Democracy Not Worth the Revolutionary Zeal That Pushes It

I recently blogged concerning America’s Korean Crisis that America had gone on an insane rampage after the collapse of the Soviet Union to eradicated any political or ideological opposition anywhere on the Globe.  I think I should expand on that idea.  You see, to many Americans that way of describing it may appear overly harsh, for, after all, America was only trying to further the cause of Democracy.

 

Yes, exactly.  That seems to be the problem.  The World has many problems that it needs to deal with.  For instance, there are 7 Billion People Plus and they should all be getting at least two healthy meals a day, and they should all have nice cozy little places to live, and Community Life should be enlivening and joyful, or what else is Life worth living for?  These are the Essential Priorities we should be focusing on.  America, as one of the Leading Powers in the World could do much to further efforts to achieve these Life Sufficiency Goals, but instead much of America’s  Psychic Energy is tied up in pressing forward an 18^th Century Revolution – Democracy.

 

But Americans believe in it.  Well, yes, of course they would .  But if we go back in History I challenge anybody to point out any catastrophically disastrous Revolution that had been pressed forward by fanatical zealots who DID NOT believe in what they were doing.  Of course the Fanatics believe in it!  That’s the Problem!  Well, I guess the real problem is that they don’t see themselves as Fanatics.  You see, fanatics who only live and talk among each other lose their perspective and start to see themselves as normal people.

 

But to be fair we should take the time to examine whether the Fanatics’ Zeal is justified in its Results, that is, if Democracy was a demonstrably Good Thing, then the Zeal would be warranted , right? 

Well, I wish I could think of something good to say.  There are things like Industrial and Economic Development that people point to as the Fruits of Democracy, but if we look around closely enough then we find that the Non Democratic Regimes may actually be doing better in some of these developmental perimeters.   Mostly when I look at Democracy, I see the drawbacks. 

 

First of all, we know that Democracy is not a unifier of a People but a divider.   Democracy is inherently factional.  During the French Revolution its first Revolutionary body, the National Assembly did not go 5 minutes before it started dividing into Left and Right (from where we get the political terms Left and Right).   In the American system, the Constitution does not even mention political parties let alone give them a foundational role in Government Operations, and it had been the intent of President Washington  (who had been presided over the Constitutional Convention) that there  should be no Parties and that somehow Democracy was to operate as some vague Unity, but the ink the Constitution was written in was not even dry before factions had already created Party conflicts (implicitly documented well enough in the Federalist Papers).  So division is inherent in democracy.  What did Lincoln say about houses divided against themselves?  They can’t stand.  Oh, and now that I think about, it was Democracy that brought on the Great American Civil War.  Despotic Europe had outlawed Slavery and Serfdom with hardly a street scuffle.  

 

One huge corollary to the Factional Problem with Democracy is that Factions often develop along Ethnic, Religious or Sectarian Lines.   In such cases the differences are not even Political.  In many cases it is about which Ethnic or Sectarian Group gets to control the Nation’s Purse Strings.  More on that later.   

 

So now we need to talk about Corruption.  The tendency in a Democracy is for the Newly Elected Officials to toss out any vestige of the old administration and replace the entire staff with cronies and supporters (the old saying was “Out with the Old Rascals and in with the New Rascals”), which is extremely wasteful and disruptive.  You see, in many cases this means that bureaucrats that had gathered years of experience in performing day to day government functions are replaced by supporters that have zero experience, and this cycle would repeat every couple of years. Government would always be stuck on the low front side of the Learning Curve (Government by a kind of Perpetual Trump Administration).  I heard a story about one such Crony Supporter who was shown his new desk and he asked bewilderedly “What am I supposed to do now?”  His Precinct Boss laughed, puffed his cigar, and said “You get paid every Friday”.   Well, in America, with its Civil Service Reform Act of 1883, this most blatant and destructive form of corruption was obviated (although Republicans now wish to do away with the Civil Service in order to “Stream Line” Government), but when America zealously pushes Democracy on its little Nation Building Client States, there are no efforts made to assure that some form of Civil Service Regulation is included in the blueprints.   So in most New Democracies, striving to be elected into Public Service is not about Serving at all.  The way Democracy is structured simply makes it appear as a huge enticing Cash Cow.  In some of these desperate little Countries the only Industry IS Government.  Such Democracies can almost be defined as legitimized corruption where from top to bottom everyone is Corrupt and On the Take.   That is what they ‘Ran’ for, and, as they say, “To the Victor goes the Spoils”.  

 

Next we have the matter of whether Democracy really represents the People.  Yes, theoretically.  But theoretically communism works too.  What we have in practice are Political Machines which pick the Candidates of their own choosing and funds them to be their specified Puppets, and that is when the System is WORKING.  Democracy is subject to rogue populist candidates, and while Machine Politics is considered bad, the populist politicians are typically much worse.

 

Now we should take a close look at the disproportional influence of Special Interests.   Of special note is the fact that recently the American Supreme Court allowed that Political Contributions are Protected along the same lines as Free Speech, effectively legalizing what used to be called Bribery.  Maybe the Lawyers have created some legal distinction between Bribery and Campaign Contributions, but it IS giving money to Politicians so that they will do what you tell them to, isn’t it?  And then there is the Problem with simply what Special Interests ARE, when you look at them structurally.  A Special Interest is an OLD established segment of the Economy that has been around long enough to be Rich as God.  There is no such thing as a NEW Special Interest.   New Technologies and Innovations are typically strapped for money, with all their available resources going into Research and Development.  Only the Old Entrenched Dinosaurs have huge bags of money available for Bribing Politicians (since it is legal now, I suppose it is no longer insulting to say it like that).  So because Democracy gives an inordinate de facto degree of influence to Special Interests, we should conclude that Democracies are crippled when it comes to being able to adapt and innovate to a Changing World.  Such a Paralyzing Structural Inertia might have been okay back in 1787 but with the World facing a great many Crises  (Global Climate Change, Peak Oil and Depletion of Fossil Fuels and what to do when the gas tank runs dry, Mass Unemployment because of AI and Robotics, Over Population and Food Scarcity, just to name a few).  In the face of such urgent demands the World Governments are going to have to be Inherently and Intrinsically Light on their Feet, and that AIN’T Democracy.  Democracy’s “Checks and Balances” might as well be “Shackles and Chains”.

 

Then we can see one huge glaring fault with Democracy and that is that the people get to vote!  The idea of Universal Suffrage, where everyone gets to vote, is historically a recent phenomenon.  Most earlier systems had property qualifications of one form or another which, if they served any really significant purpose, helped to assure that the Qualified Voters had a better Education than the Street Mob.  Of course Democracy in the more Optimistic 19^th and early 20^th Centuries saw the importance of Education and pushed hard for Universal Quality Education as a necessary support for Democracy.  But THEN recently certain Political Parties found Data Trends showing that Their own Party’s Support was mostly from Less Educated People.  SO it logically follows that whenever THAT Political Party is in Power, supports for Education are squeezed and strangulated.  Funding Education is Tantamount to Voting for your Opposition.  Every Right Wing Oligarchy on Earth knows that they have the Stupid Vote.  So this is another reason Democracy is flawed – it inherently results in the decline of Public Education.  We can look at the Authoritarian Non-Democratic Regimes – they Love Education because the smarter their Technocrats, Scientists, and Work Force the better they like it.  North Korea would not have been able to build the H Bomb with Trump Voters. They’d have trouble keeping their car running.  It would be up on blocks under the shade tree.

 

Then there is the matter of intrinsic Voter Apathy.  The People who should vote don’t.  Unemployed people stay home.  People who in general are unhappy with their Governments are depressed.  Look it up – Clinical Depression.   These people are lethargic and would want to stay in bed if they could.  If they have to go to work at all they collapse behind their desks and don’t even get up to waste company time gossiping at the water cooler.  So, yes, these are not the people you meet standing in line for hours at their local polling stations.  But that does not mean that they shouldn’t be counted.   If Democracy was really Representative, as soon as more that 50% of the People stay home and NOT Vote then it should be a signal that Democracy itself has Lost the Election.  Peoples around the Globe should give up on Democracy – that Secular Religion that Came Up Empty .  We all need to envision some optimum form of Government.  We have good standardized testing now.  There is no reason why a Test-In Meritocracy would not work just fine.  After all, a Meritocracy would not have much of a hurdle to clear if it only had to be better than Democracy, now would it?