The problem is there is no such thing as a viable democracy made up of experts, zealots, politicians and spectators.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
In a mass television democracy - which all of us nowadays have - it is impossible to take basic political decisions with long-term consequences without the public knowing it, without the public understanding at least some of it, without the public forming its judgment, heterogeneous as it may be.
Without an educated populace, democracy cannot sustain itself.
Indeed, willingness to challenge professional economists and other experts is a foundation stone of democracy. If all we have to do is to listen to the experts, what is the point of having democracy?
Democracy is but an experiment in the long history of the world.
Democracy actually requires that the whole public be able to see common problems and address them and step outside of their own sort of narrow self-interest to do so.
Democracy, loudly upheld as a cure for much of the ailing world, has proved no guarantor of political wisdom, even if it remains the least bad form of government.
Only a knowledgeable, empowered and vocal citizenry can perform well in democracy.
Apparently, a democracy is a place where numerous elections are held at great cost without issues and with interchangeable candidates.
I have no idea if some societies, anthropologically speaking, aren't really suited for democracy. I don't think that's true.
The beauty of democracy is that an average, random, unremarkable citizen can lead it.
No opposing quotes found.