I do not see any reasons to support your statement, "The essence of democracy is to provide a better system so that people can have better life."
First of all, democracy, itself, is already a political system, and I do not see how a political system will "provide" another system.
Democracy is state of political system, but it is not a process of changes of poltical system. In the contrast, a revolution will "provide" a system, but it is not necessary a better system to everyone and in every aspect.
Secondly, the words "better" is vague and do have multiple meanings. The "better" for politicaql system is not necessary the same "better" for life.
Thirdly, there no defined standard of a "better" poltical system. We can only desribes a political system by it form according to its formal elements, for example a democratic system, a communist state, dictatorship, a monarchy and a oligarchy..etc. But none are "better" than other, because no value behind any poltical theory are necessary better than others. For example, United State's democracy many be a much less perferable than oligarchy and communism to many "seniors in victoria garden".
Last but not least, I do see any reason to support your definition of democracy. Democracy was first founded by anicent greek in Archaic period in about 776 BC, when the frist Olympic games where held about the same period of time. The word democracy means "rule by people." Democracy was not found not to satisfy any specific goals, like "better life". In the contrast, democracy was found such that differnt goals and the core values of the society can be decided with well defined compromising rules of majority rule.
There should not be any "shouldn't be" in democracy.
引用:
原帖由 strangerchan 於 2007-11-28 10:52 PM 發表
The essence of democracy is to provide a better system so that people can have better life.
But it seems to me many democrats are merely using it to win votes, and they have not done anything ...
