What Does the Mirror of Democracy Reflect?
N.B. I am not Davy
Many people will often uphold democracy as true freedom. They will say democracy is representative of “the people”, that it is for “the people” and that it reflects the needs of “the people”. Some “libertarians”, who disagree, may say that democracy is 51% or more of the population against 49% or less of the population. These “libertarians” suggest the view that democracy reflects the majority but is against the minority. Perhaps both views are incorrect in the understanding of democracy. What does the mirror of democracy really reflect?
Firstly in a representative democracy, candidates for political positions win if they get more votes than any other candidate. This is not necessarily a majority of the votes because, for instance, A, the winner, could only get 40% of the vote while B and C get 30% each. Everyone that voted for another candidate did not receive the politician they voted for.
Secondly the elected legislators only have a vote in passing laws, and often the laws will be passed against any given politician’s particular preference on the issue. Political parties often pool together votes so that people can vote for the political parties they want as opposed to individuals. They hope that, if their party is elected, the party will have control over the legislature and perhaps executive/cabinet positions. People do not realise this acts to further limit the choice from individual politicians down to fewer parties. With first past the post systems, an elected politician may not have any real power at all which excludes entire groups of voters.
Thirdly, your vote is individually worthless and makes no difference. Any party could be voted in and you have no direct control over that through a single vote. Never in history has a single vote made a difference. If you think voting is “making your voice heard”, think again.
Fourthly, when you wish for your life decisions to be delegated to a politician, you are giving up individual sovereignty. Democracy does not give you freedom, it takes it away. A slave that votes for masters is still a slave. You can only vote for who you think will make the decisions that will best effect yourself. People will often vote in an attempt to receive privileges granted by the removal of other people’s freedoms. In the end everyone loses their freedom. Democracy isn’t the majority against the minority, it’s everybody against everybody.
People actually do think that delegating their life away is beneficial. The politicians that get into power are the ones that are the most successful at convincing people that the people’s lives are best run at the hands of those politicians. Hence those in government are good at lies, propaganda and seduction. Those that worship democracy say that government is a reflection of the people. I say democracy is a reflection of the stupidity of people; the stupidity to buy into the propaganda instead of thinking for one’s self.
It amazes me that people ignore the obvious example of the Nazis. The Nazis used propaganda very effectively to seduce the German’s into giving them power. The propaganda used by the Nazi’s included a sense of national pride and fear-mongering that you can see in modern day propaganda. The Nazi’s kept many parts of the ideology secret and moved more and more evil into the German’s lives over time. It demonstrates if you tolerate the small things, bigger evils are sure to follow, by which time it is too late.
Always remember that the Hitler rose to power in a democratic system!
People often say “but only the Germans were that stupid”. Nope, I say democracy is a reflection of the stupidity of the majority of people and it doesn’t matter where those people reside. Take a look into the mirror and then shatter it; shatter the idea of democracy.
Author: Matthew Mitchell
matthewmitchell@thelibertyportal.com
July 11th, 2012 at 12:43 am
What’s your solution?
July 11th, 2012 at 1:36 am
Solution to what? The article is concerned with why having the mob rule is not a very good idea. Self-determination should be paramount.
July 11th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Point one is clearly a critique of our current FPTP voting system, not of democracy itself. Plurality voting means minorities can hold power, other voting systems deliver other results.
>Political parties often pool together votes so that people
>can vote for the political parties they want as opposed to
>individuals. They hope that, if their party is elected, the
>party will have control over the legislature and perhaps
>executive/cabinet positions. People do not realise this
>acts to further limit the choice from individual
>politicians down to fewer parties.
This (point two) is criticism of the party system and, in particular, the whipping system rather than of democracy. I’m not sure how right it is to say that “people” aren’t aware of how it works and what the consequences are. Many people wouldn’t be able to articulate explicitly in terms of constitutional law and political convention, but I’m not sure how important that is – if you asked, who has more power, individual MPs or the political parties they belong to, I’m sure most would get it right.
The third point says that single votes don’t matter – I don’t think many would really argue that they do. Of course, that’s the same thinking that says individual responses to global warming or pollution or any other social problem don’t matter, and, in a sense, few would argue that they do either – social problems require a social response. And likewise, it’s votes in the collective sense which have an impact.
However, I’d actually push it further, voting is an important part of a formal democracy, but it’s a relatively trivial part of a substantive democracy.
Fourthly, I’m not sure that your author understands the difference between delegates and representatives. Personally I’d far rather our politicians were delegates, depending on how things were structured that would likely mean they were much more limited in power, mandated far more strongly to do our bidding, recallable, and we would not necessarily be bound by their decisions (especially if they exercised powers we didn’t delegate).
Yes the Nazis achieved power in a democratic system, and they acquired 37odd% of the popular vote, but they didn’t actually attain power by democratic means. Hitler was appointed to power once his electoral popularity was past its peak (http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp), because of the violent chaos the fascists were fomenting in the streets and the inability of the mainstream parties to come to terms with and accept the left. Once the establishment appointed him as the last gasp defender of capitalism, he proceeded to act in his usual dictatorial manner and the rest – as they say – is history.
July 11th, 2012 at 9:36 pm
Certainly the article addresses the practical realities of existing democracies. However even it were possible, that politicians were “delegates” as you define it, that proportional representation and full participation both existed, it would still not justify democracy. It would still be mob rule. The morality of something is not determined by its popularity. Neither the majority nor the minority has the right to initiate force against the peaceful individuals property or life. We work from first principles.