It is an illusion that when people are given the option to elect their national leaders directly, they would elect who is best for them.

Index of all articles, click here

Better democracy

By Luc Loranhe (2006)

In many of my articles, I have expressed contempt for current forms of US-style or Western European-style democracy, especially when exported to Third World countries. It is an illusion that when people are given the option to elect their national leaders directly, they would elect who is best for them. Instead, they will elect whom they believe to be worst for their enemies, or those they envy.

Furthermore, it is an illusion that when people are given the option to elect their national leaders directly, they would elect who stands for personal freedom. Instead, they will elect those of whom they believe that they will, to the highest degree, curtail the personal freedom of those they hate, and of those they feel envy for.

It is a fatal misconception to equate democracy with freedom. In the contrary, democracy tends to lead to social systems that are highly regulated and restrictive down to every-day details. This is the case because everybody who gets elected usually is so because he promises to regulate something that currently causes some people to have an advantage that is considered undue by those who cannot participate in the same advantage.

Personal freedom, on the other hand, is most likely to be attained in a political system where a strong government is guided by an ideology that values personal freedom for its citizens more than anything else.

In order to provide continuance, this government should be dominated by a party of highly motivated individuals, not by single individuals with whom the system stands and falls.

I do not mean that this party should grab power. It may even get to power by election in a US-style democratic system. However, once in power, their should be constitutional reform to do away with US-style democracy, and to replace it with a system in which representatives are elected because they are good for the people, and not because they are bad for those whom people hate.

Strong benevolent government by an ideology-based party is the best realistic option to provide the highest degree of personal freedom to the people. Weak government, or the absence of central government would have all the wrong consequences. Either it leads to a rule by mafia gangs who don't have qualms to use as much violence as it needs to rule it over a society (such as in Russia in the 1990s). Or it leads to rule by populists and religious moralists who will implement harsh laws that spell the end of much of personal freedom (plenty of examples in the Muslim world).

Sensible democracy must be multi-tired. A village or a neighborhood elects a representative (let's call the person the D level representative). In one city or county, the D level representatives elect among themselves a representative (let's call this person the C level representative) who will then participate in an election on the next higher level (for B level representatives).

I assume that a realistic model would be: 500 to 1000 people at the base of society elect a D level representative. Approximately 200 of these representatives then elect one C level representative among themselves. This person would then represent something between 100,000 and 200,000 people.

On the next level, 50 C level representatives would elect one B level representative, who would thus stand for 5 to 10 million people. 10 B level representatives would elect an A level representative who stands for 50 to 100 million people.

There should be a fair degree of collective leadership. This means that the strongest institution should be a council of representatives that is reduced to less than 10.

The rationale of such a system is to eliminate politicians who want to get elected on a populist platform. Populists thrive on opposing people, not on constructive ideas. They play on the emotion of people who, first of all, want that their enemies are worse off than they are themselves. Which is why populists never have a constructive agenda. Which is why, if you impose US-style democracy in Third World countries (and in many countries that aren't so Third World but have strong outdated ideologies, such as religions), you never get good government, only chaotic government.

Index of all articles, click here