Thanks. I should have pointed out more clearly that any alternative to a liberal democracy – or at least: representative democracy with at least some form of division of powers, constitutional rights like free assembly and free press, and delegation of political will – becomes a form of government that, *because* it cannot provide means for sustaining disagreements and slow down the pace of debate, necessarily becomes oppressive, authoritarian, and, by that: violent.

Most people think that the prime feature of liberal democracies is that "the will of the people" is somehow and somewhat realized. Although that is a necessary condition of liberal (and I'd claim: every representative) democracies, the value and merit of this form of societal organisation and governance doesn't fall or rise by the question whether and how well this "delegation" is enacted.

That we have structural and legal means to sustain disagreements, esp. harsh and combative ones, is a trait of liberal democracies perhaps even more important. And it boils down to: How can we slow down the pace of the deliberation, how can we come to a procedure that not only takes into account the various aspects of a topic but is capable, via deliberation, to apply a method of contolled gradual complification so that we don't break down topics into pieces but raise their complexities (and thus number of aspects and facets) by the very process and method of deliberation?

Speed is of essence here, or more precisely: the slowing down of the process the more complex and contentious the topic / deliberation becomes. Without division of powers (etc.), you run into top-down command hierarchies – successful in the short term, but devastating in the long run.