, new research has found.
Useless journalist. At least link the fucking report. Or I guess don’t because people might read it and make their own opinions.
It’s here and no surprise the context matters.
indicate their agreement or disagreement with the statement: ‘Democracy is always and under all circumstances preferable to any other kind of government.’
only 1.4 per cent of Australians strongly disagreed with the statement, and a further 5.5 per cent disagreed. Another 26.3 per cent neither agreed nor disagreed.
Big surprise, strongly worded poll gets a lot of middle ground votes, but less than 10% outright disagree with the statement.
I don’t really get it, the actual question is:
Democracy is always and under all circumstances preferable to any other kind of government.
I don’t really know how you can agree with that.
Mean depends if you accept the people voting as as knowledgeable as they should be before casting a vote, or perhaps those that are not knowledgeable are so few they won’t impact the election.
Then I look at the US and well…see their point… As much as I’m a champion of democracy obviously there are some issues to overcome when that douche becomes president in a democracy. Mostly eyeing the propohanda media but the downside of democracy is everyone should have their choice and all opinions be heard. Though good education needs to be there too otherwise you get an orange stain on world politics.
We have compulsory voting in Australia.
Presently we have a centre left government. They demolished our centre right party at the last election, they’re pretty much non-viable now.
I understand why you might be reluctant to force idiots to vote, but it tends to have a normalising effect given that idiot votes are kind of white noise.
I think if you really experienced democracy you would believe that. Like when would democracy not be preferable?
Ah, in the neolithic era?
I’m only kind of joking. The trouble with statements predicated with “always and under all circumstances” is that they are intended to include all circumstances.
The situations we’re most likely to encounter where we want our leaders to be more dictatorial is of course war, where I presume elections may be suspended temporarily.
In the case of a global disaster like a solar flare or meteor strike democracy probably wouldn’t be preferable.
Another issue is that what is preferable is subjective. So if a majority wants to implement a fascist policy persecuting a minority, then obviously democracy is not preferable for that minority.
The trouble with statements predicated with “always and under all circumstances” is that they are intended to include all circumstances.
Yeah that’s a really broad statement. You just need one case where democracy is not preferred, and the whole statement is false. Democracy is not preferred when the majority wants to do evils.
I think your brain is maybe a little broken by the propaganda here. Democracy != westminster shite or tyranny of the majority. It’s just broadly rule by the people. Proper democracy works via consensus with protections for marginalised voices, and can grant people revocable authority when fast decisions are needed. Like you can democratically decide to listen to a firey when your house is on fire without giving that person dictatorial powers.
You’ve kinda just imposed your own definition of democracy there chief. Its not necessarily incorrect, but its another problem with such a comprehensive generalisation. Are all definitions of democracy always preferable? Which definition of democracy is always preferable?
Regardless, thats not really my point.
I disagree that democratically listening to the advice of the firey is the preferable form of governance when your home is burning down. There are loads of reasons why people in a burning house may not be able to make sound judgements. Its precisely the type of emergency where an authoritarian crisis manager, the firey, should be calling the shots.
Romans tried that, sucked for them. Learn from history, don’t as Marx said repeat it as farce
When you’re holed up with a bunch of morons
You’d prefer to be ruled by a subset of them?
The big, unanswered question is “what do you think would be better?” Given one highlighted concern regarding income inequality, I’d guess some flavor of socialism, but I’m just some idiot on the Internet.
Socialism is orthogonal to democracy. You can have a socialist democracy, just like how you can have a capitalist non-democracy.
Really not loving that you’re implying that socialism isn’t democratic.
In my opinion it’s not really socialism if it’s not democratic.
I thought the general consensus was that a benevolent dictatorship would be far more efficient and effective than a democracy.
Though whether such a thing could ever exist, or has ever existed may be difficult to prove.
Paradox of the benevolent dictator seems to cover this.
Short term election cycles lead to short term planning.
But dictatorships aren’t immune either.
The weird thing is, you ask people living in AES countries, they will agree that democracy is important, and this is evidenced by the outcomes. The dichotomy is between capitalism and socialism.
Unsurprising when our government claims to be a democracy but isn’t really. Like obviously people would lose faith in democracy if you think that it’s voting for liblab despite wanting someone else, watching them be unaccountable, watching them ignore popular reforms, going to work under a dictatorship, experiencing oligarchy whenever you procure the means of subsistence etc.
Australia is not a democracy in any meaningful sense. I mean ffs you can’t even fire your member if they just lie lol.
We all live in an oligarchy mascarading as a democracy.
Also, GenZ men are twice as likely as boomers to believe that wives should obey their husbands.
It seems that, under the guidance of right-wing oligarchs and their algorithms, humanity has collectively decided that society peaked in Franco-era Spain or something.
It’d be nice if the linked to the study…
is it this? https://dataverse.ada.edu.au/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi%3A10.26193%2FA9VEXA
Journalists are the absolute worst at citing their sources. Change my mind.
They didn’t go to school?
Wut
deleted by creator
