Churchill bluntly labels democracy to be the “worst form of Government,” which clearly casts a negative tone on the man’s perspective of it. Through this, Churchill acknowledges the faults of democracy, despite the fact that the very basis of democracy—representation via voting—is how he was able to assume his position as prime minister. Indeed, there are several blatant flaws that are evident in democracy, such as its sluggishness in enacting changes. Candidates, to sway voters, often make promises with sweet honeyed words; yet when they are eventually put into power, barriers—whether it is bureaucratic red tape or a sudden case of amnesia—prevent these conversions from being made. Additionally, with the constantly rotating roster of presidents and prime ministers, unstable leadership and inconsistency in policy making are quite prevalent in democratic nations. Conversely, dictatorships and communist governments—the types of systems most often put down—have the most stability. Perhaps inaction may be considered monotonous by some; still, stability is a factor that is sought after and is crucial for a nation’s success. Without stability, what is there to ground individuals? Change is not always negative, yet a constant barrage of such can be frustrating or overwhelming. Though the competition between opposing political parties may not amount to a civil war, it may imply that internally, the nation is not as unified. Furthermore, the overly competitive nature of party politics and rivalry may mean that these parties concentrate most on the pursuit of their agendas, rather than the “common good,” as Plato put it. It was for this reason—the fact that men in power tended to be the most corruptible—that he proposed the idea of philosopher-king. Who better to wear the crown than the one who wants it least? Rule of ignorance was what he called democracy. What good was “representation” if it led to a fool sitting on the throne?
Even as Churchill condemns democracy for its blemishes, he raises it above other governments, conceding that despite the cracked visage it held, it was still superior to other government forms. For its lack of efficiency, it ensures that a dictator will not rise. Through its constant transitions, it offers each party a chance to showcase their perspectives. While other forms of government, such as a totalitarian state, may provide stability, they do so at the price of their citizens, projecting their own anthem to drown out insubordinate voices. On the other hand, in a democracy, those clearly corrupt can be put out of power through the power of the people. While it is also true that mob rule is not necessarily constructive—”want” is not the same as “need”—basic freedoms that are paramount to human dignity and guaranteed by democracy are not ensured in other governments. Democracy promises representation, a principle that revolutions were founded on and fought for. It must be acknowledged that in practice, democracy is not as irreproachable as it is in theory. Corruption is possible and quite evident, and at times, the values it preaches can be nothing more than lip service. However, it is because democracy is so much higher that it can be put down so far; other governments, placed lower for their acts of oppression, are only exacerbated by corruption; something already tainted cannot be tainted again. At its very core, democracy contains the potential to be the greatest, and it is because of the potential it possesses that it remains above all other forms of government.
Comments