@Didymos Thomas,
I see your point D.T., but when I say that democratic government is an anomoly, I mean that in a fairly precise sense; it is a statistical anomoly. Look throught the last three thousand years of western history and count the number of regimes which were democratic and the number which were either autocratic or oligarchical. The latter will be a huge majority. Or you could count the number of years that any given region or country was under either type of goverment; you'll find the same result. I don't think it can be denied that democracy is a mathematical anomoly in the greater sweep of human history, at least since the beginning of civilization, as its usually defined: i.e. specialization of labour, more than substistence agriculture, permanent settlement, etc. The only question is why this has been the case. I'm a Nietzschean and I see everything in the world, from the growth of algae in a pond to the events of the seven years war, as a manifestation of the will to power: i.e. the tendency of everything to expand, conquer, subdue, appropriate, and enlist others into its service. I think that power always seeks more power and always tends to centralize itself, at the exclusion of other powers. Oligarchy results when no one power is strong enough to rule alone; it seems to me to be the most likely order of things. Any governmental authority rests on a monopoly of power; an oligarchy or autocracy rests on a state of affairs such that a few can subdue the many by force, perhaps because the many are unarmed, or armed relatively poorly; e.g. when the greeks warred with chariots, greece was ruled by kings. If, on the other hand, military ability is spread more equally, by the introduction of weapons that can be used as well by a part time soldier-farmer as by a professional in the service of the state, then democracy is more likely; e.g. when the phalanx replaced the chariot, greece birthed democracies, or broad oligarchies anyway. The same pattern in evident in medieval Switzerland (phalanx replaced noble cavalry), England (bowmen replace noble cavalry), and early Venice (common naval conscriptio-navy also associated with Athenian democracy). The only issue is whether the greatest military force or technology of the day is monopolized by a few or available ot the many. The firearm was the greatest equalizer of this kind in history, but now the day of the firearm is about over. I don't think a mass of common people armed with their hunting rifles and pistols can any longer defeat the establishment; ergo, IMO its just a matter of time until that establishment exercizes its power and officially renounces the charade that its acting in the interest of the people. I hope I'm wrong though.
