OK the title is a little misleading as we already live in a system of democratic representation rather than true democracy (thankfully), however that not the topic of this discussion. The real question I want to discuss is "Are we changing from a civilised society to one in which whoever shouts the loudest gets what they want?"
My definition of a civilised society is one in which society provides for even those who would not survive by natural selection and one that tries to be fair regardless of influence, wealth, or loudness of voice.
Britain has done amazingly well on this count in the past, far more than most parts of the world.
However I fear it's beginning to slip (or slip even more). The paradigm that symbolises this change is the mess over herceptin that recently going through the press. People who watched panorama last night may find it gave a similar view to my own, though I was already talking about it when I first saw what happened.
For those that don't know, herceptin is a drug for treating breast cancer in it's more advanced stages, and it's pretty effective at at least preventing further degridation. However it's a darn expensive drug and has only been approved for use in more advanced stages. Recently a woman used the press to argue that she should be able to get herceptin for use in a much earlier stage of the disease. Her health care trust had refused (on the grounds it was not approved) but after pressure from the government capitulated and granted the treatment. Since then there have been several cases where health care trusts have been forced into giving the treatment because of directives from higher up.
Obviously, in an ideal world we would have unlimited funds and we could afford to budget for both all the other treatments that go on, and use of herceptin in all unapproved cases as well as approved. But in reality the budgets were set to take account of the approved uses of herceptin only. This means unapproved uses of herceptin take money away from treatments that would be more effective for other people.
Now while that's all about herceptin, my point comes in wondering how good it is to have a government that seems to respond to press pressure in preference to it's scientific advisors. The proper people have not approved herceptin for this use yet, but the government seem willing to go against this and cause problems just to gain a more favourable reaction from those that are shouting the loudest.
And that's the problem - it's people shouting loudly and getting the press involved that caused this turn around. What does that do for the people who are unable to fend for themselves and who don't have a voice?
In short, we are changing from a civilised representative democracy into mob rule.