Politicians: Hanging Chads or High Fliers?, Debate - How do we secure better rulers? Options

[Guest_Jox_*]

New Debate: Democracy produces bad leaders.

Democracy is great - we're very lucky. Despite Bush's hanging chads (how to win election) scandal and the UK's First-Past-The-Post travesty, democracy is good. However...

The pressure on politicians is very great indeed. They face public scrutiny from everywhere - their fellow politicians, their opposition politicians, the media, the public, abroad and so on. The pay is not tremendous either. OK more than I get by a long way but top-fliers in other spheres earn much more with far less responsibility.

So why do it? Well many do entry politics with a desire to help others. We are cynical about politicians but many are honestly trying to do good in an area which they feel they enjoy. But are they the best we could get? Maybe more pay and less intensive scrutiny would make politics a more appealing profession to more people - and some of those would be much better at it...

Any thoughts please?

[Guest_Don_*]

We can always depend upon hyberbole to skewer statistics, history, and politics.

It is firmly believed that in pre-history societies lived harmoneously with each other.  They were peaceful cultures.  Some contend that the "peaceful societies" fell with Troy. The Iliad of Homer may be a prehistorical record of usurpers forcfully taking control and all leaders since are pretenders.  

Archaeologists have recovered sufficient artifacts to soundly conjecture that Troy was a vassle city in vast Hittite Empire.  Hence, the model of usurper is moved to an earlier prehistory.  

Where does the idea of usurper come from?  The strong shall rule the weak is ingrained by centuries of being that way.  Our cultures have been purged of any other expectations.  As once people could not conceive of a world without slaves because they had no machines and were not privy to modern understanding.  However, a faint spark in our being urges us to believe that once upon a time mankind lived peacefully in true equality.

Since individuals have differing talents and skills, it is illogical to believe we were once equal.  Of course, this is based on modern definition of equal, which defys what ancients considered equal.  It may not have been in their vocabulary—so to speak.  Consider the practice of making crime legal because it is impractical to enforce.  If everyone drives 80 miles per hour in a 60 MPH zone the authorities might as well legalize the higher speed.  To reverse engineer this concept, if idea of equal is missing, then so is unequal.  Who cooks the most, who hunts the most, who is counting?

The argument that women would be more compassionate rulers is a dream or a distortion per first paragraph.  Jox, you spoke of British females.  Remember Catherine the Great?  Russia had many Tsareenas, which were, to me, despotic.   People are people and each individual is prone to be as corrupt as power allows.

The above is to show that rulers are a class of usurpers and the question may be altered to "How do we secure better usurpers?
It is time to insert a modifier or noun behind "better."  "Better what", is the revised question.

Now we must provide a list of attributes such as just, fair, humane, wise, smart, religious, educated, lucky, and/ or whatever.  Remember that historically democracies last about 200 years.  The best known form of government is  a benevolent dictatorship.  Such a person pops up takes absolute control, then changes their spots to tight controlled benevolence.  Seemingly we have zero control to install or establish the best.  Royal hous of Jordan may be an exception, no?  The key word in the question now shifts to "better," as in context of improved

I relenquish the podium to the next idealist.

Don