Ineptocracy [in-ep-toc’-ra-cy]
A system of government where
- the least capable to lead are elected by those least capable of producing, and
- where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated [taxed] wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
When a state reaches a position in which enough (~50%) of it’s citizens rely on the largesse of the state for their continued sustenance, the form of government becomes one of “ineptocracy”.
In order to gain and maintain political power a government must pander to the wants of the majority – a majority whose wants are not in the interests of those whose wealth and productivity is required to support the economy and ultimately to provide the largesse upon which the “least capable” rely.
Ayn Rand’s famous novel “Atlas Shrugged” is based upon the premise of a nation collapsing under a state of ineptocracy.
In summary: “Government of the people, by the least capable, for the least productive”.
RoyCobden 
What you haven’t addressed is how a state reaches that point. At some point the economic system must have failed so that more and more citizens depend on the government for survival – and then end up on the downward treadmill of perpetual handouts in a system that refuses to heal itself.
The other point being that your definition presumes that only a democracy can become an an ineptocracy since you state: “In order to gain and maintain political power a government must pander to the wants of the majority.” And your definition suggests that the only way out of the situation is to end the democracy – since the problem is “the will of the people.”
So overall an interesting satirical definition filled with pessimism in the style of Ambrose Bierce…(although he thought of himself as more of a fatalist than a pessimist!)
I sought to provide a humorously satirical definition of an interesting new word. I’m not nearly learned enough to presume to pontificate on plausible scenarios which might end in ineptocracy. Ineptocracy is (as I see it) a play on “democracy”, hence no mention of dictatorships (ineptatorship?).
I’d agree that an economic system would have to have failed (Greece?) or be in the process of failing (Spain, Italy, possibly the US?) before one would be likely to come into existence.
Ending democracy would definitely be one way out of an ineptocracy. However, I think an ineptocracy would be completely unsustainable & collapse by itself in relatively short order.
But what do I know? For now we’ll keep a watchful eye on Greece & the PIIGS (and also the US) to see who might just become a real-life case study on the evolution of an ineptocracy.
There are other types of *cracy governments. like aristocracy, mobocracy and plutocracy. And then there is just plain old bureaucracy. Which perhaps also suffers from ineptocracy of another sort…but that is a whole other Ambrose Bierce word
Love to hate bureaucracy!
Inching closer… Just reported over at the Wall St Journal site this week (May26/2012):
Note that this is 2011 stats just seeing the light of day. We can only speculate at what more recent figures will show.
Please keep in mind there are many of us that have collected Unemployment Benefits or some other form of assistance during this long stretch of economic recession, but are nevertheless wise enough to see that a continued run by those in the political left will endanger our country further. We take the government handout because it’s needed, but are willing to work jobs at half-wage or even worse if that is what is necessary. We will continue to push for what is right regardless.
Point made, Russ. Circumstances beyond their control have left many in that position.
Perhaps the problem would be more with the percentage of the population that harbors a strong sense of entitlement, believing Government should be giving them what they believe they deserve.
People like the “entitled” students of Professor Jack Chambless, at Valencia College in Florida.