This would take us back to middle ages !!!!!!!!!

Those "qualified" tags who awards them !!!

Well , society workings have to regulated (Sorry I am bit hung up with that ) . The difference is to a large extent Kant philosophy . Work for greater good for a greater # ...

" He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals. "

Dear Kirk you proposed a very good key. The only concern is that if we use your way - only "most qualified" will remain

Best Regards,

Leonid

This would take us back to middle ages !!!!!!!!!

Those "qualified" tags who awards them !!!

Well , society workings have to regulated (Sorry I am bit hung up with that ) . The difference is to a large extent Kant philosophy . Work for greater good for a greater # ...

" He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals. "

Everyone should have an input. Unfortunately, some of those elected are not really qualified for the job (Donald Trump).

Yeah, just as others have asked, who is "the best"? In every case, best for one aspect of the job does not mean best for others aspects, so that alone should be enough to give one pause.

What seems to work best is for the aggregated masses to have a say. Wisdom often comes from this aggregate. The alternative, the cult of the individual, is really bizarre. Like, zombie society bizarre.

Hello,

Individuals constitute the basic components of any community. The interaction of individuals with each other creates various groups and different social groups form a nation. However, since individuals have rather limited means as autonomous units, they need a constitution- laws which determine how small cultures and individuals fit within the large culture. Accordingly, everyone should have a say in how societies must be organized. Normally, these voices can effectively be actualized by setting up a fair and democratic electoral system whereby individual voices will be heard by those elected from well- organized voting polls. This is the basis of all democratic and utilitarian societies. Unfortunately, in reality this rarely happens because insatiable sources of power use all possible means to usurp the rights of the people for their limitless political gains . That is why we are witnessing unhuman interventionists acts throughout the world that steal people's votes in order to satisfy their own fascist goals. It seems that the lobbyists, the political parties which are way off road from the ideal party goals , and foreign interventions most cruelly suffocate the innocent voices and prevent them from being heard. Therefore , individual voices fall prey to modern exploitation in the present day and age all over the globe.If you don't believe this, just look at the way organizations are organized and run in your country?

Best regards,

R. Biria

Democracy is still relevant. Indeed, allowing all to have a say would give a degree of understanding to the governing class on the best way to govern. Of course, the society should be run by qualified persons whose portfolios must be decided by the public (elections). Yet, a consensus of all countrymen must be sought in key decisions in the country.

Definitely must be the opinion of all .... The opinion is very important,

But this view must be based on the skills and possibilities of each person, for example there are specialists in such a field of university professors sure their opinion will be more influential and important

regards

Dahl addressed this topic in his book Polyarchy. He explained that history showed that our now 'advanced democracies' didn't start out with everyone having voting rights. So, if you look at history, this was the case, but eventually voting rights were extended to the mass public--for better or for worse.

Democracy should be involvrd. Soliciting for everyone ideal is the best way to improve a societal change or development

Yes, but not absolutely and each according to his concepts, which must be fully accepted by society or adapt itself to them

I see that if there is a large segment of society that is not conscious, they should not be involved in governance because they can not build a democratic state

Well , too blunt Prof Abed !!!! Power in the grass-root level is some what effective than concentrated ...

I think both concepts are good.

everybody have right

Dear Kirk,

Most qualified for what? How to choose the most qualified? Who can select the most qualified? The real question is how to explain the less qualified that they have no right in the running of society? Generally, I think that the less qualified often cannot even realize the job/task of organizing the society.

Please, have a look at the attached picture of Pawel Kuczynski.

Dear Mohd,

I would say: everybody may have right but not the capacity necessary. Many cannot properly chose even their meal.

While elitism is usually expressed through denigration, that is for example most people cannot tie up their shoelaces without help (but I can! I'm better!) because democracy, and any and all, political institutions do not rely on the absorption of information and consideration of informed viewpoints but intuition, learned behaviour and experience, the ideas of groups can often find the right way through-(and just as often not!).

When everyone can decide, it is anarchy, the nations fall. An example is Poland in the eighteenth century and the famous "Liberum veto"

I found the study by Steven Brint "In an Age of Experts: The Changing Role of Professionals in Politics and Public Life" (Princton University Press, 1994) interesting, since it analyzes the role of 'Experts' in the transition from policies to administration, where Experts play an important role on manageing and regulating who can (and who can't) appear in the political discourse.

The question on who can (legitimately) appear within the political discourse seems extremely important regarding the initial question if everybody should have a voice or just legitimate experts within the political sphere. Regarding philosophical conceptions, to me, this also could be seen as a debate between positions like Habermas' (consent-) and Ranciéres (dissent-)perspective on politics.