Democracy has its limits.

We tend to spout off a lot in the Western world about the great god Democracy, and for the most part all the spouting goes unchallenged. It is today's heresy to cast doubt on the status of Democracy as the only viable system of government, one which must be exported throughout the globe. When Democracy rules in all countries, then there will be no more war, there will be no disharmony and fluffy bunnies will sun themselves midst bright flowers on green hillocks.

You will not be surprised to learn that I have my doubts. Quite a lot, actually. And in so many areas that I can't cover them in one day.

The OED defines democracy as "government by all the people, direct or representative; form of society ignoring hereditary class distinctions and tolerating minority views."

So far so good.

Let's take a look at the inherent problems of democracy in Western societies, and ignore for now the ravages which the ill-advised export of an unaccustomed socio-political system has wrought elsewhere in the world, notably in Africa.

1. Elections. Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE elections. I watch all the coverage of the local elections, the national elections, the US elections. I love politics and the election night is, in our system, the apogee of political excitement, the climax of the political affair. But because of this, a disproportionate amount of government/opposition time, money and energy is dispersed from the business of running the country into the struggle to retain/gain power. So those who dwell in the Houses of Lords of Commons over here, the Reichstag, the Senate and House of Representatives, the EC and wherever else, are not wholly engaged on the task for which we elected them, but are diverted to a greater or lesser degree, dependant on where we are in the term, by the business of getting us to elect them again. This disturbs me. It disturbs me that my taxes are diverted to this end. It disturbs me to an even greater degree that in some places there is no limit to the funds which they can raise to this end, which, logic reasons, means there is no end to the amount of time they can divert from the business of running the country to the business of getting elected.

2. Instability: The fact that we choose our leaders every four or five years, depending on your nation, means that democratic government is inherently unstable. It also means that our 'leaders' take enormous risks if they actually choose to LEAD rather than finding our what 'the people' (AKA 'the electorate') want, and giving it to them. Wise governments make unpopular decisions early in their terms and become more and more conciliatory as time goes by, until they are handing out freebies just before the elections. Oppositions, as the name suggests, must oppose, so every law passed by an incumbent government is met with assurances from the opposition that once in power they will rescind the law. Of course they don't always do so, but the danger is there taht they will do so just toprove how different they are. It is human nature to look at something that's not working and say "That's not working - change it," rather than "That's not working - let's let it bed down and see what happens." Four or five years is not enough time for major changes to bed down, which is why it is only strong leaders such as Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair who have the confidence to make them. The more unpopular the outgoing government, the easier it is for the incoming to set off in an opposite direction, daring to expect that they will be given the benefit of time. Interestingly, it is those bold firework leaders who carry their people with them on a crusade who last longer, although they eventually splutter and fall.

3. Short-termist: Since, for instance, a child's term in full- time education is equal to two and a half British electoral terms, one can assume that the curriculum he or she started out with will not be the same one they end up working from and the school system itself may be startlingly different. Education is only one of the political footballs which is kicked around political fields; health, law and order and defence are just some of the other crucial issues which are, in any democratic society, almost certain not to be got right. You CANNOT, as every party claims 'ensure' that 'every child has the education to which they are entitled', 'everyone has the right to healthcare free at the point of delivery', 'everyone must feel safe in their own homes and on their streets' along with all the other fatuous statements, by changing all the laws. In the life of a nation four years is a gnat's breath and history judges failure harshly. Who could accurately predict history's consensus on Margaret Thatcher in 1979, or even 1983?

4. Majority versus plurality: Unfortunately democracy is not 'government by all the people', not even close. It's not even government by majority, but government by plurality. A proper majority would mean that the number votes gained by one party exceeds the total number of votes gained by all the others put together. Compare that with the 35.19% of the votes cast to win Labout their last electoral term. And this with a turnout on the day of only 61.36%. All that you need is to get more people to put vote for you than for each of the other parties. So we are being governed by a party voted in by just over 25% of the people. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

... I haven't finished. I have to go and walk the dogs, so I'll carry on my rant later... If you want to disagree violently with me, please wait until I've finished my arguments!