In 1988, a well-travelled documentary film maker, Patrick Watson, remarked, “I have been repeatedly struck by the fact that some of the most corrosive cynicism about democracy and some of the most leaden indifference towards it are expressed by people who live comfortably in prosperous democratic countries” (Watson & Barber, 1990, p x). Alas, now the cynicism is commonplace among those living comfortably or precariously alike.

It should never have come as a surprise to anyone that trying to govern ourselves is not easy. When things go well, some become complacent and slacken in their support. When times are hard, many get frustrated and blame the system. Between those who turn their apathy into a badge of honour, and those who fall for the tricks of political con-merchants, the ones seeking to make democracy work are squeezed with ever less room to manoeuvre.

But no one can pretend there is a better governance strategy available. The four classic strategies may each be suited to one fleeting set of circumstances, yet none of them is inherently adaptable to changing conditions, or capable of responding to complaints or suggestions to alter the course they have set. The hierarchical strategy would lock everyone into rigid roles and inflexible relations. The egalitarian would demand that every valuable difference be surrendered, or resort to an unequalled force to impose an inescapable sameness. The minimalist would rely on individuals dealing with all serious problems by themselves, and take no concerted action even if they cannot fend off predators. The disciplinarian would insist that everything is working out for the best just because everyone is forbidden to question any command that has been handed down. As for leaving the deployment of these strategies to a single individual or group that will change policies without taking into account the thoughts or concerns of anyone else, history is full of unmitigated disasters engendered by arbitrary rule.

If anyone today is tempted to jettison democratic governance, it can only be because they have closed their mind to the chaos of lawlessness and the prospect of brutal oppression. They complain about democratic rule, even as they ignore the fact that if they were to be complaining under any other form of governance, they might never get to do it again.