Skip to main content

A Flaw of Democracy

It is often said that democracy is the best form used to choose a government and affect the policies that it brings forth, for the simple reason that it is chosen by the people and is "for the people". It gives people a voice in what a government should do, but does not always yield successful results. Democracy may not be entirely "representative" of a group of people, but at least it's better than other forms of government, like fascism...

But can it be just as bad?

Think of it this way: a democratic election process leads to a party being chosen as the majority in the parliament of a certain state. It is also assumed that the government itself is "representative" of the people in that whatever decision it makes is also a decision "made by the people". Therefore, every policy implemented by the state is also implemented by the people... supposedly, that is.

Let's assume that a policy suddenly came out which was not approved by a good portion of the populace. In protest, they criticize the policy implemented by the state. However, it is often argued, especially in Stalin's USSR and modern-day Amerika, that criticizing the policies of a state also means criticizing the people who voted for that policy and thus criticizing the state as a whole. At its essence, this is totalitarianism, and thus shuts out any valid criticism for the policies of a state.

Such an assumption is by definition wrong. A government may choose to listen to its populace regarding the implementation of a certain populace... or not. Moreover, when it comes to voting, it is wrong to assume that every single citizen has gone out to vote; in many case, voter turnout is more often than not less than 50% of the entire state population. Furthermore, it is asinine to say that criticizing someone's actions means criticizing that certain someone because of who he or she is; the same can be applied to a state in this case.

Democracy may not be a perfect form of government, but at least it gives the people a voice. I suggest a government that fears its people every step of the way, instead of a government that subjects its populace to fear. Keep them in line, and hopefully with constant reform and progression, governments and their "subjects" will maintain good relationships and keep each other in check.

Salaam, from
Saracen

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Politics as an "Outflow of Culture": Unmasking Racism in today's Socioeconomic Scene

A common yet grave fallacy is to assume that (the actions of) (part of) the infrastructure of a particular country at a particular time and place is derived from a singular cause, of which a metaphysical nature attributed to said cause would be even more so. That said, attributing (a perception of) (failed) politics as an "outflow" of a country's culture is in my honest opinion a crock of bull. I'm not denying that culture and politics are related: there clearly is a relationship between the two in the broader historical context. However, this reductionist outlook panders to more than your garden variety racism, itself being built on misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Why is that? First of all, consider that politics and culture are mutually exclusive concepts, although their definitions may not appear to be so on the surface. Politics (according to the pseudo-omniscient Wikipedia [1] ) is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The...

Book Review: "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond

Jared Diamond is sort of a rock star in the sphere of biogeography (and science in general depending on your perspective). He is more a doom-sayer than a soothe-sayer, a prophet warning of the destruction of society and mankind as a whole. His magnum opus and prophetic text " Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" has received accolades from a variety of sources, the least of which was the Pulitzer Prize in 1998. Having read that book myself, I came into his lesser-known essay " The Third Chimpanzee " with the expectation that it would be entertaining and enlightening at the same time. Gladly, I was not disappointed, but a glaring issue exists that I will address later. The first book published by Jared Diamond, " The Third Chimpanzee " explores the progression of human evolution in four parts. In the first, he explores the biological premises of our relationship to two other primate species, the common and pygmy chimpanzees (now c...

On "Leviathan", by Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (Part 1: On Man)

Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan , or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil,  is a veritable juggernaut (pun intended) of a book. It is Hobbes' magnum opus, having been circulated widely by the turn of the 17th and 18th Centuries at a time when England was plunged into civil war. Rather than rebel against the new political order (a war crime according to Hobbes which I will revisit later in this post), Hobbes' central thesis is to submit to the absolute authority of an established commonwealth (preferably, in Hobbes' point of view, a "Christian" one), which he compares to the overwhelming biblical sea monster, the Leviathan. Having just finished reading it, I would like to convey my thoughts on his central themes in as short a post as allowed by the breadth of the knowledge he passed on with this read. For this post, I will stick to part 1 (On Man), and deal with the subsequent parts of the book in later posts. Summary of P...