9jaRealist:


1) It is NOT the UAE, because it is NOT any sort of democracy at all...

This is not an answer to my question at all.

2) Largely spurious question because “good government” is NOT a universal principle. What may be “good government administration” to some people (eg, the ability to vote and to have or say in their own governance) might not necessarily be the same to others. Nonetheless, if you are merely going to “expose” folks to so-called “good government administration” be specific rather than deceptive. After all, there are many people who could rationally argue that a system whereby one person can simply snap their finger and deprive you of your property rights or even your liberty could not be rationally described as “good government administration” despite a higher material standard of living.

I don't agree that my question is spurious, but I agree with the rest of what you've typed here. Despite my agreement, I still don't see what makes good governance the exclusive preserve of a yet undefined "real democracy". This is the problem I am currently facing with your objection. I don't know what is meant by "real democracy"! It would help to cite some examples so that we can work from there.

Anyway, do not intend to further belabor the point, but it has become glaringly obvious that neither you nor the author of the letter quite grasp the basic nous of democracy. The essence is NOT about outcomes and/or results, but rather about PROCESS.
>

You may very well be correct that my grasp of the nuances of democracy is lacking, which is why I keep asking you to define what is meant by real democracy and provide examples of such, but it seems you aren't interested in helping me solidify my grasp because you have so far avoided answering my questions, which I find curious.

From your claim that "the essence is not about outcomes and/or results, but rather about PROCESS", it is either you are claiming that democracy, in particular, is self-evidently good, irrespective of its outcome, or you are suggesting that in general, the merit of any process should be judged independently of its results. Either is an especially absurd positions to take; the former being frightfully naive considering democracy is known to produce some spectacularly destructive results, and the latter being odd since results/outcomes are the point of any intentional process.

This is not an answer to my question at all.I don't agree that my question is spurious, but I agree with the rest of what you've typed here. Despite my agreement, I still don't see what makes good governance the exclusive preserve of a yet "real democracy". This is the problem I am currently facing with your objection. I don't know what is meant by "real democracy"! It would help to cite some examples so that we can work from there.You may very well be correct that my grasp of the nuances of democracy is lacking, which is why I keep asking you to define what is meant by real democracy and provide examples of such, but it seems you aren't interested in helping me solidify my grasp because you have so far avoided answering my questions, which I find curious.From your claim that "the essence is not about outcomes and/or results, but rather about PROCESS", it is either you are claiming that democracy, in particular, is self-evidently good, irrespective of its outcome, or you are suggesting that in general, the merit of any process should be judged independently of its results. Either is an especially absurd positions to take; the former being frightfully naive considering democracy is known to produce some spectacularly destructive results, and the latter being odd since results/outcomes are the point of any intentional process.