rule by committee

They say a camel is what you get when you try to design a horse by committee.

What do you get when you try to govern by committee?

The main idea of democracy is that the state should embody the will of the majority, restrained by a set of laws that protect the rights of individuals. Democracy makes no substantive claims about who should be in charge of the state, how to elect representatives, for how long they should be in positions of power, or what policies they should implement while they're there. All that is for "the people" to decide.

If you're the kind of person who thinks that most people are self-absorbed, dishonest, clueless, and primarily concerned with mundane personal affairs, why in the world would you want such people to be anywhere near making consequential decisions about government?

It's a legitimate question. But let's put our economist hat on and ask, "what's the alternative?" And the alternative, given the great body of human history across time and place, is likely to be a tyrannical despot.

So we can think of democracy as a kind of risk management strategy. A single all-powerful ruler, or even a constitutional monarchy bound by a legal code that protects individual rights can surely be more effective than a deliberative, quarrelsome government by committee. But who wants an effective government carrying out some plan they find unconscionable?

In essence we've settled on a neutered form of government that we call "liberal democracy" that can only get some things done very slowly, at great cost, and usually in a manner that pleases no one. Because we all seem to have agreed that that's better than all the other alternatives.

Can't say I'm convinced.