democracy, the right choice in all cases? Options

[*kryogenix*]

I don't think democracy is the best system to have in all cases. A classic example of this is Philippine democracy. It is worse than elementary school class elections. Anyone who starred in a movie is capable of winning the presidency. Already two popularly elected presidents have been ousted from power (it was almost three after last year).

The Philippines could use a good does of dictatorship. It's weird saying this, but a leader like Marcos (sans corruption) would probably do the country a whole lot of good.

Now, with Russia moving closer and closer to becoming a dictatorship, should we let Putin take control, or intervene somehow?

[racoons > you]

and ideal situation would be one in which democracy was uneccessary, a system which peaceably produced no flaws, and therefore had no need for change. however, this is probably entirely unattainable.

and therefore, each regime will nedd some form of change. and that change should be in the hands of the people. therfore, i think democracy is, generally, the best option.

but then, it depends on the system of democracy. britain's parliamentary system of first past post system results in distorted representation, and the possibility of elective dictatorships, in the manner of margaret thatcher, who only suffered one policy defeat during her 11 years in office as prime minister

It's weird saying this, but a leader like Marcos (sans corruption) would probably do the country a whole lot of good.

power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. could we achieve a dictatorship without