Replies

This is a fracture line with the whole concept of democracy. Our leaders are elected. Therefore they need public support. Therefore, there is always the temptation for them to do what is popular rather than what is right (tragically the two are not always the same). Even if they do believe in an unpopular course of action, the democratic process still means that such actions will be punished at the ballot box. What's the point of taking a principled stand if you will simply be fired for doing so, and therefore unable to influence the situation anyway? This is the problem here. Cameron certainly knows UNICEF's darker side, but he cannot move on them. The great British public will not stand for it. Not at the moment anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I think Democracy is great - there is a very definite link between free societies and rich, happy, and/or powerful societies. I'd certainly prefer to live in a democratic society than any of the autocracy's, theocracy's and plain dictatorships that are the lot of far too many people in this world. But there are weaknesses, and we need to be aware of them.

This is a fracture line with the whole concept of democracy.

Absolutely true. However, consider this. In fact, we are a Republic, not a Democracy...a small, but significant difference. We do operate on representative gov't. However, we do have the technology now to do away with representatives and let the people vote on major issues directly. Voting electronically after qualifying (retina scan, finger prints, ??) is possible. With dead people in Lake County, Indiana, voting twice, how bad could this alternative be?