IS DEMOCRACY really the best method of dealing with our everyday dilemmas? Winston Churchill is supposed to have said democracy was the worst form of government, until you compared it with the others.

For a slightly different view one can turn to Orson Welles, playing the murderous but memorable Harry Lime, who claimed Italy produced the glories of the Renaissance under a bloody tyranny, while 500 years of brotherly love and democracy in Switzerland had produced only “the cuckoo clock”.

These musings were prompted not by some historical debate, but by looking at the number of people packed into the centre of York last week. It was by all accounts even busier during the recent St Nicholas Fayre, bringing pleasure for those charged with ensuring our fair city receives the vital visitors’ cash it needs for businesses and jobs. But others grumbled like mad about not being able to move around, having nowhere to park and the roads being blocked by coaches carrying the aforementioned visitors.

Such comments are often dismissed as not only grumpy but dangerously blinkered, ignoring the importance of tourism to us all. One of the common clichés used is that these moaners see “the glass half-empty rather than the glass half-full”. But is that always fair? To turn to another well-worn phrase, is it sometimes more the case that “one man’s meat is another man’s poison”?

Because even in a city such as York, not everyone benefits from having lots of visitors turning up and expecting to be entertained. If your life is disrupted by their presence, why shouldn’t you complain about it? After all, we do live in a democracy, don’t we?

It’s not just an issue in York. We talk glibly about North Yorkshire’s “market towns”, but some are more market-oriented than others. I get the impression in one or two places there are those drawing up plans to pull more people in, while a fairly large proportion of the population would like to keep them away so they can get on with their own lives in relative peace and quiet.

Those who argue for growth and progress usually seem to have the more persuasive arguments, appearing, as they do, more “proactive” and “vibrant”. But, as we have seen in these parts, they don’t always win, and then they tend to start moaning too, usually something to the effect that people who live in “nice” areas are far too resistant to change. Is that actually a surprise? After all, if you think you’ve got something good, you’re more likely to feel you’ve got something to lose.

As usual, these things come down to finding a balance between the extremes of, say, losing a valued economic asset because of some pettifogging objection, and having your way of life wrecked so someone far away can make money. Those entrusted with deciding where that balance lies are, of course, our politicians, and that’s where democracy kicks in. Because what this varied and flawed system should mean is everyone being able to make their case and, in real life, most times the opposing sides each have legitimate points to make, and the ones about keeping things as they are can sometimes be pretty compelling.

Perhaps this explains why it’s often those on the “wealth creation” side of things who are keen to change the system to one which is more “decisive”, whether through elected mayors or some more radical way of ensuring trains run on time. They may have a point; is there a danger we could slip into a cosy cuckoo-clock syndrome, content to keep everything settled and everyone sweet rather than shake things up and have our own Renaissance?

On the other hand, those who call for snappier decision-making tend to assume those decisions will go the way they want.

If they were disappointed, might they start thinking it was Churchill, rather than Mr Lime, who got it right?