If democracy is adopted by a local community, local decisions will be made by the  majority of  those who live  in that community, and know a bit about what  goes on – so that’s all right. But if democracy is extended to cover national decisions, those decisions will be being made by people, the vast majority of whom have little  or no knowledge of the matter in hand. Is that clever?

Oh, yes, says the dedicated democrat, because  in those matters the people rely  on carefully selected experts who know everything. But what happens if those experts are stupider than they pretend to be, or corrupt?  As has been the case in Great Britain since the year of grace 1997.

If that were indeed the case, it would be necessary,  as a matter of urgency, to institute checks and balances which would ensure that the “expert selection process”  eliminated the possibility of of unsuitable candidates being given public office.

Have any such checks and balances been instituted?