=============================================================================

 George Bernard Shaw once said: "Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many
 incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few...", and while I don't have nearly such
 a bleak outlook on our method of government, Mr. Shaw does hold an iota of truth in his
 quotation.  In a perfect world, where everyone is informed, intelligent, and aware of their
 system of administration, democracy would work perfectly.  In a world where there are
 different personalities, dissimilar concerns and divergent points of view, democracy falls
 short of the ideal of having all people being equal.  Similarly, having a Philosopher-King
 or an equivalent in control of a country sounds fine on paper, but there would be different
 philosophies, disputes within the philosopher-king hierarchy itself, and of course, the
 never-ending task of stabilizing an entire country would daunt even the most qualified
 person.  

 It is a mechanical fault of democracy itself, and not the many leaders caught up in a
 democratic bureaucracy that causes a country to stumble.  A democracy is where the
 government is run by all the people who live under it. To have a true democracy, everyone
 must vote.  People vote to exercise their democratic rights; if only 70% vote, then 70%
 control 100% of the government.  Voting without adequate understanding and choosing
 candidates for the wrong reasons are symptoms of voting for the sake of voting and not
 taking an active interest in how our country is run.  Instead of making an effort to
 understand issues and party fundamentals, too many ignorant people actually base their
 decisions on what the candidates tell them.  The result is that everybody feels "burned" by
 the government, never realizing that they could have tipped the election simply by paying
 attention. Another problem with democracy is the structure of any government's bureaucracy.
  Vote for a party/candidate only in principle, because in practice, they act completely the
 same.  Imagine bureaucracy as a great fast-moving train; even if another engineer takes
 control, it is incredibly hard to make any large adjustments without severely unstabilizing
 the train.  Similarly, it wouldn't matter if any political party is in power, because any
 fundamental change would upset a lot of people (one of the unwritten laws of politics:  to
 make a drastic change is to invite political suicide).  In the case of a philosopher-king,
 a lot more could be done because he would have the power of a monarch, yet his judgment
 would not be watered down through bloodlines (like how decadent the British monarch has
 become from their stable position of power).    

 It would appear that the idea of a philosopher king has the best of both worlds:  The
 control of a dictatorship, but the freedom of a (controlled) democracy.  (The philosopher
 king is not defined as concisely as I'd like, so I'm taking some liberties here).  Someone
 who is bred specifically to lead a country would be better than any politician; they would
 be specialized in the physics of politics, they would have unique insights into old
 political problems, and could master political double-speak by age 10!  No question, a more
 stable country would develop under a purebred leader, but  there could be many more unseen
 problems that would come along with an absolute ruler. The term, philosopher  king would
 create an image of a monarchical rule, where his word is law.  That would have the
 advantage of streamlining the government, with the absolute leader making quick, summary
 judgments.  Any problems that could develop through a monarchy would not be anything new;
 more than a few countries have felt (and have rebelled against) the stranglehold of a king
 holding absolute power over them.  Another problem with the philosopher king: which
 philosophy?  A Socrates indoctrinated ruler would have different viewpoints from an
 existentialist philosopher king.  Would people vote for different philosophies as well as
 their favorite king?  There would be as many problems with the mechanics of a philosopher
 king as there would be with a democracy.

 I'm not saying that either is better: Both the philosophy of democracy, and the concept of
 a philosopher king  both sound good in theory, but once the human factor is introduced, an
 incalculable variable is introduced into any equation, political or otherwise.  It may
 appear that a philosopher king may have a short term upper hand, but eventually, that
 system will fall under its own bureaucracy; as badly as a system where the ignorance of
 nation would rule themselves.   John Lowell is quoted as saying "Democracy gives everyone
 the right to be his own oppressor..." so why put more oppression in a country?  

