Any proposed system will always have risk,
as this is the cost of granting the population freedom.
Even more fundamentally,
any of our creations is at risk to existential forces greater than our species.
That any proposition has risks, does not invalidate it’s merit.
The first question is what is the purpose of a government,
and what needs is the government there to address.
Is it’s primary function and result aligned with the public’s benefit / interest?
Are there avenues for it’s further refinement, adjustment or complete restructuring?
Any governmental system, is a tool that ideally helps the public -
especially those advertised as being to the population’s interests.
But no government is mandatory for our species -
We have the option to go without any,
though we’d face the many risks that come with this tool’s absence.
(I personally do not advocate the absence of all public institutions ran by governmental bodies.)
Government is a choice, likely a wise one.
Yet none should be our cage.
If an approach is causing unreasonable degrees of harm,
in the assessment of the public -
then it ought be addressed with refinement, adjustment or restructuring.
Such that this tool, provides the best results to the population -
given our current understandings / knowledge.
Is the current state of ‘democracy’ around the world broadly doing good in comparison to it’s complete lack?
Yes, I think so. [Noting: there is an extreme cost, that I consider unreasonable in light of alternatives]
Is being better than it’s complete absence the only standard by which we should measure the utility of this current governmental approach?
No, of course not (imo) -
You can craft things out of wood using a rock.
A rock in this instance is better than one’s bare hands.
But if you have saws, hammers, nails, chisels, etc. - at your disposal,
remaining solely with the rock proves detrimental to one’s goal.
The cost will take it’s toll.
Let us note:
One of the primary roles of government is to improve economy.
To economize means to improve efficiency,
to produce more with less -
i.e. create less waste (more utility).
Inefficient strategies are counter productive to a primary goal of government.
Our current behaviour as a species,
which is broadly directed by our governments,
is reaping high costs on the public, other species, and the earth’s ecosystems.
Scientists have very clearly demonstrated, measured and detailed these outcomes.
We, as a population, recognize the harm that is being caused.
A primary dilemma - is that it often feels our hands are tied.
That there is a momentum or forces,
that impede us from moving towards preferred directions.
That our movement is restricted in times of need -
is but one more cost or risk,
that needs to be deeply analysed and responded to.
As for economy, I am very partial to a post-scarcity economy -
as linked to my account here since it’s creation over a decade ago.
A belief in & partiality towards that I’ve held since my teens.
I believe it’s technically feasible.
The risk is that it undermines current structures and trends,
those of which primarily serve the interest of the minority.
Universal Basic Income is an outcome of post-scarcity -
that’s it’s technically feasible to provide the population with base needs.
Again, it’s introduction would be disruptive -
but is it’s reward greater than the disruption?
Is the structure being disrupted worthy of our salvation efforts?
If the public is empowered, and share a common interest -
such that they are able to cooperate in a mutually beneficial way:
then some things lose economic utility.
If a community is peaceful and at no risk,
does it need to widen it’s police / military force?
Could these resources not be allocated to more preferred outcomes?
If the public is educated and aligned in their interests,
the need for a governmental body to demand what is already being done - is decreased.
The public’s empowerment, reduces the role of larger government.
Why would we need a minority body to control our direction,
when the community is able to reach accord by it’s own discretion?
In the age of technology,
representative democracy becomes less relevant or beneficial -
as the public has means to greater represent itself.
Perhaps it is efficient for it to remain so to a degree,
but I think it’s scope ought be diminished,
and the public given more opportunity to express their will directly.
It is shown that when giving the public the opportunity to conglomerate their diversity,
upon reaching a conclusion - that they often reach wise decisions,
by virtue of balancing each other out, and covering many bases.
Consensus reached by the public, is often far wiser than it’s parts.
I think first and foremost,
it is crucial to improve the health of the public.
Once our health is established,
many dilemmas will be easily surpassed by our own strength.
We need not get ahead of ourselves.
We could be dropped into any great system,
but if our values are destructive -
if we are pulled towards unhealth by misguided goals & ignorance,
then whatever structure we inhabit is irrelevant.
[I could say a lot more, but I think this covers most of the primary points I wanted to make]