The argument against democracy

Democracy may be the choice of government for most advanced countries, but this is purely because of the lack of viable alternatives. There can be no doubt that democracy is a flawed system, that it is open for abuse and that it is directly in opposition to human nature.

At the root of democracy is the political party; the operation of which makes a farce of all democratic ideologies.

The defenders of democracy are those with vested interests – those who stand to lose the most when democracy goes, for democracy in essence is an elitist system benefiting only the selected few who wield power over individuals.

1. Human rights

“All men are born equal”

The term democracy means literally “the rule of the people”, with a cornerstone entrenched in the constitution of most democracies the principle of equality. Democrats thus bandy the principle of equality around whenever they want to advance the democratic political system.

But even the earliest philosophers like Plato and Aristotle had serious doubts about democracy based on the principle. Plato even said that “even the horses and asses have a way of marching along with all the rights and dignities of freemen”. Aristotle argued that it violated the purpose of government since it does not serve the interest of the whole community.

Yet, democracy survived – with it's flawed equality principle – because it was in the interest of the elite that the system be entrenched.

 

Duality regarding equality

It is mind-boggling how the true champions of democracy can preach equality, while negating the principle almost at will:

• Franchise Equality means that all people will have an equal vote in a democracy, doesn't it? But in democracies there is no such thing as an equal vote, simply because voting rights have a simple flaw: age. Voting ages are arbitrary set by democratic governments without any scientific evidence. In Biblical times the coming of age of men was set at 32. Most democratic states set the maturity age at 21. The ages for registering as voter is set at 18.

Why not 17? Why not 45?

 

 

• Marriage Under the influence of religion, democratic states have no scruples in promulgating laws directly in opposition to the principle of equality. The male is considered to be the head of the family in all matters, ranging from finances to application of the common and institutional laws. The female and under-age children cannot enter into contracts without the family head's signature.

• Birth Democracies preach equality. But a proclaimed democracy like Britain still tolerates a monarchy, democracies in Africa still rely on traditional leaders. The duality in democracy is that they still embrace royalty through birth alone, not linked to any merit system or any logical explanation.

• Political power Political power in a democracy entails that politicians are elected to a position of power, making laws impacting on citizens and enforcing those laws. An underlying principle of equality itself is that no man should exercise power over another, precisely because they are equal. Democrats argue that the giving of power to a politician stems from a “social contract” where the citizenry are giving their permission, by virtue of a vote, to leaders to represent them. This is absolute nonsense for two reasons:

- studies show that only about 6% of every given community have an interest in politics. Just like in a tax return, man can appoint an agent to complete the tax return. The “contract” is that the agent will complete the actual tax return, NOT take over the finances of the individual and wield financial power over the taxpayer. The same with politics: the citizen can appoint an agent to represent him/her in Parliament to act in his/her interest – NOT to wield power over him. The question also comes to the fore whether anybody can sign away a fundamental right.

- any contract between two people can be revoked at any time. As soon as the one party to a contract does not fulfil his obligations, the other party can immediately step out of the contract especially if it is only a verbal contract. Not after a five year period, like elections dictate, but immediately. The situation is even more absurd if only one party can decide the duration of the contract (the “democratic” President will decide when the next general election will be). The one given the power, now dictates when that power comes to an end!

 

The duality of equality makes for absurd arguments regarding such diverse issues as abortion, capital punishment and sexual orientation.

 

“All men are NOT born equal”

Reality is that men are not born equal.

Mother tongue, locality, the community, morality, religion and ethics all play a role in determining who and what a human being is. Some of these factors have built-in inequalities. These factors, of course, shape human beings to become the men they are.

It is important, however, to discuss the earliest foundation of man to determine whether a human is indeed born equal and whether these factors only settle in in later life.

An ageless argument in democratic states is about abortion. When indeed is a human being a human – is it at conception, birth or a later stage? What defines a human – is it physical, emotional, psychological?

Jean Piaget (Six Psychological Studies, Random House 1976) dealt with the question whether the newborn is subject to heredity of endogenous origin or heredity stemming from ancestral acquisitions. The outcome of the study would suggest if the baby is indeed to be considered as “man” at birth.

At birth, Piaget argues, mental life is limited to reflexes corresponding to instinct. Reflexes are the forerunner of mental development, and is undoubtedly present in animal life as well.

 

 

• Physically the newborn is human. The genetic make-up is such that it can be distinguished from animal life immediately. At the same time, however, the genetic make-up physically determines race, ethnicity, facial features and skeletal and muscular differences. Whether these physical features are enough to classified into “political inequalities” are debatable, but the reality thereof is undeniable, as it has been at the core of strife for all history.

• Mentality and emotions, then, hold the key whether the innate can be described as human at this stage. Intelligence appears well before language, but language is of such importance that it is perhaps the most influential of all factors in determining the outcome of the human being. It is widely held that a mature man has command of about 3 000 words around which mental concepts can be formed. A concept is dependent on a word describing that concept. (Example: ordinary man would not be able to follow the conversation of two physicians discussing an intricate operation, simply because he does not possess the vocabulary to form a concept of what they are talking about).

 

The first evidence then that men are not equal, is language. Humans are undeniably shaped by the mother tongue they are born into. Even in the developed English-speaking world, linguists will concede that there is a difference between British, American, Australian and Canadian English. The state of the mother tongue has a huge (perhaps the biggest) influence on the mental development of a human being. In the main language groupings like Anglo-Saxon (versions of English), Germanic (Dutch, Flemish, Afrikaans, Danish) and Roman (Portuguese, Spanish, Italian) developing man has a wide reservoir to draw from, but smaller, “independent” languages like in Africa or remote islands are limiting the number of concepts.

Language is linked to behaviour. From the age of about two years language allows verbal exchange with older persons; is supported by a system of signs and socialization; and presents itself as perceptions. The parallel series of transformations follows through interpersonal feelings and affection.

 

The second evidence of inequality is intelligence. Also linked to mother tongue to an extend, intelligence is a main factor of inequality. Numerous studies, however flawed IQ testing may be, have confirmed that origin and race play a definite role in intelligence. Few will deny that initial testing shows, for instance, a higher IQ for Japanese on average.

Piaget very importantly holds that intelligence links to emotions.

 

Man is man at birth and as a living thing it is equal to other men. But in certain terms (disregarding genes) man is also equal to animal at that stage. It is only with the onset of language and intelligence that man become truly man. The realities are that men are born into different communities and mother tongues, making men unequal right from the start of development at the age of about two months. The political concept that all men are equal is thus a misnomer, a farce; especially as the democratic system is primarily concerned with the “political man” who has a “political will”.

Man can, at most theoretically, be equal if born in the same community, same mother tongue, same religion, same morality and same ethical set-up. As man grows up, these differences are even more accentuated, so by the time of franchise (18?, 21? 98?) there are huge differences.

Democrats can argue the opposite, but democracy can at best be tolerated in a unified system where all factors are equal, which of course is impossible.

 

• Conclusion: All men are NOT equal. The more diverse the forming factors are (different mother tongues, different moralities, different races, different religions) the more farcical it becomes to even consider democracy as a political system. Human rights is NOT a building block of democracy, because the democratic system is too draconian, too filled with duality to incorporate human rights. Human rights become just a political slogan in a democracy.

 

• Arguments identified:

1. Men are only equal when all other factors like mother tongue, ethnicity, morals and ethics are equal. Human life, however, is a different argument – all human life can be held as equally important and precious.

2. No person can exercise power over another without a social contract, without the right to immediately terminate the contract if the need arises.

3. No person can, by virtue of birth only, claim superiority over another.

4. Social factors (language, culture, location, genetics) differentiate between human beings.

 

2. Political parties

Another cornerstone of democracy is the political party – an organisation with a set of principles and policies prescribed by the party congress and party executive committee. At every level of governance in a democracy the elected representatives of the party act as a caucus. The party caucus assembles before the actual municipal, provincial or central government meeting, and discusses the agenda; measures the agenda items against the party's principles and policies; and then decide how the party members will vote during the discussion of the agenda item.

How this is eroding the right of the citizens the representatives claim to serve is easy to understand when considering the next hypothesis:

A Parliament consisting of 200 members must decide on an issue like property rights. The majority party holds 120 seats. The party caucus thus consists of 120 party members. Say 70 of these hold a certain view on property rights. After voting in caucus, the remaining 50 must ascribe to the party policies and vote with the majority in the caucus. When the issue comes to the vote in Parliament, the 70 majority in caucus' views prevail.

That is not the democracy the “democrats” want the public to see.

In all absurdity (with a majority vote of 50% plus 1) it can be as bad as 51 members controlling a 200-strong Parliament.

Another shortcoming of the party political system is that it encourages a ruling elite. Merit, talent, experience, knowledge all take a back-seat against loyalty to the party. Loyalty to the party structures and leaders takes priority. Examples of this is numerous:

 

• A party loyalist becoming the Minister of Law and Order despite never having served as a law enforcement officer; then being deployed as Minister of Health; eventually ending up as Minister of Foreign Affairs. These men are then the policy makers for the specific state department. Absurd!

• A party loyalist who started as party organiser eventually being elected as President (PW Botha) with all the resulting splits in parties, unreasonable political measures, states of emergency.

• A party loyalist during the “struggle against Apartheid” serving as Minister in the ANC government whether he/she has the ability or not. This is when little pearls of wisdom like the legalising of abortion appears at the same time as the abolition of the death penalty; when cigarette smoke is declared public enemy number one while marijuana is decriminalised.

Political parties are also prone to abuse by a selected few and from dubious characters and organisations from within. Very few political parties are not eventually infiltrated by secret societies and wealthy pressure groups.

Democrats can never deny that democracy's pillar, the political party, is also the main underminer of the very ideology it is supposed to serve.

The political party is enemy number one for the individual.

 

The doctrine and mandate dictates that the majority party has authority to carry out all its policies. James Madison in his Federalist Paper of 1787 already pointed out that the system is flawed because, while the majority may support some policies, they do not necessarily support all policies, yet the political party gets a mandate to implement all policies.

Neil McNaughton (Success in Politics, John Murray Publishers 1996) points out the obvious that Parliaments are controlled and dominated by the majority party in a democratic system. In effect the legislative agenda is controlled by party managers, and committees headed and controlled by the party faithful – almost no private, independent thought or creativity come into play in Parliament.

• Appointment of all grades of ministers, provincial administrators, chairpersons of committees and semi-sate organs is in the hands of the party leadership. This power of patronage ensures loyalty to such leaders and the party.

• The system is clearly unfair and discriminates against minorities and smaller parties by not giving equal value to all voters. The electorate must put up with the choices of a small group of party activists. It encourages tactical voting where voters feel forced to vote for a party they do not really support (the lesser evil) to keep out another party. Party politics is ideal for intimidation of the electorate, either directly or indirectly, because of the party structures which can be employed to spread rumours, advocate half-truths, right down to physical intimidation.

• The party exercises strict control over candidate lists. The loyal are rewarded. Where democracy is in need of a more dictatorial response, it is propped up with an indirect (proportional) “democratic” system, where direct representation of constituencies is abolished for proportional representation by persons loyal to the party bosses.

 

 

• In a party political system the line of accountability is too indirect to claim representation of the electorate. There is little or no feedback to the electorate, there is no moral obligation to represent the constituents according to their wishes or needs. Accountability rests with the political party for the party is the organ which decide on the representative's future.

• Coat-tailing occurs in political parties all the time. This is the phenomenon where a popular candidate for a senior post may carry along lesser-known candidates without the merits or qualities to also be elected.

• The financial bandwagon plays a major part in party politics. Not only are the party as an institution open to interference by its major sponsors, but the leadership of the party is prone to greed supported by appointment to various money-bearing positions because of loyalty to another and not because of merit, experience or skills.

 

• Conclusion: Any political system based on party politics (be it democracy or communism) is open for abuse, misrepresentation and discrimination against the electorate they claim to represent. The political party is the ideal organ to undermine equality, human needs and wants and the permanent exclusion of man to shape his own destiny. Even those political parties claiming to advance the ideals of man, know fully well that they are wolves in sheep's clothing, pretending to be friendly to entice voters, but in reality hostile to all who do not subscribe to the party's doctrines. The political party is a monster with a life of its own – while owing its existence solely to the support of voters, it is also the greatest threat of the freedoms of those very voters.

 

• Arguments identified:

1. Political parties are in nature prejudiced, discriminatory and prone to corruption and nepotism, and have no place in modern politics.

2. Any system with ulterior motives (party doctrines or pressure groups) cannot benefit the electorate.

1. Any system where one man is given a mandate to represent another unconditionally and without a clause of withdrawal of the social contract cannot be tolerated. No man can be given absolute power with no accountability.

 

3. Personality traits

It has been argued for years that traffic officers, nurses and teachers share the same personality traits and therefore choose their specific occupations. The same applies to the majority of politicians in a democracy:

• at the risk of being stereotypical and prejudiced, it is a fact that a huge number of politicians are attracted to democracy because of power. Still more are attracted because of greed. Only a very small minority have traceable community commitment and awareness before their political careers.

Democracy is the ideal system for corruption to flourish and for personal empires to be built. This is because the democratic representative is dealing not with his own finances, but with the finances of a faceless mass. The elitist idea of democracy is also prone to nepotism, egotism and self-enrichment. Again, all these traits are in direct conflict with those ideals ascribed to democracy where public participation, service to the electorate and merit are advocated but never applied.

Andrew Heywoord (Political Ideas and Concepts, MacMillan Press 1994) argues that since the twentieth century political theories have increasingly been influenced by biological ideas. Personality, then, influences politics as personality is brought about by the biological make-up of man. Konrad Lorenz in 1963 suggested that aggression was a natural drive found in all species, including the human species. Richard Dawkins in 1976 held that selfishness and altruism have their origins in biology.

Man, not being equal – as explained earlier – do not share a universal character based upon genes. There are fundamental biological differences amongst human beings and these are of political significance. Furthermore, perceptions and concepts are shaped in these biological beings by, amongst others, circumstances of language, location and morality.

• Genetics play a part in sport, culture and inevitably politics. History is littered with grandfather-father-son successions in politics, just like in sport. Some people are “genetically programmed” to exercise power over others. This is a personality trait, just as much as it is the culmination of the location and sphere of life during maturing. Dawkins, drawing from Darwin's theories, has argued that every gene has a selfish streak and seeks its own survival (survival of the fittest). He argues that the “selfishness” can be modified if taught generosity and altruism. The selfishness thus is shaped by the surroundings and location of the biological man. This is the strength of the elite; that they are moulded by the elite. On the other hand, Peter Kropotnin argued that human nature has a highly developed capacity for cooperation and mutual aid.

Both these arguments ring true – but with the distinction that Kropotnin's human nature subscribes to the majority of humans, while Dawkins' varies from very strong in the elite to weaker in the electorate.

• Politics in personal terms holds that history and politics are made by individuals who impress their own will upon the political process. Mussolini, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Ghandi, Thatcher, Mandela – the list is endless. The relationship between these personalities and the organs (political parties) they use to impress their will on the electorate is well documented through history. While some of these personalities did well in the public sphere, others are documented as being dictatorial.

Power-hungry politicians have the tendency to be advocates of centralization and standardisation. While they see it as “keeping the finger on the pulse”, the true reason for this is a bureaucratic streak which does not allow for dissent or different viewpoints.

• Centralization of state functions and powers is a feature of all the dictatorships in history. “Empire building” is a strong characteristic of dictators and the so-called democratic state is the ideal vehicle to advance this. With power in the hand of the sole head of state (and simultaneously also the leader of the governing party) loyalty to the person and party is the only kriterium and these dictators usually have only a handful of strong followers in powerful positions – the rest of positions are filled with persons that do not pose a threat to the dictator – another duality in the merit debate in a democracy.

It is also demoralizing to see to what extent empire building has numbed the general population to what really is going on. The electorate seldom questions how public funds are spent by “empires”. Government departments, municipalities, social welfare organs and even non-profit organisations find it quite in order to spend up to 30% of allocated funds on salaries (it is even set as the norm in certain democracies) while an even amount is spent on other operational expenses such as travelling allowances, entertainment and equipment, corporate vehicles and general luxuries – while an independent breakdown of figures show that these utility service organs spend not even half of their budgets on those things the money was allocated for in the first place. The practice is so widespread that it is even considered as “normal” in a democratic state – a sad sate of affairs, indeed.

• Greed is often underestimated in politics. Democratic politicians in a capitalist state will, at any possible opportunity, declare that they “can earn more in the private sector than their income as public servants”. This is true on the surface only: the reality is that politicians' greed has a subtleness lying just underneath the surface. Corruption is rife in democratic states. Because of the nature of democracy, opportunities for corruption abound. State tenders, positions, special circumstances... Maslow, in his hierarchy of needs, pointed out that all humans function in a need/desire environment and that they are constantly seeking to satisfy these needs. The capitalist system in democracy is, indeed, based on this assumption. Capitalism can only function in a system of supply and demand. As long as businessmen in the private sector need the stamp of approval of an elected official there will be a supply of dubious dealings to satisfy the needs of the greedy politician.

Greediness also flourishes in a system where people are working with huge amounts of money not belonging to them. Human nature is such that money lying around without a face being put to it (as in tax money) is a major attraction for dubious dealings, syphoning off of money, using it as a bargaining tool, misspending it on shady projects where the politician himself would not invest his own money.

Personality traits other than the hunger for power and greed, which are also dominant in a fair percentage of politicians include “passing the buck” - an inability to accept responsibility – tantamount to cowardice. Whether it be the Holocaust, human violations in South America and China, atrocities in Africa or Iraq: in the end it was the foot soldiers who had to take the blame and punishment, while the leaders concocted deals to safeguard themselves against justice. History is rife with dictators finding refuge in neutral states whenever their despotic governments are overthrown.

 

• Conclusion: Politics in a democratic/socialist state is a lucrative career for people with certain undeniable characteristics. While this is not true of all politicians, it is true of the majority of politicians – especially the “career politicians”. As long as politics is infested with these undesirable personality traits there will be direct and indirect engineering to satisfy the greediness and hunger for power of these individuals.

 

• Arguments identified:

1. No individual should be given power without a clause to end the power immediately and unconditionally within a reasonable time frame. A reasonable time frame is NOT a five year period between elections.

2. Public office should preferably be filled on a voluntary basis by people understanding that it is an office of service to the community and in service of the community. These office bearers must be scrutinised and conflict of interest, hidden agendas and opportunities for corruption and nepotism must be deciding factors.

3. Where public money is concerned every office should have counterbalances from an independent body which have absolute power of entering and investigating.