midnight, there some basic concepts of democracy i don't like, but mostly, if i belived democracy can exist, i'd support it.
i've already explained why i think there's no democracy. here's some more by Slavoj Zizek (a psychoanalist and a communist, but a smart man anyway):
This strategic suspension of democracy is reaching new heights today. The US were putting tremendous pressure on Turkey where, according to opinion polls, 94% of the people are opposed to allowing the US troops' presence for the war against Iraq - where is democracy here?
When politicians start to directly justify their decisions in ethical terms, one can be sure that ethics is mobilized to cover up some dark, threatening prospects. It is the very inflation of abstract ethical rhetoric in George W. Bush's recent public statements (of the "Does the world have the courage to act against Evil or not?" type) which manifests the utter ETHICAL misery of the U.S. position - the function of ethical reference is here purely mystifying, merely serving to mask the true political stakes (which are not difficult to discern). In order to trace these stakes, recall how the geopolitic hardliners like to compare today's situation of the US to that of a patient on dialysis: the US ªway of life´ in all its aspects, including the ideological ones, crucially depends on the availability of a certain minimal amount of the oil supply, only one third of which can be provided by the US themselves. The US are thus like a patient on dialysis whose survival depends on the influx of oil mostly controlled by the Muslim population which is antagonistic to the US values and might - in short, a patient whose dialysis machine is controlled by a crazy doctor who hates the patient... The only way to avoid the permanent threat is to directly take control of the key oil suppliers in the Middle East. The gradual limitation of democracy is clearly perceptible in the attempts to "rethink" the present situation - one is, of course, for democracy and human rights, but one should "rethink" them, and a series of recent interventions in the public debate give a clear sense of the direction of this "rethinking." In The Future of Freedom, Fareed Zakaria, Bush's favored columnist, locates the threat to freedom in "overdoing democracy," i.e., in the rise of "illiberal democracy at home and abroad" (the books subtitle). He draws the lesson that democracy can only "catch on" in economically developed countries: if the developing countries are "prematurely democratized," the result is a populism which ends in economic catastrophe and political despotism - no wonder that today's economically most successful Third World countries (Taiwan, South Korea, Chile) embraced full democracy only after a period of authoritarian rule. The immediate lessons for Iraq is clear and unambiguous: yes, the US should bring democracy to Iraq, but not impose it immediately - there should first be a period of five or so years in which a benevolently-authoritarian US dominated regime would create proper conditions for the effective functioning of democracy... We know now what bringing democracy means: it means that the US and its "willing partners" impose themselves as the ultimate judges who decide if a country is ripe for democracy.
find more in Google if you like.
funny thing is that he was also asked the same question:
Zizek, tell me, then, what is the alternative?
What is the alternative to democracy? market economy?
All of your critical comments are interesting but remains empty until you present something concrete as an alternative.
well, here's what i think:
there's a sort of a new communist idea called Parecon. i'd include some of their economical ideas, but would not insist on getting payed on account of working time rather than effect. i think it would be far less productive. in other ways, the guys have some good points.
so, i'd be a sort of a socialist in economical way.
when it comes to civil rights, i'd be the opposite: liberal all the way. drugs - fine, prostituion - fine, homosexuals - fine, abortion - fine. in a sane and healthy sociaty (it would take time to build one, but i firmly belive that it is possible) you wouldn't need law to make people stop doing things that are harmful to themselves. there are a lot of social studies that prove that more repression results in more inner agression which leads to drug abuse and simillar.
murrders and thefts are completely different issue. i'd be very (and that is corporal) strict to those people. you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't directly hurt the other people.
when it comes to state security, i'd follow an old communist Jugoslav saying: 'others' we don't want, ours' we dont give'. US are not under attack for no reason. neither were Spain etc. i wouldn't touch nobody's inner issues.
sometimes it's not that simple, and would require specific approach to specific subjects...
once again: i'm not an expert, and this may have been a load of garbage, but once we stop beliving in Utopias, the history will realy end. stop. there'll be no more improvements. i wouln't like that, i must say.
Get real, Bush is respected and loved by millions, he is not the most hated man, may be in your dreams and raging hatred, may be a shrink can help you out 
))))
