The key point is its much harder for a broadly based society to go bad than a single individual.
On the contrary: nothing is easier to rile up than a mob, and what you understand by "broadly based" means what we call a mass-democracy (i.e. universal franchise). The system that ostensibly caters to the whims of the large masses... and in reality functions by dividing the masses into competing mobs and playing them off against each other (thus ensuring the ever-further entrenchment in power of a rigid oligarchy. One that merely maintains several "fronts", such as political factions.)
In reality, it's very hard to
fix such a society when it goes bad. (Which it inevitably does, and more rapidly than any other, ceteris paribus.)
I think your perception is skewed because a key part of what I've just decribed is the act of
deceiving the mob(s) into believing that things are going far better than is actually the case. This, for a time, creates an illusion of great prosperity. An example of this is the present-day "wealth" of the modern world, which is actualy based on a series of inter-locking ponzi schemes, expanding supplies of worthless money (only useful as long as the illusion is maintained), and a
mountain of debt.
A variation upon that theme is always the inevitable doom of a mass democracy. The lie cannot be maintained forever. Which is why I call democracy unstable and temporary. Everything good about it is fake. It's a rotten apple coated in a shiny veneer. Future historians won't refer to the late 19th century when they speak of the "gilded age", but to our present time.
This is the true gilded age; the time of the deceptive false-face and of the utter decay festering beneath it.
There have been checks and balances on monarchies but they have often failed with either autocratic despots appearing or alternatively a period of chaos and disorder with no central power and all the sharks are in a feeding frenzy until their brought under control. This can occur in more modern cultures, where the sharks may be merchants or extremely wealth elites of other kind, or even simplistic demagogues. Its just that with a system of rule of law and enough people willing to support those laws its a lot more difficult to totally overthrow the system. Corruption is still too prevalent as the sheer wealth and other power attributes give the elites too many advantages if their power isn't kept closely in check but that is widespread in the sort of system your suggesting as well. Its just that the people suffering the most weren't counted as relevant.
You express a belief in a systemic solution. There is none, for the reasons I've already outlined. "Belief" in democracy is belief in a lie, and that's exactly what enables the continuation of the very corruption and oligarchy that you fear. The "merchants" -- actually hyper-oligarchs -- already control the system. The opinions of the masses are less meaningful than they have
ever been. That's not to say that the masses were typically heeded in historic times, of course! The truth is rather more interesting: the masses weren't considered relevant, as you say-- and thus generally
ignored.
But now, the goverments of our age are not so benevolent as to ignore you. Rather, they seek to turn you into a worker drone. You have less freedom than the average serf, in practice, because the intrusion of government into your life has increased a thousand-fold. Again: this is the gilded age, and we live in gilded cages built by the state. But we're running out of gilt, and the reality of the tiny, restrictive cage in which the modern world has trapped us all is becoming increasingly hard to ignore. It's very... oppressive.
or even simplistic demagogues
Regarding this one in particular: you describe this as a danger or evil of the
vast non-democratic part of history. I'd like to point out that demagogues, by definition, rise to power by appealing to the
demos. They ascend by exploiting,
precisely, the democratic impulse. The existence of demagogues is not an argument against my position, but rather in its favour.
Interesting that you are now arguing for a monarchy with some checks when I remember you arguing last year that you thought people were better off with as weak a government as possible. Which was a point we disagreed on.
You are the one formulating it dismissively as "
some checks", again painting your own interpretation onto the matter. My position is that a balance of truly competing interests tends to create the strongest and most natural checks on any power that can exist.
Note that the massive expansion of government goes hand-in-hand with the evolution of mass democracy. These two impulses feed into each other. By the mechanism I've described above, the ruling elite caters to various competing interest groups, promising them favours at the expense of others. Each of these expands the scope of the government, and increases the tax burden (the share of the economy that the government gobbles up). Since the "democratic" process involves the various major parties (all different masks of the establishment) succeeding each other in power, they
all get to cater to their voting base from time to time. Which means that democracy is not a
choice between various possible increases in government power, but a
sum of all those options, all added up over time. None ever truly rescinded.
This is furthered by the fact that the establishment, periodically looking for new supporters as they so often betray (and thus lose) old ones, will increasingly expand the franchise. This is presented as a good thing ("power to the people"), but is the opposite in truth. It's a race to the bottom (qua performance), and a race to an ever bigger government at the same time.
I
do think we're better off with a small -- even tiny -- government. And the best way to achieve that is to end mass democracy, which is the foremost instrument of creating a massively out-sized goverment.
Thankfully, as I've previously argued, the death of mass democracy is inevitable. Which means there's not only hope, but the
certainty of improvement. Regrettably, things
will get worse before they get better. Not because people don't "believe in democracy", as you argue, but rather because there's still
far too many people who do.
Definitions of democracy are varied and also it depends on what you mean by a few centuries. The Roman republic lasted several centuries - at least as long as most/all of the assorted dynasties we're been discussing here - and provided massively successful, at least until its success made its system of government inviolable because of its greatly expanded size in terms of the territory it ruled. Similarly with the Swiss confederation.
Yes, definitions are varied. So it's important that we stay honest about it. Going by the descriptions of (the supposed benefits of) democracy that you have offered, the Roman Republic was
not a democracy for most of its existence. Which seems plausible. Certainly for the first stretch of its history, the Republic was a purely aristocratic state. It did gradually become something more of an "open aristocracy", but not to any extent that is more relevant than burghers and free cities having a voice in the Holy Roman Empire, for instance. If you would agree with me that those latter examples didn't make the Holy Roman Empire a democracy, then you'll also agree that the first secessions of the Plebs likewise didn't render Rome a democracy.
The turning point, I daresay, was the famous fifth and last secession. (Last, precisely because it
succeeded.) This created the Lex Hortensia. You might recall that I've previously drawn a comparision between that social conflict (the old aristocracy versus the 'new men') and the American Civil War. And that I compare the Lex Hortensia to the post-Civil War constitutional amendments. Both were at their core about significantly expanding the franchise and the ranks of the citizenry.
This is where Rome, and America, started their real journey into the land of...
democracy. It's a journey that occupied (and in the current event,
will occupy) some 240 years. Hence my statement: "a few centuries".
Of course, the process was gradual. Rome continued to have underlying trouble with its conflict of the social classes, and in America (and by extension the modern West), the expansion of the franchise was also a troubled and gradual process. Universal franchise in the USA was only fully established a century after the Civil War. And in Rome, a century after the Lex Hortensia, the citizen-veterans of the wars against Hannibal and Philippos also formed the rump of a "post-war consensus" that led to decades of internal stability... on the surface. Beneath that veneer, the voice of the people became marginalised, and the elite asserted itself
within the existing system.
This lasted until the simmering and growing discontent manifested in the ascent of the Gracchi. And that marks the beginning of the decay of Roman "democracy" (such as it was): things thereafter escalated into a renewed (and ever more bitter and bloody) conflict between the elite and the enraged masses. Like-wise, in the modern West, the hey-day of our own democracy (...
such as it is...) was also the period that began in the 1960s (Kennedy! Optimism! Camelot!) and ended when Trump was elected, as a modern-day reviled populist demagogue "Gracchus". (Which is all fitting, because Kennedy and Obama were both idolised "pop star" leaders who embodied the ideal of ""Modernity", and underneath it all, were
mostly hollow.)
So. In truth, the "triumph" of a democracy lasts about half a century. Before that, it's finding its feet for a century, and after that, it's decaying for about a century. I
wouldn't define that as a paragon of stability and longevity. Rather, as I already did, I'd call it a brief flash; an experiment that burns out quickly.
Similarly with the Swiss confederation.
Was for almost all of its history not a democracy by the description you've given of democracy's supposed virtues. Indeed, the Swiss resisted giving women the vote until the 1970s. Good for them. Might be a reason why they're doing relatively well. (Not because women are inherently dumb or anything, but because -- as I've said -- the more people you allow to vote, the faster things go horribly wrong.)
The Roman republic lasted several centuries - at least as long as most/all of the assorted dynasties we're been discussing here
Regarding this in particular: you are confusing "monarchy" and "dynasty". I'll assume it was accidental. If you want to talk about how long dynasties last, the only valid comparison is to how long major political parties retain a majority. If you want to compare a monarchy to the longevity of a democracy itself, the only valid comparison is how long the actual monarchy lasted, regardless of which dynasty was in charge at any given point.
I assure you that most countries were monarchies for
far longer than they were democracies.
I live in a monarchy myself
No, you don't. You live in an oligarchic state that retains a figure-head for PR reasons.
I prefer a system where the base is as broad as possible rather than relatively narrow with only a small group of elites having real power. The latter both lacks the stability
As I've argued in some detail, your assertion is incorrect. A "broad base" is merely a tool of obfuscation, used by the exact small elite that you think it'll keep from power. (But which is, in reality, already in power. Which means, regrettably, that you've been fooled. I've explained this to you, but as has been observed: it's often very
hard to convince a man that he's been bamboozled.)
A system that uses a more selective method for deciding who gets to have a say in governance -- that is, a
stake-holder system -- is infinitely preferable. This is best kept stable and lasting by letting competing factions with truly diverging interest balance the power between them. The crown, the aristocracy, the church, the burghers, the merchants, the yeomen...
That gives you stability. And pretty damn
lasting stability. Far more so than any democracy you might care to name.
the resource base of a more democratic system
You're making the typical whiggish error here: conflating technological progress (which has always existed, and which has created all the increases in available resources) with supposed social "progress" (which in actuality leeches off the former, and doesn't create it).
A world in which the age of revolutions fizzled out would, by and large, be just as scientifically and technologically advanced as our own. And just as abundant in its available resources. These things are not a product of democracy.
As has been said before all systems are subject to decay and corruption. The only questions are how deep those infections are and how strongly people in a society are prepared to oppose them. To take a current example if Ukraine was a corrupt kleptocracy like Russia it wouldn't still be resisting occupation, let alone so successfully. You along with others seen to be arguing a fatalistic stance that we shouldn't try preventing decay because it will make no difference, whereas I think people can matter.
In other words: you engage in magical thinking, whereas I'm pretty sure that "wishing won't make it so".
My stance is not fatalistic, though. People can make a
profound change in their own lives, and the lives of those around them. That has great meaning. But you are akin to the child playing on the beach, who thinks that if he just builds a sand-wall strong enough, it'll hold back the tide.
The tide doesn't care what you think. Neither does history.
Democracy takes a lot of effort to maintain but can be vastly more successful
It's a basic rule that anything that takes more energy to maintain is going to be less durable and less stable than the basic alternatives. As I mentioned with the tides: your sand-wall won't hold the water back, no matter how much energy you expend. You're
wasting your energy on a pointless endeavour.
As I've explained as well: you're also wrong about the degree of success. That's simply not backed up by the facts. Democracy is, overall, an expensive failure whose supposed benefits are either not its own, or merely "gilded" lies with little substance. (Which doesn't mean that democracy, at its best, is bad to live in. It's pretty good! It just doesn't last, and the bloody hang-over simply isn't worth the all-too-brief high.)
if it can be kept clean of corruption enough
As the Spartans said to Philippos II:
"
If."
(Philippos was wise enough to heed the scathing rebuke.)
I think part of that is that corruption and abuse is more visible [in a democracy] than inside a state with more centralized power.
Again, a baffling case where you paint your own preconceived notions onto the matter. The fact is: modern democracies are the most centralised states to have ever existed in history. And corruption is now more entrenched, and more well-hidden, than for most of history. (I've outlined before that most developed nations merely pretend to be "very not-corrupt!" by
formalising and legally
organising things that would be called "corruption" elsewhere. So in truth: these developed countries are
very corrupt. They're so good at corruption that they can hide it from the masses effectively.)
You should also not assume because some people have no morale values that everybody feels that way. I think most people will accept such a system if it can be seen to be of value to them rather than simply a shield for the elites to carry on doing anything they wish without check.
I don't assume people have no moral values. Indeed, the fact that many people have morals is one reason why mass democracy is doomed. It's too immoral to be suffered for too long. The people, ironically, won't stand for it. (What won't they stand for, you ask? Well, they won't stand for what every mass democracy inevitably and quickly becomes:
a shield for the elites to carry on doing anything they wish without check.)