Only 30% of Serbians think democracy is best form of govt.

How can the end of the Milosevic regime be the start of Serbia's decline? Milosevic regime itself destroyed Serbia already and whichever system would have come after that regime in 2000 would have done a bettet job. Before the start of the civil war in Yugoslavia, Serbia was in much better shape than even today. It appears that although they have many qualities, the Serbs are very impatient and do not allow time for Serbia to recover from all the crap that occured in the 90s. The only right way for Serbia is parlamentarism and democracy and if thete is any desire for symbolic leaders, re-establish the monarchy. it would make Serbia unique as a post communist country to restore its long tradition of being a monarchy, this time however witth genuinly working democracy where the king is not involved into politics.

A benevolent dictatorship is far better than democracy which ia an illusion constantly presented to us as a choice.

Nikolle, there are billions of people who believe in God, not just some. Acton's quote is irrelevant today in the political sense, because it applies not only to dictators, the few that are left, but to the very same so-called democracies preaching equality, choice who are manipulating their own people for their own gain.

"A benevolent dictatorship is far better than democracy which ia an illusion constantly presented to us as a choice."

Not surprised that there are people who still think this. This is probably why some still believe in God, they like the idea of a benevolent ruler/dictator that they can blindly follow. the problem with benevolent rules is best encapsulated by John Dalberg-Acton's quote: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

" but to the very same so-called democracies preaching equality, choice who are manipulating their own people for their own gain."

a cynic are we? you know, its very easy to say gov. manipulate people, in fact, everyone says it. thing is though, in a democracy, or as an advanced democracy as is possible to have, you have checks and you have balances, it ensures that no one ruler is too powerful and is accountable for his/her decisions. it seems to me, this beats the benevolent ruler alternative that is proposed by Sinik (how's that for an alias?). let us not forget that most of human history has been the struggle to free people from benevolent rulers like Louis XVI, various Sultans and other such pre-ordained rulers. but hey, people who like to blindly follow, they like to blindly follow.

I think that the question was about parliamentary democracy. Many people in eastern Europe have opinion that EU will bring the democracy by taking power away from national politicians. I totally disagree - situation can be even worse. In my opinion there is more possiblities at local and regional levels - there it is easier to observe misconduct of politicians, who is more corrupt than others etc. These politicians are in my opinion easier to change if needed. So from my perspective local levels should have so much autonomy as possible and democracy should be so near as possible the idea of direct democracy.

Nikolle as usual completely up in never-never land. Check benevolent in the dictionary sunshine. If the dictator is truly benevolent what's your problem

a cynic are we?

Well, it seems that you know much about democracy, it theory...but hey communism looked good in theory too. The democracy you refer to died out over 100 years ago. Now, replace benevolent dictator with corporate think tank, empowered oligarch's and the result is candy coated but the same. For most of us who have lived in democracies and understand them know that they DO NOT EXIST ANYMORE!!! How can you have checks and balances in place when the people calling the shots can change the parameters of said check and balances?? Hey,I understand your point, however, how can you be so naive??

"A benevolent dictatorship is far better than democracy which ia an illusion constantly presented to us as a choice."

Not surprised that there are people who still think this. This is probably why some still believe in God, they like the idea of a benevolent ruler/dictator that they can blindly follow. the problem with benevolent rules is best encapsulated by John Dalberg-Acton's quote: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

A benevolent dictatorship is far better than democracy which ia an illusion constantly presented to us as a choice.

How can the end of the Milosevic regime be the start of Serbia's decline? Milosevic regime itself destroyed Serbia already and whichever system would have come after that regime in 2000 would have done a bettet job. Before the start of the civil war in Yugoslavia, Serbia was in much better shape than even today. It appears that although they have many qualities, the Serbs are very impatient and do not allow time for Serbia to recover from all the crap that occured in the 90s. The only right way for Serbia is parlamentarism and democracy and if thete is any desire for symbolic leaders, re-establish the monarchy. it would make Serbia unique as a post communist country to restore its long tradition of being a monarchy, this time however witth genuinly working democracy where the king is not involved into politics.

Nikolle, there are billions of people who believe in God, not just some. Acton's quote is irrelevant today in the political sense, because it applies not only to dictators, the few that are left, but to the very same so-called democracies preaching equality, choice who are manipulating their own people for their own gain.

Nikolle as usual completely up in never-never land. Check benevolent in the dictionary sunshine. If the dictator is truly benevolent what's your problem

I think that the question was about parliamentary democracy. Many people in eastern Europe have opinion that EU will bring the democracy by taking power away from national politicians. I totally disagree - situation can be even worse. In my opinion there is more possiblities at local and regional levels - there it is easier to observe misconduct of politicians, who is more corrupt than others etc. These politicians are in my opinion easier to change if needed. So from my perspective local levels should have so much autonomy as possible and democracy should be so near as possible the idea of direct democracy.

" but to the very same so-called democracies preaching equality, choice who are manipulating their own people for their own gain."

a cynic are we? you know, its very easy to say gov. manipulate people, in fact, everyone says it. thing is though, in a democracy, or as an advanced democracy as is possible to have, you have checks and you have balances, it ensures that no one ruler is too powerful and is accountable for his/her decisions. it seems to me, this beats the benevolent ruler alternative that is proposed by Sinik (how's that for an alias?). let us not forget that most of human history has been the struggle to free people from benevolent rulers like Louis XVI, various Sultans and other such pre-ordained rulers. but hey, people who like to blindly follow, they like to blindly follow.

a cynic are we?

Well, it seems that you know much about democracy, it theory...but hey communism looked good in theory too. The democracy you refer to died out over 100 years ago. Now, replace benevolent dictator with corporate think tank, empowered oligarch's and the result is candy coated but the same. For most of us who have lived in democracies and understand them know that they DO NOT EXIST ANYMORE!!! How can you have checks and balances in place when the people calling the shots can change the parameters of said check and balances?? Hey,I understand your point, however, how can you be so naive??