democracy is the worst from of government, except for all the others.

Neil Murphy, cromer,

Brian, he didn't: "Here are six circumstances in which democracy may not supply the answer. The first is where there are peoples within a people. If so, the “will of the people” may become a brutal idea."

Laura Morley, Cambridge, Cambs

I am surprised that Matthew Parris ommitted the classic problem with democracy.

Remember, about 70 years ago, when a democratically elected government decided the expel and to exterminate several small minority populations within their midst. It was called the Holocaust or Shoah.

Brian Vallance, LEFKIMMI,

"How important is language to thought. " For this debate, "democracy" was a bad choice of language. Maybe "Liberty is for Everyone" is the saner tenet. And, curiously, this is what President Bush has long been advocating. What we want is democracy only in so far it promotes liberty -- as it may do best, unless one of MP's six bad conditions arises or if we can find divinely benign oligarchs and plutocrats. Daniel is right to remind us of that with his Jeffersonian quote.

Hermann Burchard, Stillwater, OK , U.S.A.

Very interesting article.

Another weakness of the ideal of democracy, that the majority rule, is that it implies that truth lies in numbers, meaning that the correct opinion or belief is that of the greatest number of people, but history shows us that this is not always correct.

However, as Winston Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

LBarton, London,

Matthew,

Nowdays, democracy in this country is fashioned by newspapers and the broadcast media.

If you are unhappy with it, you are surely partly to blame.

Tony, Bridgend,

You bet you can't trust Democracy, it's owned and operated by people controlled more by their emotions than their intellect.

Democracy requires three things to work:
1. Fair, balanced, unfettered press.
2. Intelligent, insightful, pragmatic leaders.
3. Wise, informed, pragmatic populace.

Distrust is directly proportional to the accumulative deviation in any or all of the above. The rest is pontification over the combinations and permutations of that distrust.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" - Thomas Jefferson (I believe).

Daniel, Mt. Vernon, USA

who mentioned HITLER these comments could end up like
war and peace ,keep it short its more fun.well done matthew parris.

george william taylor, hull, uk

The UK is (mis)governed by an elected kleptocracy. As one or two comments below quite rightly suggest, the UK is not and never has been a democracy, or the kleptocrats wouldn't have to keep telling us that it is. We would no more need to be reminded that we were governing (were that the case) than that we are breathing.

Accountability; those who claim to represent the electorate join a club with privilege - private law - as witness the activities of the police investigating the cash for honours debacle.

Matthew seems to be a member of the self-serving 'elite' with more honesty than most, he admits that he doesn't want to share power with the 'oi polloi, though he doesn't admit how little they truly have.

Every little step towards wider enfranchisement has been grudged and fought over, in this country as in every other, to be conceded when there was no other acceptable choice. We are not free, though we are no longer serfs or slaves in chains, the bondage is more subtle.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

clubdittocom and Mark Grissom, both of you are spot on. Push the control (CTRL) and F keys at the same time and search for their comments, they are worth reading.

Dean A. Nash, Shenzhen, China

Interresting piece and commentary: maybe if the elite was more obviously an upper echelon OF the people I'd have more sympathy with such a view. AS it is it is obviously a sneering layer that defines itself by its opposition to the values held by the majority.

Reimer, Interregnum,

Parris has a point..there are many examples that can be cited from my country's history alone to suggest that the rule of popular opinion should not be allowed, by itself, to determine public policy (or government leaders.) One of the more salient is our government's mistreatment of American Indians in the 19th century. Most Americans were in favor of removing Indians from their land, and they elected men (most prominently Andrew Jackson, but also people like William Henry Harrison) who did just so. Does that make Jackson's removal of, say, the Cherokee from Georgia, causing thousands to die, just?
This despite a Supreme Court ruling directly prohibiting him from doing so (he told them, essentially, to make him stop, which they couldn't.) Even though it was circumvented in that case, that is why courts are important, to, in Parris' terms, not invite popular opinion to the table alone. For if that protection against the common will had been effective, a tragedy would have been averted.

Alex Black, Oak Park, IL, USA

pure democracy would be a mistake particularly when the people are uninformed or uneducated or fickle. america's founding fathers did not trust the "mob". which is why america has a representative republic. we do not exit iraq because a poll of the american people say we should. we have elected representatives who will be accountable for their votes. a president who changes his mind because the people have soured and lost their backbone on a position would be a poor leader indeed. thank God for president Bush who told us in the beginning that it would be long and difficult to fight terrorism wherever they are and right now they are most definitely in iraq by their own admittance. how terrible it would be to have a president who says after having a tough slog and lost men in battle to say "oops! i made a mistake. sorry"! or to cave in because the polls tell him to. "consensus is the absense of leadership".

clubdittocom, highland, ca

Democracy is a child that needs guidance.

jerym eedy, caerphilly, U.K.

If you can't trust democracy, who can you trust? For the last 900 years (approx) in England we have been moving towards greater democracy because of the failures of kings (King John, Charles I, James II and others). Our rulers are not necessarily wise.

Taxation without democracy is nothing more than demanding money with menaces.

For a democracy to function, the electorate must be fully and impartially informed. Therefore the press must be free and impartial. I am not sure how this could be achieved but could the owner of this newspaper please take note.

Ian Wyld, Marlborough,

America was designed as a constitutional republic based first and foremost on the idea of delegated authority at the national level. In other words, a national government that at one time recognized a limit to its powers. It no longer does so. Arbitrary government regardless of its form is the worst type of government. Power concentrated and arbitrary in the central government has produced the unprincipled quest for the reigns of power from the time of Rome to America today. The decline in the democratically elected western governments we are currently experiencing is do to this lone fact.

The cause and effect relationship between arbitrary government and the rise and fall of civilizations is best described by the following authors:

Hayek - Road to Serfdom, Constitution of Liberty
Bastiat - The Law
Nisbet - Twighlight of Authority, Quest for Community

r/s Mark

Mark Grissom, Okinawa, Japan

Mr. Parris is pointing out that to appeal to majority opinion is an informal fallacy of reasoning. While popular elections may be a means of establishing peaceful continuity in government (in place of wars of succession), the acceptability of such votes is predicated on a generally shared moral outlook among the population. No such outlook exists in the modern West (witness the turmoil surrounding the 2000 American presidential election), so all that is left to act upon is the individual conscience.

Kevin, London,

Agreeing with Peteran from London - allow me to correct the misapprehension that Hitler was democratically voted into power by the Germans.
That is utterly wrong: he was offered the chancellorship as a deal between some aristocratic ministers and Hindenburg, who hope to 'tame him' in this way - the NSDAP was not the largest party in the Reichstag either, in January 1933. The German people had no say in this matter.
This should not come as too much of a surprise - are we not seeing a similar 'deal' being done just now between TB and GB ?
Democracy can work perfectly well even in a multicultural state - provided the people regard themselves as citizens with duties and not just as governed subjects who vote occasionally or not at all.
The Swiss, with four different cultures and languages within the borders of their country, manage perfectly well, after all. However, they do have the instrument of referendums, which they use whenever they think its useful, to the annoyance of their leaders

V.G.Evans, Cardiff, Wales

Then no problem. We don’t have a democracy in this country, never have had and never will. The most obvious pointer to that condition is the constant referral to democracy by politicians and commentators. This would not occur - would be entirely superfluous - if it existed. The best one can expect is that those delegated to govern will do so in the genuine interest of the majority, but regrettably this doesn’t happen except in a few countries. The more usual occurrence is that those elected join a club which is concerned with maintaining the privileges of an elite; who are not obviously defined as they belong to all shades of the economy. Your point that the majority is often wrong is inaccurate. The majority is seldom, if ever, in sufficient possession of the facts to make a valid judgement. When they are, such as on juries, they usually do get it right - more often than will a biased minority.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Originally, the US Constitution defined those eligible to vote as "white , male, landowners." I would agree that as times had changed the "white and male" criteria were correctly eliminated, but I would argue that even today those who have no ownership of real property have no stake in a country -- no skin in the game. To paraphrase de Tocqueville's comments about America, "beware of the [non-landowning] masses."

Jim, Roscoe, USA

another trait of the "Western" system: Rule of Law. rule of law is just as important as democracy. it's what protects democratic governments from decending into mob rule.

David, Dallas, USA/Texas

Hitler as chancellor wasn't elected by the electorate but by politicians!

Peter, Birmingham, UK

I've heard the ridiculous assertion before that Hitler was elected.

I even caught a member of the American Heritage Institute, that propaganda mill that poses as an academic institution, making it on the CBC.

He was their point-man for trying to stir up trouble against Venezuela, comparing Hitler to Chavez, who was in fact elected in a clean election.

Hitler's party never received more than 36-37% of the vote.

He was appointed Chancellor by an aged and frail President von Hindenburg, following many behind-the-scenes manipulations and in an effort to stop the violence in the streets, partly caused by Hitler's Brown Shirts.

Hitler seized complete power, violating the constitution, in fairly short order after Hindenburg passed and the Reichstag Fire created an opportunity to terrify everyone, much as Bush uses 9/11 over and over to terrify Americans.

John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada

Democracy is no guarantee of good government; it's merely the best insurance policy against bad government. Nor does the popularity of its laws mean they're inherently wise, as Prohibition showed.

TJ Cassidy, Arlington, Virginia, USA

Matthew Parris chooses really poor examples to back up his argument.
* The recent bout of troubles in Northern Ireland was kicked off by the lack of (local election) democracy in the province.
* The Catalans, however much they want self-rule, are far better off in democratic Spain than under Franco.
* The foxhunting issue was not at all "socially divisive". Just a case of a few "unspeakable" louts holding a few protest marches.
Matthew, as he often does, assesses issues in absolute terms instead of considering the downside of alternatives to imperfect situations that he doesn't like.
Also, it's hard to take lectures on the subject from a man who has declared (along with most of the anti-war movement) that he would rather see democracy fail in Iraq (with all the consequences) just so that George Bush can be proven wrong and he can be proven right.

arnoldo, Coventry,

Parris puts forth examples of places and circumstances where democracy doesn't work so well. His main concern surrounds situations where democracy may devolve into mob rule. Simply put, his fear seems to be that the majority may be mean to the minority. And that a wise leader might be better positioned to make the "right" decision.

Okay, so democracy has yet to solve the problem of human nature. Parris presents no superior alternative, probably because no system can do that. The idea is that it should be the people to make the mistakes, and that human nature is best put in check under democracy than any other form of government.

Political systems are all on a spectrum between dictatorship and a system where the public makes every small decision. There is no perfect place on the spectrum. We take our best shot and make course corrections as required.

But the notion that Parris or any policitian knows better or should be the one to have the deciding say is elitist and vain.

Adam, Seattle, U.S.

"Was there a time when people who had a shaky grasp of history hesitated before parading their ignorance in public? If so, some of those posting on this thread show that that time has well and truly passed."
Hmm! There's at least one pot in this forum.
The development of Republican Rome in the late 6th Century until Sulla and then Caesar can not be described as oligarchical - at least not throughout the whole period. Plebeian power waxed more than it waned and there was much progress in land and voting reform throughout. Yes, the high offices of state/religion were held generally by a small number of families but their powers were more and more limited by those of the commons. Note the increasing powers of the Plebeian Tribunes. True, it wasn't democracy as we know it but it is ridiculous to describe it as "oligarchical at best".
Greece is more complicated and this forum has limited space to comment but again to describe Classical Greece in the same terms displays ignorance.

Roger, Mansfield,

That's why America is actually a Republic NOT a Democracy. We do protect the rights of the minorities (see the American Constittution). It's also why Europeans don't understand our electoral election process (and sadly many Americans don't either). Yes, you can win the popular vote in America and still not win the election. Our wise forefathers recognized that certain areas of the country could be disenfrachised because of the impact of heavily populated cities so they developed the electoral process. So a Democracy, while it may be a good thing, may not be the best thing.

Paula Higgins, Marietta, Georgia USA

I'm not sure if it was Tocqueville or John Stuart Mill's essay on liberty
where the term "The Tyranny of the Majority" originated. However, Democracy is SO MUCH MORE than voting. That's why China's leaders, in my opinion, correctly state that the country is nowhere close to being ready for Democracy.

In response to a questioner as to when China would have Democracy, Premier Wen said that China would have 'every good thing', all in its own time.

If the Chinese had universal suffrage today, the 900 million peasants would be easily lead to turn China back around towards Communism, thus destroying China's 25 years of progress.

I do agree with Churchill, Democracy is best, but there are preconditions. China isn't there yet, nor apparently is Iraq.

Dean A. Nash, Shenzhen, China

Timesonline could make a fortune by publishing an annual dictionary of quotations.
Take Mathews Parris " Democracy does not quite represent what I think, But what the heck "
Politicians would give their right arm for that quotation.
The Battle of Waterloo has long been forgotton, but not the Duke of Wellington Quotation ! " Hard pounding this(Democracy ),gentlemen. "
My Firewall has been twanging like a merry old soul, just like the H.M. Opposition trying to suppress debate.
But there are only 13 days left before the 400 th Aniversary of the birth of democracy, AND NOT A SINGLE COLUMNIST HAS MENTION IT. INCREDIBLE !! And you dear reader will never hear of it unless I am invited as a Guest contributor !

Gut Liam, Hertford, England

I enjoyed reading Mr. Parris's commentary on the foibles of democracy, and the thread following. As an American deeply disappointed at my countrymen's votes for George Bush who successfully manipulated his election based upon three parts comprising the selfish financial interests of the most wealthy financial elites, religious fundamentalists thinking him a "good Christian" and those so guilable to swallow slogans whole rather than complex realities, one is tempted to agree that democracy can indeed be fatally flawed. Edward Gibbon wrote wisely "It is well known that, while reason embraces a cold mediocrity, our passions hurry us with rapid violence over the space which lies between the most opposite extremes". Sort of makes me wish for the return of a wise king as in Tolkien. Oh well.

John, Seattle, USA

Democracy is a human construct, like justice, fairness or equality. It helps us make sense of the world that otherwise will look so much harder. It even allows us to justify war. When you look at it pragmatically, democracy is an elution. In France you need 500 signatures from officials to be able to become a Presidential candidate. Le Pen nearly missed that but for the look of the thing managed it on the 11th hour. Recent provincial elections in the Netherlands should have allowed a party to be governing 8 different provinces. However, were out manoeuvred by the parties in the current government and are not represented in any of the provinces. In the US there is an alleged positive correlation between business funding obtained and chances of becoming president. The point is that before or after the elections the political/business elite have the casting vote. Knowing this I still prefer the elution rather then the alternative.

Erik, London, UK

In spite of being the best columnist writing today, even Mathew Parris cannot overcome his origins. Levy's "sérénité nécessaire" anywhere other than the UK is simply a constitution. Constitutions are the poetry of politics, being the recollection of irreconcilable differences in tranquility.

Ignorance of constitutions is excusable in a Brit. Discussion of constitutional questions is either impossible in Britain (there is, for example, no word in UK English for what the rest of us call "federal") or entirely pointless as most of the main concepts are unknown or uncomfortably foreign: separation of powers, rule of law, full adult suffrage, sovereignty of the people, subsidiarity and so on.

However, the fact that Levy won, suggests that some Brits have got the message nonetheless.

Nick Strange, Cologne, Germany

Upon becoming a politician, one undergoes a celestial transformation that imbues judgement, wisdom & knowledge far surpassing that of ordinary mortals.

This must be true because young Parris said it, in averring that democracy is far too precious a thing to be entrusted to the electorate.

A musical director of The Proms once said "I know what the public wants and they're not getting it!" -A good motto for politicians, perhaps, as they profess concern at the public's cynicism towards them.

Independence for England!

Ken Stevens, Reading,

Yeah what you really want is Government by the elite for the elite. In the U.S. you already have that. Works well doesn't it?

Paris ib, Beausoleil, France

Unfortunately, Democracy, while desirable in some form, can last for only so long as the voters do not vote themselves more than the economy can deliver. As this has been happening in all major Democratic countries, it bodes ill for their futures. Once the voters give themselves too much, and hence grow too soft and too dependent, they are then ripe for devolution into the various forms of slavery and totalitarianism which Democracy itself was the exit.

W. Marshall, Cape Cod, MA, USA

Given that the UK economy is science driven, then since
the vast majority have no idea how an internal combustion engine works,how an aeroplane flies, and today, even how bread is made. Then how can most descisions be "DEMOCRATIC" voting blindly is probably 50% incorrect.

DAVID VINTER, Louth, Lincs., UK.

Parris has a point. However in the decades after the American Revolution practically no one argued that the principles of the Revolution demanded the introduction of universal suffrage. John Adams in explaining the disenfranchisement of the poor and those without property explained that "such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men who have no property, have any judgment of their own." The Germans voted for Hitler in the 1930s, the French revolution led to the terror. In Africa despots like Mugabe are regularly elected. Most Western systems restrict the use of referendums on the assumption that the electorate can't be trusted. The neocons had a naive belief that democracy would be a panacea in Iraq but they have been proved wrong. For democracies to make sensible decisions, electorates have to be capable of exercising judgment. If they can't perhaps countries are not ready for full democacy,

brian case, LA, usa

The jury system requires that you gather 12 randomly selected people for a short period of time. The reason for this system is to minimise the potential for corruption.
The problem with 'representative' democracy is that it consists of 650 people in 1 room for 5 years.

As our country gets richer, the rewards for promoting the opinions of the rich become greater. The only viable means of governance which would prevent corruption is direct democracy.

James Dey, London,

Democracy allowed my mother-in-law a vote. Ah well - nothing's perfect.

eric, harrogate, uk

The important thing is that government should be wise, not that it be representative. Representative democracy is simply a good method for encouraging wisdom in our leaders, because we can always use the ballot box to throw them out without having a civil war. But it's not the only method enhance the wisdom of government, knowledge, reasoning, maturity are others, and these rarely come with elected politicians. That's what made the hereditary peerage useful. Indeed the House of Lords often practices the most subversive form of proportional representation, that is representation in proportion to the strength of one's argument, rather than popularity. It's good to have both an elected commons and a non-elected House of Lords. It's a tricky balance which we're about to throw away in pursuit of an ideological attachment to a wrong theory.

John Small, Faversham, UK

Unusually, Mr. Parris is talking tosh and he probably knows it. There certainly is something sacrosanct about the will of the people, right or wrong. What else is there to be sacrosanct about in the squalid business of politics. Even if the people make the 'wrong' decision, itt carries the vital strength of popular opinion.

Hitler once gained power through the democratic process, a 'wrong' choice obviously, but it had the political beauty, at least, of representing the will of the German people. Germany, the real Germany, had spoken.

True democracy never existed of course, and never will until people have the sense to cut the parties out and vote for their own independent candidates who will represent their interests and not the party's. Allegiance to parties has made a mockery of democracy. Look at the current row about Margaret Hodge's (and the public's) view on housing for immigrants. Other ministers felt bound to take the party line, however insincerely.

Patrick Campbell, Alicante, Spain

Democracy as understood in modern times is not just majority rule. It is majority rule plus civil liberties, freedom of speech, assembly etc. #Discrimination against minorities at the will of the majority is incompatible with this

Norman Moss, London,

Democracy as conceived of in the present century is not simply majority rule. It is majority rule plus liberty for all - free speech, freedom of association, etc. Discrimination against minorities by popular vote is incompatible with this.

Norman Moss, London,

Was there a time when people who had a shaky grasp of history hesitated before parading their ignorance in public? If so, some of those posting on this thread show that that time has well and truly passed.

Democracy never existed in ancient Greece or Rome, or in England during the middle ages. All three were at best oligarchies in which a tiny, elite minority held all the power. The person who suggested otherwise can't even keep up with current affairs. Does he not know that today's scapegoats for cutting edge racists are eastern Europeans? Asians are so last year.

Somebody else believes that Catholics have never been a victimised minority in this country on the grounds that before the 1540s they themselves were oppressors. This is a non sequitur of staggering proportions.

To save anyone else making up their own version of Churchill's quote, here is what he actually said: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (Hansard - 11th November 1947)

Peteran, London,

As a retired language teacher, who helped with the running of school debating societies, and entered them for national competitions, I would suggest that "la sérénité necessaire" in the matter of democracy simply means that if you keep your temper and think logically in a debate, you will do better than if you fly off the handle.

The failure to do this was the cause of the disaster in Iraq on the part of Bush and Blair. They shoved aside the UN Charter and invaded and conquered a sovereign member state - without a Security Council mandate - and without any threat either to America or Britain on the part of Iraq. I put it to the readers of this column that this was an act of dictatorship on the part of Bush and Blair, no matter how loud both shouted the word "democracy" in the process.

Worse still, I would suggest that the age of "spin" is a disaster which has turned the mission of the Pilgrim Fathers into a failure. It has dumped law and logic in favour of marketing images.

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

A very interesting but ultimately hollow article. Let's try to imagine what a modern demos might look like - a group of people who somehow - in spite of all their differences of beliefs, colour, religion, origins, professions, and so on - feel as though they belong to some greater society than just their immediate friends and family.

Let's go even further and imagine that England is such a demos. What would be the right form of government for such a modern demos? If it's going to be a democracy you have to allow real power to be in the hands of the people.

That means that people have to be accountable for their decisions, and responsible for them. They have to stand by the consequences of what they decide. It's simply no good having elections every five years and blaming "them" for screwing up.

We're modern adults ready for a modern democracy of free people: thoughtful, compassionate and brave. We should seize, for the first time ever in our nation's history, power and freedom.

Bob Doney, Camberley, England

I"m not sure it's meaningful to say the public are "right" or "wrong" on any given question. These suggest what a mathematician would call a "penalty function" that somehow measures something about a society, and which goes up when it makes the "right" decision and down when it makes the "wrong" one. (I think this smacks of Utilitarianism, but I'm not well enough educated to know.)

But life's not like that. People have to be allowed to make and learn from their mistakes, so why not societies? I can't remember if it was you, Matthew, or some other Times columnist who wanted President Bush to be re-elected specifically so that the American voter could have his nose rubbed in the magnitude of his mistake?

And for some questions, there is no "right" answer. Accept that the human race is certain to become extinct at some point, and the whole question of how we tackle global warming becomes irrelevant. Whether you choose to tackle it or not can't be anything but a matter of taste.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

Perfect example of democracy getting it wrong: George W Bush. If voters' heads were not filled with opinionated entertainment pretending to be news would the outcome be different? Or are Americans in general unredeemedly self righteousness and blindly believe that they can do no wrong?

Toosinbeymen, New York, NY

Surely what marks out a true democracy is not whether the people have a vote but whether the government is accountable to the people. It is that accountability, won in this country over many centuries, that has been weakened in recent times. Votes for all means nothing without it. The political parties tell us that the make up of members of Parliament ought to reflect proportionately the gender and ethnic make-up of the population. Politicians prefer that to reflecting the views of the population proportionately don't they?

Cliff Pooley, Cheltenham,

"Democracy is the only form of government that has moral legitimacy, " from: Cathy, Bristol, UK

Representative Democracy is not the only form, there is another ancient democratic form - The Jury system. Replace Parliament with a randomly selected jury, perhaps. It would do wonders for faults of the Party system!

I would suspect that anyone whose sole lifetime ambition is to become prime minister / president is totally unsuitable for the job. Similarly the entire political class.

Brian Vallance, LEFKIMMI,

Democracy only works if voters have the brains to grasp the issues. Illiterate people - be they African peasants, illiterate migrants to the west or the west's indigenous trashy underclass - shouldn't have a say in the our taxes are spent.

AA, New York,

Democracy is overrated - places like Brunei and ancient Macedonia, Rome, China etc coped fairly well, especially compared with corrupt democratic nations such as Russia.

Ben, York,

As an American politician, whose name I cannot remember, once said, "The people are always right, fifty years later."

Tim Knight, Birmingham, UK

"My final problem with democracy is rooted in the possibility that through ignorance or folly, the public may simply be wrong."

Unlike politicians who are of course all brilliant, always right and really shouldn't have to try and justify themselves to the general public by anything so shabby as voting.

Can't be much fun for poor journalists in the new 'democratic' world of the ether now mere 'readers' can comment on their work and give them a good fisking when they write crap.

It's obvious to a five year old that most people haven't a clue what they are voting for.

It is also obvious to a five year old that restricting voting rights leads only one way.

Clark, Genf, Schweiz

Matthew is right to highlight the specific faults of democracy. However he forgets that we live in a liberal democracy - liberal being the check on the democracy. An independent judiciary interprets our (unwritten) constitution in applying the law to ensure the rights of minorities are protected from the tyranny of the majority.

In fact is he unwittingly making the case for a full blown written constitution that Parliament (representing the majority) cannot override?

Adam Atashzai, London,

'The majority is often wrong' Would that be as in, the majority in Blair's cabinet who voted to take us to war with Iraq?

Paul Bastier, Penang, Malaysia

Politically the world is changing too rapidly: whereas liberalisation is good on a EU (of 15) scale, it does not work on a world level, which is of course the cause of so much immigration. Globalisation is a real threat to democracy that is being replaced by global capitalism.

In England there is real a contradiction with the popular little Englander mentality, that supports a larger loser and less united EU, and the manner in which the same English accept globalisation because the US tell us that it's good for us.. I think that it's time for a wake-up call.

Peter GODDARD, LE ROURET, France, EU

Good stuff but lets be clear, Athenian society was not all that homegeneous or 'educated' or even cultured; it is recorded that 'oi polloi' did not often have a clue of who was who when it came to casting their vote. Athenians had slaves some of who were of course not only freed but rose to be like Iktinos and Kalikratis the architects for its Acropolis. Settlers were not entitled to vote. I otherwise recommend Aristotle's excellent comparative treatise on governance and much else such as the newly re-discovered concept of 'patriality' rights, in his book on 'Politcs'. But then again a lesson for us all: good old Aristo was training Alexander the Great - great indeed but simply not a democrat just like his father who hired Aristo.
As for Plato's 'Republic', the less said about it the better.
From an ancient Greek abroad.

Nicholas Xenakis, The Borough, London, England

Democracy! Matthew open your eyes disregard your antecedent political history. As normal Tax Paying English/British members of the electorate we here in the UK reside in the MOST UNDEMOCRATIC DEMOCRACY in the Western World (Fact?).

Phil Shortland, Burton-Latimer, England

The idea that in every society there exists an elite, a group of inherently superior people, who know better what is good for the whole and should be able to decide for the whole, with or without consultation, is fascism.

I know that rule by an elite (for an elite) is becoming increasinly popular as a concept. The whole European Union concept is a demonstration of that. But we should understand exactly what we are dealing with: fascism.

As is the concept of the SUPERMAN, the Master Race and so on and so forth. Been there done that. Thanks all the same.

Paris ib, Beausoleil, France

Was this not the word from The American Dictionary? Democracy is for the people, of the people, by the people. Who changed the dictionary? Al Capone?

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania

An excellent article. Compare democratic India with non democratic Singapore. Which is governed more effectively?

Mikhail Kononov, St. Petersburg, Russia

does that make you pro EU then? AN undemocratic but intelligent elite ruling on behalf of the celebrity'n'sport obsessed masses occasionally goaded by tabloids into demagogic outbursts against a complicated and multilateral system of politics of which they understand little?

P N, london,

Democracy is not a synonym for marority rule. There is a very important difference. Imagine a world where the legislature was abolished and the executive took instructions from daily web based plebiscites; or where we had trials live on television with viewer juries deciding the outcome. Local phone ins for minor crimes.

Farewell to the deeply flawed but generally well intentioned politicians and hello to Newscorp and Google.

Sorry Mr Culver-James, paedophiles have the right to a fair trial, to punishment without torture and to reform themselves.

Tom Sykes, Huddersfield, UK

Rhodesia / Zimbabwe is a case of democracy (majority rule) going horribly wrong ... though the precept was of course right, the actuality of it gave the country to a murderous dictator.

Steve, Horsham, UK

a democracy ,that's something the UK could do with
does that mean the politicians listen to the people
of the country and act on what they say.

george william taylor, hull, uk

I agree with your article, Matthew. Democracy is the only form of government that has moral legitimacy, but there need to be laws which guarantee freedoms and rights for individuals, or minority groups, who might otherwise be tyrannised by the majority. It is also true that the majority view can be ill-conceived - certainly that is frequently true of the UK's elected representatives (though they were not elected by a majority of our electorate, which is another issue!). In the latter case, free argument and persuasion is required to correct the situation.

Cathy, Bristol, UK

So the public get it wrong but keep a straight face and tell me the politicians get it right.

david Cage, Highworth, Wilts UK

There is a simple way to sum up Matthew Paris's article, namely that democracy doesn't work very well in multi-racial or multi-cultural societies. And he's right. Democracy was "invented" and developed in homogeneous societies like ancient Greece and Rome or England in the Middle Ages; it never developed or survived in multi-cultural empires. This is, of course, one of the great unsayable truths of our age. Democracy can't survive in societies where you can't tell the truth about ethnic or religious minorities and the BBC knows this very well. The PM programme last week had an item about mass testing for TB in a school in Luton and the interviewer, Eddie Mair, found it impossible to even mention immigration or ethnic minorities. The nearest the article got to it was the phrase "vibrant communities". After all, we can't go around telling the voters the truth since, as Matthew Paris says, they might then vote "the wrong way".

Baden Morton, Buntingford, Hertfordshire

Benevolent despotism is the only way. At most, this way, there is only one politician on the take.

jj, Cambridgeshire, UK

All man's tribalistic tendencies make democracy worrying; communalism has destroyed the beautiful island of Sri Lanka, just as it nearly destroyed Northern Ireland. The Muslim vote, the working class vote etc are all real and all bad. But, as Churchill pointed out, what is better? Probably a fudge, like Singapore. "Guided democracy".

Mike Evans, Midsomer Norton, UK

Matthew, I think you have missed the point of democracy. Its merit lies in giving every individual a say in who runs his country. This is an illusory power, of course, because many individual votes have no effect on the outcome of an election. Nevertheless, it generally leads to political stability because in a mature democracy the populace accepts the majority vote.

As Churchill said (or in words to that effect): "Democracy is a bad form of government, but others are very much worse".

John Russ, Ware, Herts

I quite agree. People often live in regimes that they belive democratic, and they only notice how wrong they were when they change places. Last week, on the Debian/Linux many digest used as help, I read an e-mail that really was out of context. A person said that he had lived over 30 years in the USA. For all that time he was genuinely convinced that he was living in the a perfect democracy. Then, after all this time, last years he came back to Europe, to Holland, his home country. He said that only then he realised how wrong he had been, convinced that he had been in a democratic country. He said that only from his own experience he could understand how so many people are wrongly convinced that they live in a democracy.

Also, we must keep in mind that if France is the birth of many things like the human rights, it is also where more atrocities were ever committed exactly in the name of democracy. The beginning of their democracy itself was the biggest slaughter ever. Still today...

Mario Portela, Lisbon, Portugal

Will Catholics please stop peddling the notion that they were/are somehow a victimised minority in this country? They ruled with an iron fist right up to, and including the reign of Henry 8th. Who the heck do you think persecuted and slaughtered alleged witches, women, jews, gays and anyone who wanted to worship (or not) in a different way? Who showered honours on Henry 8 for torturing and killing protestants? Who rewarded an earlier Henry for expelling the jews? Who expelled the people of the Yorkshire Dales from their own lands in order to establish their abbeys? Visit William Tyndall's monument , read a few history books and feel some shame for once.

Kit , Allover,

"The democratic form of government is the worst form of government..except for all the others" ...Winston Churchill. I realize that democracy has many flaws. The most serious of which seems to be special interest organizations and religious groups attempting to mould public policy based on their warped religious beliefs. That said I still feel the democratic process provides society with the best chance to have a say in the way their lives are run...peace to all.

Mark Willmott, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada

An excellent article that I largely support. You might have moved your comments on one stage further and discussed the effect of national borders and large scale immigration of the effectiveness of democracy. Many of the points you make become increasingly relevant where people's of different cultures, traditions, and religious and other values comprise the electorate.
You allso did not directly comment on the need for an educated and well informed electorate, nor the need for the rule of law to exist to ensure the elections are free and fair. My wife is from the Philippines where they have just concluded their elections - violence; cheating; delays; an ill inforned electorare. Compare democratic Philippines with tiger economy but non democratic Vietnam.

John Mower,, Manama, Bahrain

Even in the first democracy, in Athens, Aristophanes knew that the majority could be swayed by demagogues or tempted by promises. That hasn't changed.

Tina Rhea, Greenbelt, Maryland US

No, Matthew, paedophiles do not have Rights!

Mike Culver-James, london,

Simply put, there are more fools than wise men!

Ashtonian, Burbank, CA , USA

I think that those who advocate democracy it must understand two basic points: First, the individual and "The People" may be wonderful right and act accordingly, and the individual and "The People" may be horribly wrong and act accordingly; Second, the process must always be kept open for all, so that even the most unpopular view and most obnoxious idea have the chance to be expressed and understood. Temptations by some to claim to know and act on behalf of the "General Will" and temptations to roll the army out of the barracks to "save the People from themselves" should be understood and fully resisted. In the end, however, it's the quality of individuals, "The People," and the institutions they create that determine whether or not democracy works. In the end, an interested and educated people of calm virtue and quiet confidence can flourish via democracy and, in the process, make it work.

James, Jacksonville, Illinois