I think analysis of “democracy” would be more clear if we differentiated process from substance. In relation to your viewpoint, I think Churchill’s quote is best understood as:
[Particular process] is the worst process (at achieving particular [substantive result]), except for every other type of process ever tried.
Substitute Universal Suffrage elections for [particular process] and Idealized relationship of governed to government for [substantive result] and voila—Churchill’s quote. Just to be clear, the idealized relationship that Churchill is aiming for is the one I’ve called consent-of-the-governed.
My point is that you haven’t precisely articulated whether your argument is (1) the substantive goal is inappropriate for some reason, or (2) the process selected is unlikely to lead to that goal.
For example, the American Civil War can plausibly be considered a failure of the democratic process. But it can also be considered a success at improving the relationship of governed to government by changing the rules so that more humans were treated as citizens. If Lincoln had been absolute monarch (and accepted as such), I think the Civil War would have been less bloody even if Lincoln had attempted to achieve the same results that the Union actually achieved in history. (which weren’t precisely the aims that historical Lincoln actually articulated).
I think analysis of “democracy” would be more clear if we differentiated process from substance. In relation to your viewpoint, I think Churchill’s quote is best understood as:
Substitute Universal Suffrage elections for [particular process] and Idealized relationship of governed to government for [substantive result] and voila—Churchill’s quote. Just to be clear, the idealized relationship that Churchill is aiming for is the one I’ve called consent-of-the-governed.
My point is that you haven’t precisely articulated whether your argument is (1) the substantive goal is inappropriate for some reason, or (2) the process selected is unlikely to lead to that goal.
For example, the American Civil War can plausibly be considered a failure of the democratic process. But it can also be considered a success at improving the relationship of governed to government by changing the rules so that more humans were treated as citizens. If Lincoln had been absolute monarch (and accepted as such), I think the Civil War would have been less bloody even if Lincoln had attempted to achieve the same results that the Union actually achieved in history. (which weren’t precisely the aims that historical Lincoln actually articulated).