You cannot have a scam without there being legitimacy. One cannot be deceived unless there is a truth of the matter. — unenlightened

I still agree with George Orwell. The term "democracy" is a meaningless word primarily used to fuel an entire agenda of dishonesty. There is indeed a reason why it has no precise definition. It needs to be flexible enough to be continuously re-purposed for evermore nefarious ends.

the children of the elite receive excellent educations, as do some others who will fill positions serving the interests of the elite — Bitter Crank

Well, I'm not so sure. The children of the elite certainly end up with sufficient paperwork to get into whatever institutions they desire. I'm not sure I'd call that an excellent education. I doubt any of them could fix a tap. Mind you, they only need to know how to get the 'staff' to do it.

"school" is less important now than it was in the past (this itself is a dated observation) because 24/7 mass media now shapes people into the kinds of consumers that are needed. — Bitter Crank

Interesting. Schools of the future could just be rooms with a guard on the door, Facebook on the big screen and chairs bolted to the floor. Next they have isolation rooms as punishments... Oh no wait, they already have.

It needs to be flexible enough to be continuously re-purposed for evermore nefarious ends. — alcontali

Why not ever less nefarious ends? I applaud your suspicion, but not your despair. For the word to be repurposed and betrayed it must have a meaning and a purpose.

Churchill and Roosevelt were formally installed as leaders by way of elections. Does that alone make them leaders? — TheMadFool

No, but they didn't get into power by killing their competitors, like Stalin and Hitler did.

That truly is a big issue. A big dividing issue.

People who don't have a problem to kill their own peers to gain power are problematic people, especially in a World where democracies, republics and nations having constitutions are the norm. You see, once a leader does that the whole social interaction changes. They cannot stop looking over their shoulders. They cannot close that Pandora's box once they have opened it.

Anyway, democracy is a simply a simple safety valve which usually works. That's all there really is to it: a safety valve.

One reason is that "leadership" is sort of ineffable. Can you describe for us what traits and features the perfect (or even half-ways tolerable) leader would have? What kind of leader(s) do you want?

I'm not sure to what extent "leaders" are born and to what extent they are made. Then there are their followers. Followers have something to do with the behavior of leaders. So do "stakeholders". Every corporation and rich SOB that makes a big donation to a political campaign has a hook in the elected official. Hitler was financed; he didn't just run things based on his innate charm.

My guess is that certain inborn traits, coupled with playground experiences, life in families, classroom experiences, class-linked experiences, and so on go into making leaders. Then too, different circumstances require different kinds of leaders. A country thrust into a war (like, by being invaded) needs one type of leader; a country suffering from severe economic depression needs another kind of leader, perhaps.

I wish we knew how to get the kinds of leader we need. — Bitter Crank

Yes indeed, defining a good leader is the first hurdle and the first things that come to mind is they should be immune to the temptations of power and wealth - the two most difficult attractions to resist in the Disneyland of politics.

No, but they didn't get into power by killing their competitors, like Stalin and Hitler did.

That truly is a big issue. A big dividing issue.

People who don't have a problem to kill their own peers to gain power are problematic people, especially in a World where democracies, republics and nations having constitutions are the norm. You see, once a leader does that the whole social interaction changes. They cannot stop looking over their shoulders. They cannot close that Pandora's box once they have opened it.

Anyway, democracy is a simply a simple safety valve which usually works. That's all there really is to it: a safety valve. — ssu

A safety valve put in place to offset our innate nature to accumulate wealth and wield power.

For wielding power, obviously.

For wealth, I'm not so sure. Not all of those hungry for power desire wealth and riches, especially those who have an ideological push and/or see themselves being on a mission.

Then there are the one's who obviously do like gold.

And the gold that they get by wielding power.

Firstly, is it possible for us to elect leaders without giving them any large sum of wealth, which we could assume to be a salary that would give them three non extravagant but nutritious meals a day, and the ability to pay the rent for a small house or flat. They must be solely preoccupied so that they cannot gain any other form of income. Also, we can attempt to educate and advertise aside from this the degree of hard work needed to be a leader of competence who must spend long hours contemplating the best decision in the face of a mountain of data.