Democracy Reform

Sir Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest. He is right. Its the best form of government but it also has its flaws. I think that its flaws endanger democracy and needs to be fixed. This blog is for like minded people who want to see democracy improved. I invite people to sumbit essays. I will publish even those I do not agree with so long as I find them interesting.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Flaws of Democracy - by Fjordman

-Those following the news these days cannot avoid noticing that many wealthy democratic nations, from Japan via Britain to the USA, simultaneously suffer from heavy public debt. The fact that this serious problem affects many different countries at the same time indicates that it is systemic. There are probably several reasons for this, but the hypothesis that it is at least partly related to flaws in the democratic system deserves to be taken seriously.

The average person likes to enjoy himself today and ignores potential problems for as long as he can get away with this, allowing them to pile up until they become nearly unmanageable. Given how many difficulties Britain faces because of Multiculturalism and mass immigration from the
Third World, especially Muslim immigration, it is amazing that parties challenging the status quo, such as the UKIP and the BNP, don’t get more votes. No matter how you look at it, well over 90% of the citizens in 2010 more or less freely voted in favor of the continued destruction of Britain. The “Conservatives” no longer constitute a genuine opposition party.

Bruno Waterfield, who has for years been the Brussels correspondent for The Daily Telegraph newspaper, dismisses as fiction the notion that the mainstream political parties in Britain and the West represent competing alternatives. In his view they are all careerists, an empty cadre of more or less left-leaning elite manager-politicians. “Cameron and Clegg could be interchanged, they are identikit managers for a cut-and-paste age without politics. But remember, this anti-political age does not mean the end of choices, such as the Iraq war, bank bailouts or austerity.

It represents the expulsion of alternative points of view, and the public, from the arena. This new British government shows us (yet again) that the starting point for those of us with ideals, those of us who want politics to be contests between alternative ideas, must work outside unrepresentative political parties, parliaments, state institutions and, Clegg’s training ground, the EU.

These are all now institutions that have clearly become about evading or actually removing political choice rather than being an expression of it.”The political system isn’t working properly if good people who genuinely care for their nation’s future cannot get into Parliament, but a Leftist nobody like Nick Clegg can become Deputy Prime Minister.

Yes, I know that the EU has messed things up, and yes, I know that there was a lot of media censorship and election fraud worthy of some Third World countries. Yet at the end of the day, tens of millions of British citizens mindlessly voted for three Leftist parties (the “Conservatives” under David Cameron are not really conservative) that go out of their way to insult them and destroy their country. Numerous individuals make stupid choices, plain and simple.

Far too many are addicted to Socialism and government handouts, both in Greece, the cradle of democracy in the ancient world, and in Britain, the cradle of parliamentary democracy in the modern world. Maybe the best thing Britain can hope for now, if it is going to survive as a nation for native Brits, is an Oliver Cromwell type of person. Democracy of universal suffrage has so far proved itself inadequate at containing the ongoing Third World invasion of the West.

The short-term attention span brought about by brief election cycles hasn’t been good at dealing with long-term threats, economic or otherwise, especially when combined with the dumbing down caused by television and the fact that citizenship and voting rights have been handed out like candy to members of hostile tribes.The USA was specifically designed to be a Constitutional Republic, not a mass democracy.

This arrangement worked well for a long time, yet Americans in 2008 elected an anti-Western Marxist as President. It is a fair bet that their Founding Fathers would have been horrified had they witnessed this. An African Socialist demagogue like Barack Hussein Obama embodies everything they tried to prevent. Perhaps universal suffrage makes a slide to Socialism inevitable, as too many people will vote themselves into possession of other people’s money.

They will gradually grow accustomed to this arrangement and will consider it their “right.”The English essayist El Inglés defines democracy as “an organizational mechanism for allowing parties a) with divergent interests, but who b) wish to function as part of the same polity, to reconcile the divergent interests in a) to such a degree that b) becomes possible.

Having defined democracy in this fashion as a mechanism, I am forced to conclude that it is a means, not an end, and that it therefore possesses no more intrinsic moral value than a truck or a pair of scissors, themselves devices for achieving certain ends.”

He differentiates between democracy-as-ideal and democracy-as-mechanism. Universal suffrage worked for a while in the West because it had a useful role to play in the political needs of these countries, but since then it has been smeared out to include the presence of alien and parasitic tribal cultures.

As El Inglés states, “The scale of the collapse awaiting us in Europe is so vast, and the measures that we will be required to take so severe, that we should be asking ourselves right now what, if anything, can be salvaged of democracy on the other side. It is a sad truth that the existential crisis that Europe has brought onto itself in the form of Islam has not been ameliorated in the slightest bit by democracy as practiced there in the last sixty years.

Enlightened dictatorship has rarely looked better. Whether democracy, in the very long term, is a good idea or not is a question that will be asked more and more frequently in Europe as the crisis worsens. A committed democrat myself, I would like to suggest here that democracy is still just about viable if it is understood rather than romanticized.”

It would be tempting to conclude that we should simply hand power over to the self-professed elites. The problem is that the Western ruling oligarchs are committed Globalists and/or brainwashed Marxists who often make even poorer choices than the masses do. For example, in some cases where the masses made sound decisions, such as the Swiss ban on Muslim minarets or the Dutch rejection of the EU Constitution, the elites have tried to overrule this.

In many cases, the public can be rightfully criticized for making poor choices, but they have also sometimes been betrayed by people they supported who turned out to be very different from what they pretended to be before being elected. Nicolas Sarkozy as French President has disappointed millions of ethnic Frenchmen who voted for him, thinking that he would reverse their country’s slide into poverty and anarchy. As it turns out, he has done virtually nothing to address these issues, but has rather intensified the cultural war waged against the natives.

Mr. Sarkozy apparently cares for nothing other than achieving and maintaining power and the personal privileges associated with this, and will serve any lie necessary in order to do so. If he is the best candidate who can be elected in France then we must conclude that the best isn’t good enough and that France can no longer be saved merely by voting. Tony Blair in Britain was widely popular in the late 1990s during his early years as Prime Minister, yet he arguably did more to hurt his country than any other person in British history. Perhaps mass democracy facilitates the rise of accomplished liars such as Blair, Sarkozy or George W. Bush.

I am personally convinced that a higher degree of political liberty was one of the reasons why Europeans outperformed rival civilizations such as China. Even within Western Europe, Britain had a healthier political culture than did France, followed by other Germanic-speaking Protestants such as the Scandinavians, the Dutch and the Swiss.

I am here referring to Britain as it was in its prime during the eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; Britain in the early twenty-first century is a banana republic on its way to becoming an Islamic republic.The principle of power-sharing within the same ethnic group can be beneficial for political liberty and long-term stability, but democracy of universal suffrage does not guarantee this, nor does the act of voting.

The very minimum a political system must do is to ensure the survival of your nation and the continued existence of you and your kin. If it does not fulfill these criteria then it is useless, regardless of what you call it. Right now, it is hard to argue that Western democracies contribute to the cultural and genetic survival of their majority populations. We need to realize that democracy is a tool to achieve a specific goal, not an end in itself. It is not a bad tool, but perhaps it shouldn’t be the only one we have in our tool box.


At 9:57 PM, Blogger Alain Jean-Mairet said...

I’d propose that a Democracy will work better than a Republic if the “masses” do vote, instead of (only) elect. You give the example of Switzerland: each and every citizen here has to vote on dozens of subjects every year, on the communal, cantonal (State) and national (federal) planes. So people do feel responsible for their decisions. And they do get a chance to vote on hot topics, instead of having to hit the road when things get bad. So they calmly say no to Islam.

Another axe of reflection I find important is the poison of power. All political systems (I know of) are attractive for people who love to exercise power more than to serve their community. It can be dealt with to a point, but it never really helps. We should try and develop set-ups, systems of decisions, that would not attract them.

At 7:05 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
- Alexis de Tocqueville

Socialism has made a children's party of democracy: in exchange for presents the kids submit to parental authority..for a while at least, as every parent knows - after four years the parents have to cough up more goodies, or face rebellion

Kids who are taught they can steal from others never grow up to be citizens; they will submit to nanny as long as they may take what they want.
In a social democracy property rights become meaningless, and we, the people have chosen the road to serfdom

At 4:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know, when Europe last cast out muslim invaders, it ushered in an impressive golden age of technical advance, flourishing of the arts music and philosophy.

Why not give that another go?

It can't hurt, and might help.

At 4:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Another axe of reflection I find important is the poison of power. All political systems (I know of) are attractive for people who love to exercise power more than to serve their community. It can be dealt with to a point, but it never really helps. We should try and develop set-ups, systems of decisions, that would not attract them."

Texas is a good example. The legislature only meets for a few months every other year. The legislators are paid a pittance. Now if they were only term limited.

At 6:49 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

1. First of all, the only real democracy is a direct democracy like Switzerland. Because
1.a. Electing a person in the hope, that he will do what he announced to do is just not possible.
1.b. A person or political party has always some opinions I dislike. But I'm still forced to vote for them, because my main ideas are supported. So if economical topics are of prior importance to me, I will still vote for an economical oriented political party, although on the immigration part I don't agree.

2. But then comes the next problem: Most of the citizens have a job, family, friends and other obligations. They do simply not have the time to become an expert in every topic that is to be voted in a direct democracy. So they need somebody to pre-digest the topic. For that we would have the medias. But the medias are commercial institutions and with that bribable, without the readers knowledge.

The solution for me is, that the reader/watcher of the media knows, that he's only served one side of the equation. So I propose, that every media has to tell their clients, that they are not objective and that in order to be better informed, they need to read/watch in addition to this media, also the media xy.
This should be written on every front-page of every mass media.

At 8:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps we need to return to the more limited form of the Democracy in force in the 19th century. One the imposes some kind of limited property requirements so voters have more of a direct interest in the nature of the government they get.

Also, one can argue that if suffrage were limited to men over the last century we'd be living in a more rational world with a less intrusive state. Repeal the 19th amendment?

At 9:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Immigration has also been of great benefit - as David Cameron pointed out at a hindu temple and to much of the Indian community in England. He said indians not only in england but also in America and Canada are thriving and although only making up 4 percent of the population contribute double that , 8 percent to the GDP. Indians are well known for sucess in business , Lakshmi Mittal the richest man in europe is considered a hero by many. Look at the NHS and visit any university offering courses in medicine , pharmacy , optometry and dentistry and indians make up 50 percent plus of all places on these top courses , highlighted by both Tory and Labour MP's , asians are also entereing politics and gaining places as MP's , Judges and Barristers , i work in a top law firm and can see this first hand.

At 9:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why focus solely on Muslims , clearly they are an easy target for you , but let me remind you that immigrants have come from all over the world , look the the city of London. Poles , Chinese , millions of Indians who are either hindu or chrisitians and actually against Islam having learnt first had during the Mughal Empire. Also i may add that private education including the famous public schools are very diverse , and my entire family , second , third cousins all went to presitigious fee paying schools , in my own in my year out of 130 boys , over 50 were were from very wealthy indian business families and a number of those made into Oxbridge and the rest top unis such as Edinburgh and Durham. I urge you to visit Kings College London a favourite for indian students , UCL and SOAS and see how diverse these places are.


Post a Comment

<< Home