Democracy Does Not Work: Scientists

1776
2
Share:

March 6th, 2012

NewsRescue- We recently posted a very detailed article on how and why ‘democracy’ does not work. This February 2012 article on research by scientists from the prestigious Cornell University, US, has expanded on our preposition. Our readers should sacrifice a little time to read our article. Article excerpt:

Democracy Fails Africa

The heading is actually a misnomer. Democracy fails everywhere, at least in its popular definition and application today. Multiparty democracy as promoted and appealed for globally today, is a political system based on campaigns, politicians, parties, advertisements, sponsors, elections and tenures. Every one of these properties of popular multiparty democracy are not just inadequate, but evidently detrimental to healthy societal functioning and development on the short term, and more critically, the long term.

People Aren’t Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

YahooNews [08022012]- The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.

The research, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people’s ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments.

Related: NewsRescue- Gaddafi visits Ghana; ‘Rawlings Revolution’, not democracy saved Ghana

As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. On top of that, “very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is,” Dunning told Life’s Little Mysteries.

He and colleague Justin Kruger, formerly of Cornell and now of New York University, have demonstrated again and again that people are self-delusional when it comes to their own intellectual skills. Whether the researchers are testing people’s ability to rate the funniness of jokes, the correctness of grammar, or even their own performance in a game of chess, the duo has found that people always assess their own performance as “above average” — even people who, when tested, actually perform at the very bottom of the pile. [Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It]

We’re just as undiscerning about the skills of others as about ourselves. “To the extent that you are incompetent, you are a worse judge of incompetence in other people,” Dunning said. In one study, the researchers asked students to grade quizzes that tested for grammar skill. “We found that students who had done worse on the test itself gave more inaccurate grades to other students.” Essentially, they didn’t recognize the correct answer even when they saw it.

The reason for this disconnect is simple: “If you have gaps in your knowledge in a given area, then you’re not in a position to assess your own gaps or the gaps of others,” Dunning said. Strangely though, in these experiments, people tend to readily and accurately agree on who the worst performers are, while failing to recognize the best performers.

The most incompetent among us serve as canaries in the coal mine signifying a larger quandary in the concept of democracy; truly ignorant people may be the worst judges of candidates and ideas, Dunning said, but we all suffer from a degree of blindness stemming from our own personal lack of expertise.

Related: NewsRescue- Violence in Senegal as ‘Democracy fails Africa’ again

Mato Nagel, a sociologist in Germany, recently implemented Dunning and Kruger’s theories by computer-simulating a democratic election. In his mathematical model of the election, he assumed that voters’ own leadership skills were distributed on a bell curve — some were really good leaders, some, really bad, but most were mediocre — and that each voter was incapable of recognizing the leadership skills of a political candidate as being better than his or her own. When such an election was simulated, candidates whose leadership skills were only slightly better than average always won.

Nagel concluded that democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they “effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders.”

Read: NewsRescue- Democracy Fails Africa

See also:

Why Facebook Works and Democracy Does not

We are told that this means that the system worked. But in what sense does it work? It only means that the well-organized minority prevailed over the diffused majority. This is about as peaceful as the kid’s game “king of the mountain.”

Facebook has nothing to do with this nonsense. Your communities are your own creation, an extension of your will and its harmony with the will of others. The communities grow based on the principle of mutual advantage. If you make a mistake, you can undisplay your friend’s posts or you can unfriend him. This hurts feelings, sure, but it is not violent: It doesn’t loot or kill. Read more on this …

 

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of NewsRescue
ea-banner

Share:
Avatar

2 comments

  1. Avatar
    h m oldham 21 November, 2012 at 18:17 Reply

    democracy means greedy bullies just help themselves to as much as they can grab and make llaws to enable them to steal,criminals now rule

Leave a reply