# Is democracy the best form of governance?

In the Western world, the majority of countries are democracies. Most of these countries have a representative democracy – people elect a number of representatives who make decisions on their behalf regarding the governance of the country. There are many other forms of government. Plato categorized governments into five types of regimes: democracy, oligarchy, timocracy, tyranny and aristocracy. According to him, this last form of government—where the most qualified citizens form the ruling power—would be the best. Although absolute monarchies were common in the past, democracy is now taken for granted by Westerners. But is democracy really the most ideal form of government? Or could there perhaps be an even better form of government?

## Democracy is the best form of governance
### Pro

* Pro In the history of humanity, there has never been a form of government better than democracy. Assuming that freedom and peace are two important core values of a well-functioning society, democracy is the best system to achieve this.
** Objection The period between 96 and 180 AD was a golden age for Rome—the Empire was stable, there was relatively much peace and prosperity flourished. During these years, the Empire was governed by the Five Good Emperors: Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. At that time, Rome was an autocracy under imperial rule. Thus, an autocracy can also be a good form of government, provided that the rulers have the best intentions for the people.
*** Objection Likewise, if one was alive during the Roman empire the fastest ships reached speeds of roughly 16 km/h.
* Pro There are multiple definitions of democracy and it could be the case that many consider any socioeconomic system a democracy if "state power is vested in the people or the general population of a state" even when nearly indistinguishable from modern electoral democracies. As such there is a large space for change and progression within or as forms of democracy.

### Con

* Con In a democracy, everyone's vote has equal value. The vote of someone who has absolutely no understanding of politics and never follows it is worth as much as the vote of an interested 'expert' who closely monitors political debates every day. This is not fair. Only people who understand what they are really voting for should be allowed to vote.
** Objection The fact that people may not understand politics does not mean they don't know what they desire. If someone earns little and is poor, they should be able to make their voice heard so that their ideals (earning more money, better working conditions, etc.) can be realized by a political party that pursues their ideals. Everyone should have a voice in this.
** Objection Being an "interested 'expert' who closely monitors political debates every day" doesn't mean one knows a lot about the subject or even remotely as much as experts of the subject discussed such as scientists having read a large corpus of partly disagreeing, partly old and new, diverse literature on the subject and its complexities and nuances.
* Con Democracy is vulnerable. The iron law of oligarchy states that all forms of organization, including democracies, inevitably become oligarchic. For example, those with a lot of financial resources or economic power have or can have a lot of political power.
** Objection It would be difficult to establish neutral unbiased effective methods to ensure those who vote have such understanding or that their vote is weighted according to their both contextual and subject-level understanding.
** Objection The fact that something is vulnerable does not mean it cannot be the most ideal. You can make a vase out of solid iron, but it will propably function less well and look less beautiful than a ceramic vase.