The Perversion of Democracy

While there is a semi-ban on politics as a topic for the group, systems of governance so sometimes sneak in one way or another.  The trouble with this kind of topic is that we all assume that we know exactly what the term, in this case democracy, should mean and that the "perversions" we observe are not only undesirable but present through conscious intervention and avoidable.  Generally, we consider democracy to be the rule of the people, although we are often in disagreement about who the people really are and what their rule entails.  For a "true" democracy, perhaps we should assume that all the citizens participate.  We can all agree that this would be the fairest form of government, as imposing laws, taxes and responsibilities on people who never have the opportunity to even see them coming on the horizon is abusive and improper in a society that claims to value all of its members.  The problem, however, is that this true democracy would be incredibly inefficient, once the population passed a certain number.  Referendums, elections, caucuses etc. take a terrible toll on the time of the citizen and many people simply do not have the patience for things they consider "frivolous" or "unimportant" issues, which a great many of the subjects of voting would be, since the immediate connection to the average citizen would not be apparent.  It could be carefully hidden, in fact, but that is really another topic.  The fact is, we have decided, for the most part, that a representative democracy or republic is the most efficient way of governing while allowing at least some control over the decisions of government.  Where, then, is the perversion?  For most of us in the room, it is the presence of corruption.  This corruption can take many forms, in some places being mostly in the form of bribes and favors, and in others in the form of voter suppression.  This is not to mention the other creative ways authority has of preventing the people from controlling anything but the most trivial parts of their lives.  So, the perverted democracy is one in which the majority of the citizens have only the illusion of power and participation while a small minority have the real power of decision-making, especially in cases that will greatly and probably negatively affect the majority.  If this is the reality, the natural follow-up is: what can be done?  Unfortunately, change seems to be effected only forcibly, and occasionally through violent means.  The righting, straightening out, or cleaning up of democracy is a goal many have but few if any will reach.
The Source told us she had voted that day, it being an election day where we are.  She noted that their democracy is indirect, as the elections are for representatives who later have votes of their own on laws and policies.  The problem is that they do not have any reason to explain why they vote for or against proposals to their constituents.  There is a total lack of transparency.  This being the case, there are ample opportunities for corruption and bribery, as in the case of Mexico with its drug kingpins "investing" in politicians.  She mentioned the great number of influences on the life of a citizen and the values that citizen has, with the media exercising perhaps undue influence.  This in turn leads to politicians either leaning on the media or being guided by it.  We the people do not notice the manipulation that goes on, partly because we want to believe that we have control over our own lives and our surroundings.  Later she mentioned transparency openly as being necessary for a proper democracy and asked if we had enough information to make worthwhile choices.  We delegate the power we have as citizens, believing that our representatives will look out for what is best for us.  In the best cases, of course politicians want to make the best decisions for their community, even if these decisions are not the best for the country as a whole, which is really another questions again.  She by comparing politics and prostitution, saying prostitutes used to be the criminals but now we penalize the johns; could we move beyond blaming politicians who accept bribes to place to laying it at the feet of the corporations that bribe them?

The True Philosopher noted the different styles of government that claimed the designation "democratic", reminding us in his article that true democracies are few and far between.  In the meeting he echoed the sentiment that leaders are supposed to act in the interests of those who choose them, but often act in the interests of business instead, since the money provided by the business got them elected in the first place.  They are not in debt to the electorate, but to commerce.  Towards the end he pointed out that we need to have biases, priorities, in order to help others in our communities.  We cannot take every idea as exactly as important and valid as all the others, and neither can our politicians.  The bureaucracy of democratic government requires qualifications in ways that we as voters cannot always predict.  He asked us whether true democracy was in fact "rule by the people", and warned us that because of the ties to other governments and nations, an election can provoke the end of a democracy, as seen in the second half of the twentieth century when countries elected left-leaning governments with the audacity to be on the same planet as the US.

The Leader focused much of his attention on the benefit of the people and making good choices, as usual.  In his writing, he warned us of the fallacy of assuming we can conceive of a "perfect" model democracy, mentioning several flaws with the system and the way it interacts with human nature.  He said that there should be honesty among our leaders, as well as transparency in their decisions, but this is simply not the case.  Even the decisions made that on the surface seem to have our best interests in mind can be in reality geared towards the pockets that campaign funds actually come from.  Our modern educational systems are meant to prepare children to pass multiple choice exams, not to think.  In this way, the elites maintain their hold on power, since education in any society is how the authority molds its citizens or subjects.  Rather than democracy as an institution being perverted, it is the electorate.  The people are trained to believe that the system will work for them, when in reality the system only maintains the power for those in power while barring others from accessing it.

The Seeker of Happiness had also mentioned the view of the people being the corrupted part of a democracy, either by power and money or by the promise of power and money.  He admitted that some things should not be decided by popular vote, as they require a level of expertise that the average person does not possess, and also pointed out that natural laws and scientific theories cannot be voted on; pi is always pi, although the numerical representation is not always the same.  He wondered if a communist society could be democratic, which brought much horrified derision from some quarters, but the concept is interesting.  Why would a truly communistic system be incompatible with "true" democracy, since both require the participation of all the citizens?  The problem is that neither system is possible when large numbers are present, either in terms of population or land area.  While a cute thought experiment, true democratic communism can only be a hypothetical ideal.  The Seeker then tackled the competing desires in politicians: to serve the constituency and to be reelected.  One might argue that the first is much less important to most than the second.  Although hr did not advocate the prohibition of special interests, he did say that lobbies ought to be better regulated.  Furthermore, transparency on its own is not enough to secure a democratic system; the electorate needs to be educated properly, a statement the Leader echoed.

A Sometime Attendee wondered whether democracy was such a great thing at all.  He said we were assuming that it is a positive advance in the development of society and politics, but in his opinion, democracy without intelligence is the worst tyranny of all.  He also noted that benevolent dictatorships can exist, and can be more beneficial to those under their rule than a democracy run by corrupt and moronic representatives.  The problem in any society, democratic or not really, is controlling the powerful and preventing them from abusing their power.  We have the tools, but have to learn how to use them.  Again, this is a question of education and being provided with useful knowledge.

The Deep Thinker, always something of a devil's advocate, warned us that democracy might not only not be the best system, but might not be good at all.  He pointed out the "bad" leaders elected, those who we consider undemocratic, in fact, who have been chosen by the people to lead or represent their interests.  At least under a dictatorship, the people can tell themselves that their bad government does not represent them, but under a democracy, we have to fool ourselves into thinking we are completely unconnected from our representatives, or admit that our democracy is a sham.  The ideal politician for the Thinker is practically inhuman, a being without personal goals whose only desire is to solve the people's problems.  A politician should therefore have ideas, but not an ideology.  At the end, he suggested a random lottery to choose leaders, rather than elections, since leaving the outcome up to fate is less likely to involve corruption or coercion.