I was thinking a bit more about this, and it occurred to me that it is possible to come to the question from a different angle. So far I have been trying to find out how different versions of "democracy" work, and to get some idea of their strengths and weaknesses (at least for those ones which exist).
But if it is your view that the current situation reflects a failure or usurpation of existing democracies (and that is clearly my own position) then we can perhaps compare them in terms of how robust they have been in face of a global attack (whether conscious or not).
If you look at it that way, then I can say that FPTP has failed comprehensively. Both America and the UK have travelled the same road, and the outcomes are similar, with due allowance for lag. There are differences between the two systems. One thing which is quite depressing is that America has a written constitution, with a bill of rights; and in view of the attempt to outline fundamental principles which started this thread, I clearly had the idea that something like that would tend to protect citizens from "tyranny of the majority" problems. Obviously it does not in a FPTP system
What about PR? I don't know so much about the situation in countries which have that system, and obviously they vary enormously. As has been noted before, Scandinavia seems to have resisted the "attack" more effectively than most places: and that may also be true of other countries with PR. However from what has been said here (and I know we are few and hardly representative) the direction of travel is the same in both the Netherlands and in Scandinavia. It is possible that going down that road is harder in a PR system, but it is also possible that those who wish to establish plutocracy cannot do everything at once: perhaps they started with America because that country was more amenable to such ideas for historical reasons; and perhaps the same can be said of the uk, because the concept of an "anglo american" approach is apparently quite strong in the british narrative, for whatever reason. The "special relationship" is dear to the hearts of british politicians, and while I think it is mainly a mirage, it does seem to affect the attitudes of those who win power in this country.
If that is true then it may be that the move to plutocracy is slower elsewhere simply because it originated in the USA ,and it maps less easily to countries which have a different history of relations with that country. The experience of Ireland would tend to support that view, because Ireland has a strongly PR system, and is yet far down the road of adverse consequences arising from plutocracy. Nevertheless it seems to me that the establishment of a hegemony is more difficult in a PR state: though obviously it is not a complete safeguard in itself, if the gradual move to the neoliberal position is truly occurring as seems to be reported here.
From what Vninect has reported, the policies are further advanced in Holland than they are in Scandinavia: and the difference in their versions of democracy appear to lie in the "direct" element in Scandinavia, from what little I can tell. To the extent that the form of democracy has any bearing on the capacity of a people or a state to resist the undermining of the democratic ideal, it seems logical to deduce that of those existing systems the hybrid does best in the current situation, for whatever reason.
But the undermining by a plutocracy is not the only danger: and the rise of neo-fascism is one example of attack from a different direction. I cannot know how far that particular element has advanced in any particular state: In this country it remains a small force, not much to be feared, so far: and that is because of the FPTP system,I think. Neo nazis have the same obstacles as any other minority party here: and for all the disadvantages of that that is one big plus.
I was thinking about that too: and it seemed to me that there may be two different kinds of "attack" which can be mounted. In the case of minority (or as we tend to call them here, "extremist") elements, FPTP is reasonably effective in resisting that. These are directly political movements and it is hard for them to gain ground (though far from impossible)
The attack from plutocracy is different because it cloaks itself as "a-political", and it can sustain that because power is ceded apart from the ballot, or any overtly political process. But it is ceded by politicians nonetheless: so PR is a more effective barrier, arguably, because PR allows of a wider spread of opinion within the body which can surrender that power.
I am only groping towards some kind of understanding, and it is very likely that my notions are deeply flawed. I simply don't have enough information. Perhaps nobody does, or very few at least. But while musing on all this it seemed to me that once again we are thinking in too short a time frame, and too narrow a conceptualisation.
One example of that came from something I have noticed in talking to americans (and, again, far from a representative sample) as compared to europeans. As a very broad brush statement, Americans appear to see that dangers to their freedom come from government: the very same threats are not recognised if they arise from big business: and I think that goes back to their history. When the constitution and the bill of rights was being hammered out the issue was the relative power of the federal government vis a vis the states. There was a resistance to "big government" at the heart of that debate and it may be that this informs the perception of threat to this day. The bill of rights was an "add on" and it also seems to me to have an element of protecting the citizen from an over-mighty state which, unchecked, would tend to oppress. All the focus is on government v the individual as I read it. I think this persists. As I talk to Americans there is a deep distrust of their politicians which predates the same phenomenon here (though we are folllowing that path too). There appears to be a difficulty in seeing the government as genuinely representative: and at times I have the impression that the distinction they draw between a "democracy" and a "republic" goes very deep. Underlying assumptions are masked by the words we use in common and there is force to "separated by a common language" for me: but the outcome is that government is seen as "them" to a greater extent than seems to be true in europe
By contrast the european seems to have greater trust in politics (though that is not saying much); but a deep distrust of big business. As the plutocracy establishes itself it seeks to change that perception in the (again shorthand) direction of the american view: and it has met with a great deal of success in this country at least. But the difference remains. It does not sit easily in europe to identify "freedom" and "democracy" with "the free market" They are different concepts here. Or at least that is my impression.
As you can see I am struggling towards something not easy to conceptualise: but for what it is worth I am suggesting that different perspectives arise from further back in history than I have so far considered; that the history makes a difference to the kind of enemy one can identify; and that the form of democracy adopted is influenced by the threat perceived. Different forms defend against different threats, but that is not made plain because the assumptions are not examined
If any of that is true then it would be productive to consider what the threats might be and to try to devise a system which would be robust in face of them all. I don't ask much, do I ?
As a first example I would therefore consider what constitutes a threat to a democracy: and that brings me back to the basic principles in my first post. I have noted that a bill of rights does not automatically help: on the basis of american experience. But it occurs to me that may be because it was not integral to the constitution in the first place: the constitution did not start with those "rights" or aims: they were added on afterwards for quite different reasons, and to mitigate particular threats perceived.
If we start with those kinds of basic aims and principles then it is clear that the threat to the citizen is not confined to the actions of government; nor to the actions of big business; nor to the actions of extremist groups of whatever stripe: it can come from any and all of those. And that is all politics, because in each case the question is still allocation of resources.
