A hundred years ago a man named H. L. Menchen wrote a book about Democracy. It is an old but it is funny how what he said rings true to me.
To sum it up?
In a Democracy the leaders are either :
Who play on people's emotions in order to get elected. Slogans like "Make America Great Again" would be a great example. It resonates with a desire by the people. It makes them emotional for something they want. Then they vote for the person who invoked those emotions.
In Mencken's
The demagogue, who “preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.”
or
Who give the people what they want. People want shorter work weeks? People want bigger pensions? People want legalized marajuana? People want.... Well, people will always want something. Promise to give them what they want and get elected to a job with power, perks, and a great paycheque.
The “demaslave”, who “listens to what these idiots have to say and then pretends that he believes it himself.”
and what I thought was most amusing was a prediction by Menchen about what happens when we reach "Peak Democracy>
“As democracy is perfected, the office [of president] represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
Now that was written by an American. I try very hard to stay out of American politics as I'm a Canadian and not an American. However there is one statement I heard from an recent American election that made me smile.
We live in a country that can give us 51 flavours of Ice Cream....but only two options for President?
and I well remember a movie from 1985 called "Brewsters Millions". While I won't tell much about the movie there was one point that landed. The amount of money spent by candidates for government positions VS the amount of income that those positions pay.
As an example:
The US President has an income of $400,000 USD / year. Which is honestly a very nice wage. However the amount spent to get that job? 1.6 Billion Dollars
In essence the President would have to work 4000 years to fund the campaign that got him the job.
Ahh...
But I digress. In Canada we have a very different system. We have a democracy but we vote locally for a local representative in government. Our local representative goes to our national capital and together with the other representatives they vote for one leader (The Prime Minister) and they vote on which policies and laws to enact. We have spending caps on what our Members of Parliament (locally voted on representatives) can spend -- $71,000. Guess what? That is a number that allows a lot more people to join in the race!
But is it better?
In the USA you have two candidates. In Canada we have many. What is the problem with many?
You end up with a government that bickers endlessly and tends to get less done.
In addition: The more fractured the population of the country is the more fractured our Parliament is. When the country largely agrees then the government follows and things work well. In a modern day scenario when people can't agree over things previously thought of as simple. The government gets bogged down.
Guess what? We still have the same problem of leaders who either pander to the population or who stir up rhetoric to get into office.
Of course some democracies are less free than others. In the USA you have free choice but limited candidates. In Canada you have free choice but too many candidates. In other countries you may have a vote but that vote could get you killed...or it could just get ignored. In other countries you may have a vote but the media is controlled so the opposition party isn't heard or is misheard.
Russia is a democracy but is the vote free?
Singapore is a democracy but the same party has been in power since the country was founded.
Do I know anything about how free their elections are? No. I don't claim to. However, I suspect they have a different level of choice than I do here in Canada.
Of course some countries have no choice whatsoever. North Korea is an obvious example. I have a suspicion that China may be another.
But when I think about it.... Is that a bad thing?
In a democracy where people get rid of leaders regularly it means that leaders have very little time to make changes and there is a rush to get things done. If you are a leader who is in power for the next 40 years? Viewpoints change from getting short term support to reshaping the country in the long term.
A benevolent dictatorship or monarchy? Where a leader cares for the people and takes the long view for a better tomorrow for everyone? Honestly I bet it gets more done than a short term democracy. Honestly it probably works very well...as long as your views match with that of the dictator or monarch!
Unfortunately there is a saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and time and time again entitled despots and monarchs make the lives of their people miserable to their own enrichment.
Which reminds me of an excerpt from the bible.
The Israelite people had a "Tribal Theocracy" where they were ruled by judges and were thrown together by family ties and charismatic leaders. No taxes. Few laws. Follow God's commands and you could do your own thing. However, the people demanded a King -- because all the other leaders got them.
NET Bible – 1 Samuel 8:10–18 Samuel said: **“Here are the policies of the king who will rule over you:** • He will conscript your sons and put them in his chariot forces and cavalry; they will run in front of his chariot. • He will appoint leaders of thousands and of fifties, as well as those who plow his ground, reap his harvest, and make his weapons of war and chariot equipment. • He will take your daughters to be ointment makers, cooks, and bakers. • He will take your best fields, vineyards, and olive groves, and give them to his own servants. • He will demand a tenth of your seed and produce, giving it to his administrators and servants. • He will take your male and female servants, as well as your best cattle and donkeys, and assign them for his own use. • He will demand a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants. • And on that day, you will cry out because of the king you have chosen, but the Lord won’t answer you.”
So even a thousands of years ago people knew:
Get a powerful ruler and..
... The ruler will collect taxes
... The ruling class will get the best stuff
... People will be conscripted to fight their wars
... and you will regret it
Unfortunately with no ruler you have Anarchy and in that situation no-one wins. People without laws, rules, and some sense of order will typically drift towards anti-social behavior. I wish that wasn't true and I'd love you to prove me wrong.
So, until people can learn to live together and do what is right for the community without having a leader to force them to? We are stuck with a democracy where we have a say for a leader who is either manipulating us or being a yes man for short term gain but long term pain. Not great. Or someone takes full control and we get no say.
Not awesome choices.
Which leads me to think of a joke I remember?
Side note: If you made it this far. Thank you. It certainly isn't my best work, but I have to get to work and no time to clean it up. Sorry everyone.
