Introduction
So, in this log , I will be writing about my ideal political system. And I'll try to provide some arguments as well. This will be a very long and tough work, but I will have to finish it within 4 days. So yeah, this might tire me out, but I have to ignite the flames. I must ignite the flames, for the sake of the world. There will be various things included in this log. Such as the philosophy behind the system, and the system itself.
The State and Democracy
I have heard of people who keep complaining about the State. Like this, "Why does the State oppress us so much? Why does the State give us taxes?" or "The State is just a tool of the bourgeoisie!" or "the State should be limited in size and power!" Well that's just the application of the Freedom of Speech right?? It would be, it would, if the place where I can hear them is not countries that claim to be democratic. But the problem is, most countries now claim to have some sort of democracy one way or another. And the people that complained? Yes, lots of them stayed in countries that claims to be a democracy. What's the problem then? Isn't it even more normal? Democracy encourages Free Speech. Well, let me make my point.
First, what is The State? The State is the Government, the institution that governs, or control the nation. By logic, there are no limits to the power of the State, it's their job to govern the nation. That is to say, the State is in complete control of the nation. But, what is the function of the State? Or, what is the goal of governing? Well naturally, the goal is to ensure the well being of the people, make decisions, and ensure prosperity. Now, those complaining about the State, it would make sense if they are in the Feudalist age, why is this? Because during that time, the distinction between the State and the People is very very clear. Say in an absolute monarchy, the king is the State and, he has absolute control over his nation. While yes he can do anything he wants, he still has to appease the People somehow, or a violent revolution will happen. That's not the point though, here, the King has control of all aspects of the nation, the military, the economy, and even law. And what about the People? The common peasant, has absolutely no control, not the economy, not the military, let alone law. We can differentiate between both of them, but now, there is democracy, and things have changed...
What is democracy? We can know from it's name. Democracy means rule of the People. What does it exactly mean? It means, the People are the ones who govern themselves. Not any separate institution. Or, the State has been dissolved, for the People are now independent and they can manage themselves without having to rely on any separate governing institution. Since democracy is rule of the People, it means every single citizen of a democracy has say over their nation. They all have equal rights to make the most important decision in their nation. And in a democracy, if it’s done correctly, there should be no distinction between the People and the State, that is the People are their own State, and the People are free. But let’s see now, in countries that claims to be democratic, we can still see a clear distinction between the People and the State. And in fact, there is no country where the People governs themselves and not ruled by a specific group from them that is suddenly separate from The People. In conclusion, there is no such thing as a true democracy, yet.
Advocacy of Democracy
This part will be my arguments for democracy, and I will defend it on a later part. As mentioned previously, the goal of governing of a nation is to ensure the prosperity and welfare of the people, and also fulfill their needs. So then, the best political system is the one that can reach the goal in the most efficient and effective way possible. So, I will list out the reasons why democracy is the best political system.
1. Democracy helps people develop and mature
A longer reason is, "The People is the who needs it, let them do it themselves." When the People began to govern themselves and manage themselves, as time progresses, they will be much more responsible, aware, and also independent. How is that? Let me explain. In a democracy, the People are independent and they are not governed by any separate institution. Let's compare a democracy to a non democracy. In a non democracy, the State does a lot of stuff for the People, primarily they are the ones who decide the stuff. While the People does what The State says. In a democracy, the People does everything themselves. Now let's compare the two. In a democracy, the People has more experience, in fact more than either the State or the People in a non democracy. As in a non democracy, the People just do the labor, while the State only plans the labor. But in a democracy, The People does both at the same time.
And furthermore, since the People govern themselves, they are not dependent on any other factions or parties to do the decision making. In a non democracy, The State does the decision making, while the People do the labor as I have said. The People are dependent on the State to decide stuff, and The State is dependent on the People to do labor. In a non democracy, if just one of the 2 powers collapses, the entire country collapses. As if the State collapses, the People have no experience on decision making. If the People collapse, the State has no experience in labor. Meanwhile, in a democracy, since there is no State and the People does everything themselves, the People being a single power, it is much harder to topple a democracy, and the People are much more independent.
Since in a democracy, the People has more experience, they develop more. They can learn more stuff, and they can mature more. Or scientifically, they can evolve more than a non democratic State. Now I will end it with an illustration. There is a class of 30 students. 2 of them actually. One of them does things democratically. The other creates a council to do the deciding. In the democratic class, students are very talented, they can do a wide array of things and just knows more. As they have to discuss first, and then do the results of the discussion. In the non-democratic class, the class is divided, the council can only think, but not do, the rest can do, but not think. They are not as good as the democratic class. Furthermore, the democratic class can still stand even if lots of them get sick. But in the non-democratic class, when crucial members of the council is absent, the class collapses immediately. I hope that illustration shows my point.
2. Democracy can fulfill the needs of more people
So, what does this actually mean? Well, essentially, democracy can fulfill the needs of everyone, or it’s more inclusive. In a democracy, everyone has say on their nation, thus any minority can discuss with the others about how to solve this. While in a non democracy, the State may forget some groups of people. Let me explain, in a democracy, we know that everyone has say in their nation. Everyone has the equal rights to express their opinions on how to solve issues, and also their needs. This includes minorities of course. If there is an issue where the minority has some special needs that differs with the majority, of course they can go on and discuss with the majority on a common agreement. And then everything will be fine. In fact, as time goes on, the majority will be aware of the minorities needs and they will instantly consider their needs and their opinions will be more inclusive to the minority.
Meanwhile in a non democracy, the State does come from the People by natural logic. But still, the State may or may not include representatives of every single group of society. And even then, does the representative actually represent the views of those who they represent? Anyway, the problem goes like this. The State is the one that decides everything, when an issue arises, there is a possibility that the decision they made may harm some people, and they don’t know about that. Say a toll road or an overpass is constructed, what if it actually harms people living near it?? And the State has no idea about it at all. Eventually, what will happen is the People keep protesting various State policies as these policies are not inclusive enough and only benefits some of the society, while harming the rest. And this is actually quite common to see, isn’t it?
Now let’s take those 2 classes again. In the democratic class, the students are trying to decide on the seating of themselves. They gather up and began a discussion, suddenly, a group of students stepped up and asked so they can sit in certain places. They then explain that they have various needs, such as eye problems, concentration problems, and so much more. After discussing, the other students acknowledged their special needs and gave them the right to fulfill it. They then decide on the rest of the seats, everyone leaves happy and satisfied. Eventually they always do that, and as they get to know each other, they began to recognize each other’s needs and they consider it in making opinions, and everything goes out smoothly. While in the undemocratic class, the council just decided everything for the seating. This causes some students with various needs to be harmed as their decided seating are on various places that may harm their concentration or inhibits them from studying properly. They then protest against the council, and it gets repeated on and on again. The class then is full of protests and nothing gets done. I hope my illustration delivers my point.
3. Democracy is much more efficient
The simpler term is 2 heads are better than 1. It is always much better for more to people work on the same jobs, it reduces the workload for everyone, and everything gets so much simpler. And you might be thinking, “Isn’t it less efficient as you have to do both stuff at the same time? Like it isn’t specialized.” Not true. Specialization occurs in the labor, there are people more talented in agriculture, others are experts in the military, and so on. But here, the only choice you have is labor or decision making, and in democracy everything is more efficient.
Let me explain, first, decision making takes less time than labor. And yes labor takes a long time and you have to work daily to sustain the nation, but in a democracy, you don’t have to work as much, how? As there are more workforce! In a democracy, everyone has power in the labor and the decision making. As everyone is doing labor, the workload for everyone is reduced, and it takes less time as more people is doing it. Things become efficient and fast. How about decision making? Actually, with more people, it may take somewhat more time to discuss, but it’s worth it, if done correctly. How so?? Well, the discussion itself becomes more productive, as when there are more people, there are more ideas to be expressed and discussed about. And when there are more ideas on the table, you can combine them to create even more ideas and more plans and thus improving the lot.
In a non democracy, however, everything is less productive. How so? Well first, since the State only does decision making, and the People only do labor, everything is less productive as less people are on the job. In labor, compared to a democracy, fewer people are in the workforce, increasing the workload for everyone and thus making it harder to do, and takes more time. In decision making, since less people are involved, there are less ideas to work with, and thus you can create less new ideas. And the solutions will just be stale as it would just be the ideas of the same people, this will inhibit progress and just make things worse for everyone.
Let’s check out the 2 classes again, shall we. In the democratic class, we see that they are having this class project. Since it’s a democracy, they first discuss what to do. Everyone gave out wonderful ideas, and there are so many ideas. Then, they began to sort it out and they develop a magnificent new idea and they started to plan it. Then they divide the work fairly and equally, and they work on it. Everything went smoothly, and the work is very enjoyable, as everyone is working on the job, work isn’t that heavy, and in the end, they created a magnificent project, it’s beautiful. They were praised for their work, and they got satisfying scores.
What about the non democratic class? They are doing the same class project, but still, everything is less productive. First, the council discusses and gather up some ideas. Only 10 students are part of the council, and with that few students, the ideas weren’t as many as the democratic class. They gathered up what they can and planned the job. Their ideas are decent, but not as good as the democratic class. Then they divided the jobs, and the 20 start working on it. But as less people are involved in the job, compared to the democratic class, the 20 works very hard, as each person gets more workload, and the process goes much slower. In the end they finished, though it was near deadline, and while it was decent, there are a whole lot projects much better than that, such as the project of the democratic class. That is the illustration, I hope you can see my point now.
4. Democracy promotes critical thought
So, why is critical thought important though? Well for one, it helps us analyze stuff and
ideologies so we don’t get swallowed by propaganda. A lack of critical thought can result in a new fascist regime. And democracy can prevent that, let me explain. In discussion, you have to have a critical thought to even start expressing your opinions, as you have to analyze the current situation so you can formulate an idea on how to improve it. And you would need to analyze other people’s opinions to evaluate it and also see if they can be combined with your ideas to create better ideas. And in democracy, as everyone is involved, automatically, the ability of critical thought is trained in everyone, as everyone will participate in a discussion almost every week at least, perhaps everyday even. As a result, everyone’s critical thought is also trained everyday, and they will develop and evolve very quickly.
In a non democracy however, only folks inside The State is trained to have critical thought. And that is if they are not just voting their way out. If they are voting their way out all the time in any problem. Then they had created a nation of uncritical and ignorant people. Once this happens, at best, if the State collapses, there will be mass anarchy and chaos. At worst, they get swallowed by fascist or authoritarian left propaganda. And then a fascist or socialist regime is erected, and things get bad fast. And what’s worse is these regimes will make the People even more ignorant and uncritical as time goes by. Which is certainly not what we want.
Let’s hope the classes are doing fine. In the democratic class, they had discussed about very important issues everyday. They analyze various opinions and situations day by day, as a result, their minds have become very critical, and they begin to use their critical thought in daily life. Much to their surprise, it has helped them day by day. They are able to take initiative in problematic situations, and they helped provide wondrous solutions to people’s problems. Furthermore, they are beginning to use it in their studies, and they were very successful indeed. Eventually they become famous for being so helpful, and everything turned out quite successful. They would later contribute so many things to their country.
In the non democratic class, critical thought had disappeared and is unknown. As the students never participated in discussion, their critical thought abilities was eroded away. Meanwhile, the council, voted their way out of everything, making them uncritical and ignorant as well. But the council see this as an oppoturnity to exploit the students. The students felt oppressed, and they read a book about this ideology that orders the destruction of the oppressers. They were brainwashed, taken in by propaganda, and revolted against the council. The class broke into a fight and things were nasty. More than half of them went to the ER and the entire class got suspended. Anyway, that is my illustration. I hope you get the point.
5. Democracy embraces individuality
Why is individuality important? Well you see, everyone is different, everyone is unique. And individuality is the uniqueness of someone, the fact that one person is very unique, they have their own past, preferences, opinions, interests, talents, beliefs, and so on. No 2 people can be exactly the same, even twins are different one way or another. This difference is individuality, and why is it good?? Because individuality makes us confident in ourselves, and this is the thing that truly makes us humans. Without it, we are just puppets or robots. Furthermore, the differences in the world makes everything so interesting and varied. You can always learn new stuff as everyone is different, imagine a world where everyone is the same. It’s boring isn’t it? And there will be no progress, as with differences, we compliment each other, we use those differences to unite and to create new ideas, and that is how we can progress. This is how democracy achieves it.
In democracy, the primary method of decision making is discussion. And in discussion, the discussion progresses as people give out their opinions and ideas. For the discussion to be truly productive, you can’t have the same ideas, the ideas must be different, as when they are different, we can make so much more new interesting and innovative ideas from that jumble of ideas. And the discussion becomes very very productive. Other than that, in a democracy, there are so many jobs in existence, and individuality helps distribute everyone equally. As everyone have different interests and expertise, with all of it combined together, the nation can move forward together. That is Unity in Diversity. But democracy also motivates people to be different and creative, how so?
As I have said, the more diverse the ideas, the better the results, right? As of that, people are pressured to be unique and creative as of to create more progress. And the jobs also help. As there are so many ways to contribute to the nation, people are motivated to get creative to find even more and better ways of contributing to the nation. Variation fuels progress. As a result, the overall system motivates people to become creative and follow their own ways and not just following other people.
Now a non democracy system doesn’t necessarily destroy individuality, but it doesn’t motivate us to have individuality. Let me explain as well. As opposed to a democracy, your ideas don’t matter in the State, unless you got in the State. Even in jobs, non democratic countries to have capitalist systems, the capitalist system orders that your goal is to get money, not to contribute to the society. Some may argue otherwise, but I will not talk about that today. As a result, your individuality becomes useless and slowly, you become a puppet or robot, becoming the same with everyone else. Though there is a possibility that your individuality will become useful, if you can successfully reform the country thanks to your individuality and create a democracy.
But then there are other systems which intentionally destroys individuality, such as authoritarian systems that bans political freedom. These systems is not even neutral, they punish you for being unique and forces you to mindlessly follow the State, or you will be tortured for being an enemy of the State and stuff. When this happens, individuality is completely destroyed and all the citizens become puppets of the regime. How they do progress is beyond me, well it’s not, I can sit down and think for a while, but I won’t be talking about it for now, that’s for another day.
Defense of Democracy
There are many people who thinks this kind of democracy is bad. There are many arguments, but I don’t know much of them. So this part will get an addition if I found a new argument. As of now, there is only one argument against democracy that I know.
1. General incompetency of the People
Well this is perhaps a very common argument. I have seen it repeated so many times, just expressed differently. Some say the People are too stupid, the People take too long to make a decision, the People can’t agree on something at all, and so on. Well, I agree that could happen, if we instantly go to democracy without any process at all. But I believe there should be a transition towards democracy.
The first thing we have to plant in the minds of the People is a critical mind, than it will just expand outwards. But what about morality? Well, you see, morality can be reached through logic as well. And I have proven that mercy is also logical. Then what about so many “critical” people that are cold and hateful? Well it’s not the logic itself that blinds them. In fact, they are not that critical, they only use logic for their interests. The thing that blinds them, is something in their past, something that made them to be so cold and hateful. If you want to read more on this, go check out my log on Free Will.
Anyway, what kind of transitory State is good? Well for one, it must be a State that teaches the People how to practice democracy. The State will also act in a democratic fashion, the State will remain in the nation until the People are ready for democracy. When that happens, the State shall dissolve itself and the People will take over. And no, we don’t want an authoritarian State, that will just harm the People even further and damage democracy.
Democracy Today?
There have been arguments made that claims we already have democracy. But let me ask, where can you find a nation with no State, and the People controlling everything making decisions in discussion? No, and before you go say that there is democracy and the proof is voting, I will explain why it is undemocratic. I’ll be fair for now, but there are no democracies in this world, but the countries are semi-democratic. They give us free speech and lots of freedom and stuff. But there is one thing that also prevents more democracy, capitalism. The main feature of capitalism is hierarchy, and hierarchy is everything that democracy is not. Democracy is classless and equal, no one is higher than the other.
So I will tell you the truth of nations that claim to have democracies. They are not democracies at all, they are just benevolent oligarchies. How so? I have said that in a democracy, there is no such thing as the State. But here we hear people complaining about how the State is bad, in “democratic” countries no less. So certainly we have not seen any democracy at all. And I will explain how voting is bad, So here we go!
Why Voting is Bad
So, many people thinks that just because we can vote for what we want, we have a democracy. The thing is, there are so many arguments that can destroy voting instantly. As of that, I will explain the ones that I know, so hang on.
1. Voting creates a tyranny by majority
How so? Well you see. In voting, it’s like an unfinished discussion. In discussion, first you all give out each of your opinions, and then you integrate it to create a solution which can satisfy and help everyone. In the end everyone leaves happy and satisfied. But in voting, you just finish with the idea that gets the most support. Well, it seems another explanation is up.
In a community that votes for everything, the minority will inevitably always be harmed. How so? Well, when there is an issue, the solution favoured would be the solution that gained the most votes. This all entails one thing, in all votings, the majority would always be favoured. And what if the solution of the majority is actually harmful for the minority? The minority has no chance in defeating the majority in any voting. As the system itself favors the majority. As a result, a systemic discrimination will begin, and it becomes a tyranny by majority.
While in a community that discusses, everytime there is an issue, both the majority and minority would gather to discuss. First they give out their opinions. The minority then explain a certain need they have, or a certain requirement or something. They then discuss about a solution that can benefit both the minority and majority. In the end, they found a solution that is benefits everyone and everyone leaves happy and satisfied. As time progresses, the majority will recognize the needs and specialties of the minority, and they would instantly consider it in creating an opinion. As a result, they all work together discussing what’s best for everyone. And they all respect each other more. No discrimination, no tyranny, just democracy.
Now, say there are 2 classes, one of them discusses. While the other just votes their way out. In the discussion class, they have a small problem. Their window apparently broke in an accident, and they decided to pay for it. But they don’t know how to divide the payings for everyone fairly. Many of them suggested that each student pays the total price divided by the amount of students. But then, a small group of people speaks up, and they say that since they are the poorer students, even that division would still burden them. As a result, they discussed and agreed that the much wealthier students will pay more to compensate the poorer students. Then, everything went smoothly.
In another class, they have another problem as well. They are going to have a class party. But they have troubles deciding whether it should be voluntary or compulsory to bring the supplies. So they vote it out. The results are it is compulsory. But it wasn’t unanimous, there is a small group of students who votes for voluntary, they are the poorer ones. But they can’t complain as they claim it, it’s a democracy, and the results are the collective will. In the end, they did bring the food, though their parents has to squeeze money. As time progresses, financial decisions begin to hurt the economics of the family even more, and the parents struggle and get sick and many of the poor students’ parents die from work stress. The students themselves just suffer until they decide to revolt causing division and it all goes downhill from there. That is my illustration, I hope you can understand my point.
2. Voting can be manipulated
No, it’s not voter fraud where the votes are manipulated. It’s the voters themself being manipulated. This is done by tricking the voters, or doing something else for the voters so they vote in the interest of the one that manipulates the voters. Let me explain. This situation is primarily visible in non democratic countries but has a form of voting to show that they have “democracy”. But it is also present in voting countries with no State.
Say in a non democratic country, there is the State, and the People. The People vote for the State. If things go well, then it will only be a tyranny by majority. But for the very least, it’s the will of the People, the majority anyway. But when this happens, that’s when democracy dies. The State has a lot of power, and sometimes, they wish to remain in power. So, they trick the voters or manipulate the voters so they vote in favor of the State. Or another party decides to do that and the voters vote in favor of the that party. That is actually the least worst scenario. The worst case scenario is this. That is when the bourgeoisie starts bribing the State to the point of the State being a puppet of the bourgeoisie. Why would they do that? As they wish to retain their power and wealth of course. Eventually the State does their thing of manipulating the voters and the voters vote in favor of the State which in turn serves the capitalists. Essentially, it becomes a plutocracy, terrifying.
In a no-State voting “democracy”, certain parties can manipulate stuff and create a proxy State, though a regular tyranny by majority is still much more likely. And what about in a discussion based no State democracy? Well you see, as everything is settled in discussion. There will be lots, and I mean lots of analyzing and critical thinking to do. As a result, if anyone dares to give out propaganda or any indoctrinative stuff, the People can identify it easily and destroy that propaganda using logic and critical analysis. As a result, no one can manipulate anyone, as anyone can just point out the indoctrinative features and also destroy it logically, so yeah.
My illustration here will be from the real world, specifically Indonesia. If you are aware of our situation, you’ll understand. There was a hot political mess around several months ago that got our best governor yet, in jail. That governor, was Ahok. Ahok was quite strict, but he was very benevolent. The case started last year. Last year, in the end of the year, Ahok went to the Thousand Islands and made a speech. He remarked about how certain politicians fooled the public to not vote for non Muslim leaders using a certain Quranic Verse. Suddenly, he was charged with blasphemy. After a long case, with many riots and unrest within Jakarta, mostly by ignorant fanatical Muslims. Ahok was jailed for 2 years, convicted for blasphemy.
Apparently, the speech in itself didn’t cause the mayhem. But a guy decided to provoke the People by uploading a video of the speech but edited. But that in itself is still not enough. The main cause is Islamic extremists provoking Muslims to get mad and riot against Ahok. And even children are indoctrinated. Children taught to sing, “KILL AHOK!! KILL AHOK!! KILL AHOK NOW!!” Or a teacher dressing her child as a jihadi with a toy sword and then taking a photo of it and uploading it to the social media with the caption, “Yes my child, now you are ready to slash Ahok’s throat!” So now, it seems the motives are religious, but new studies show something else.
There are rumors here that those extremists, are being paid by some people. Those people are huge media and property magnates in Indonesia, basically, the bourgeoisie. They bribed the extremists that manipulated the People in Indonesia. The results, Ahok was convicted, but it didn’t end there. Several months ago, the Jakarta Gubernatorial Elections are taking place. Studies shown that over 50%, at least 70% of Jakarta is satisfied by Ahok’s performance. Yet, Ahok lost, and the rival Anies, a member of the enemy faction, won. How is this? Simple, the People of Jakarta were fooled that if they vote for Ahok, they’d get thrown to hell and be condemned for eternal damnation. Religion was used to manipulate the People. But not only that, the faction that got Ahok in jail also consist of politicians. You know how rampant corruption is in Indonesia right? So since Ahok was elected, corruption in Jakarta was reduced drastically. As Ahok implemented policies that made corruption impossible. The politicians were hungry for money, so they triggered the cases so they can do corruption again. I think that shows a lot about my points.
There have been arguments made that claims we already have democracy. But let me ask, where can you find a nation with no State, and the People controlling everything making decisions in discussion? No, and before you go say that there is democracy and the proof is voting, I will explain why it is undemocratic. I’ll be fair for now, but there are no democracies in this world, but the countries are semi-democratic. They give us free speech and lots of freedom and stuff. But there is one thing that also prevents more democracy, capitalism. The main feature of capitalism is hierarchy, and hierarchy is everything that democracy is not. Democracy is classless and equal, no one is higher than the other.
So I will tell you the truth of nations that claim to have democracies. They are not democracies at all, they are just benevolent oligarchies. How so? I have said that in a democracy, there is no such thing as the State. But here we hear people complaining about how the State is bad, in “democratic” countries no less. So certainly we have not seen any democracy at all. And I will explain how voting is bad, So here we go!
Why Voting is Bad
So, many people thinks that just because we can vote for what we want, we have a democracy. The thing is, there are so many arguments that can destroy voting instantly. As of that, I will explain the ones that I know, so hang on.
1. Voting creates a tyranny by majority
How so? Well you see. In voting, it’s like an unfinished discussion. In discussion, first you all give out each of your opinions, and then you integrate it to create a solution which can satisfy and help everyone. In the end everyone leaves happy and satisfied. But in voting, you just finish with the idea that gets the most support. Well, it seems another explanation is up.
In a community that votes for everything, the minority will inevitably always be harmed. How so? Well, when there is an issue, the solution favoured would be the solution that gained the most votes. This all entails one thing, in all votings, the majority would always be favoured. And what if the solution of the majority is actually harmful for the minority? The minority has no chance in defeating the majority in any voting. As the system itself favors the majority. As a result, a systemic discrimination will begin, and it becomes a tyranny by majority.
While in a community that discusses, everytime there is an issue, both the majority and minority would gather to discuss. First they give out their opinions. The minority then explain a certain need they have, or a certain requirement or something. They then discuss about a solution that can benefit both the minority and majority. In the end, they found a solution that is benefits everyone and everyone leaves happy and satisfied. As time progresses, the majority will recognize the needs and specialties of the minority, and they would instantly consider it in creating an opinion. As a result, they all work together discussing what’s best for everyone. And they all respect each other more. No discrimination, no tyranny, just democracy.
Now, say there are 2 classes, one of them discusses. While the other just votes their way out. In the discussion class, they have a small problem. Their window apparently broke in an accident, and they decided to pay for it. But they don’t know how to divide the payings for everyone fairly. Many of them suggested that each student pays the total price divided by the amount of students. But then, a small group of people speaks up, and they say that since they are the poorer students, even that division would still burden them. As a result, they discussed and agreed that the much wealthier students will pay more to compensate the poorer students. Then, everything went smoothly.
In another class, they have another problem as well. They are going to have a class party. But they have troubles deciding whether it should be voluntary or compulsory to bring the supplies. So they vote it out. The results are it is compulsory. But it wasn’t unanimous, there is a small group of students who votes for voluntary, they are the poorer ones. But they can’t complain as they claim it, it’s a democracy, and the results are the collective will. In the end, they did bring the food, though their parents has to squeeze money. As time progresses, financial decisions begin to hurt the economics of the family even more, and the parents struggle and get sick and many of the poor students’ parents die from work stress. The students themselves just suffer until they decide to revolt causing division and it all goes downhill from there. That is my illustration, I hope you can understand my point.
2. Voting can be manipulated
No, it’s not voter fraud where the votes are manipulated. It’s the voters themself being manipulated. This is done by tricking the voters, or doing something else for the voters so they vote in the interest of the one that manipulates the voters. Let me explain. This situation is primarily visible in non democratic countries but has a form of voting to show that they have “democracy”. But it is also present in voting countries with no State.
Say in a non democratic country, there is the State, and the People. The People vote for the State. If things go well, then it will only be a tyranny by majority. But for the very least, it’s the will of the People, the majority anyway. But when this happens, that’s when democracy dies. The State has a lot of power, and sometimes, they wish to remain in power. So, they trick the voters or manipulate the voters so they vote in favor of the State. Or another party decides to do that and the voters vote in favor of the that party. That is actually the least worst scenario. The worst case scenario is this. That is when the bourgeoisie starts bribing the State to the point of the State being a puppet of the bourgeoisie. Why would they do that? As they wish to retain their power and wealth of course. Eventually the State does their thing of manipulating the voters and the voters vote in favor of the State which in turn serves the capitalists. Essentially, it becomes a plutocracy, terrifying.
In a no-State voting “democracy”, certain parties can manipulate stuff and create a proxy State, though a regular tyranny by majority is still much more likely. And what about in a discussion based no State democracy? Well you see, as everything is settled in discussion. There will be lots, and I mean lots of analyzing and critical thinking to do. As a result, if anyone dares to give out propaganda or any indoctrinative stuff, the People can identify it easily and destroy that propaganda using logic and critical analysis. As a result, no one can manipulate anyone, as anyone can just point out the indoctrinative features and also destroy it logically, so yeah.
My illustration here will be from the real world, specifically Indonesia. If you are aware of our situation, you’ll understand. There was a hot political mess around several months ago that got our best governor yet, in jail. That governor, was Ahok. Ahok was quite strict, but he was very benevolent. The case started last year. Last year, in the end of the year, Ahok went to the Thousand Islands and made a speech. He remarked about how certain politicians fooled the public to not vote for non Muslim leaders using a certain Quranic Verse. Suddenly, he was charged with blasphemy. After a long case, with many riots and unrest within Jakarta, mostly by ignorant fanatical Muslims. Ahok was jailed for 2 years, convicted for blasphemy.
Apparently, the speech in itself didn’t cause the mayhem. But a guy decided to provoke the People by uploading a video of the speech but edited. But that in itself is still not enough. The main cause is Islamic extremists provoking Muslims to get mad and riot against Ahok. And even children are indoctrinated. Children taught to sing, “KILL AHOK!! KILL AHOK!! KILL AHOK NOW!!” Or a teacher dressing her child as a jihadi with a toy sword and then taking a photo of it and uploading it to the social media with the caption, “Yes my child, now you are ready to slash Ahok’s throat!” So now, it seems the motives are religious, but new studies show something else.
There are rumors here that those extremists, are being paid by some people. Those people are huge media and property magnates in Indonesia, basically, the bourgeoisie. They bribed the extremists that manipulated the People in Indonesia. The results, Ahok was convicted, but it didn’t end there. Several months ago, the Jakarta Gubernatorial Elections are taking place. Studies shown that over 50%, at least 70% of Jakarta is satisfied by Ahok’s performance. Yet, Ahok lost, and the rival Anies, a member of the enemy faction, won. How is this? Simple, the People of Jakarta were fooled that if they vote for Ahok, they’d get thrown to hell and be condemned for eternal damnation. Religion was used to manipulate the People. But not only that, the faction that got Ahok in jail also consist of politicians. You know how rampant corruption is in Indonesia right? So since Ahok was elected, corruption in Jakarta was reduced drastically. As Ahok implemented policies that made corruption impossible. The politicians were hungry for money, so they triggered the cases so they can do corruption again. I think that shows a lot about my points.
Unitary of Federation?
I say a working democracy should be a unitary nation. A unitary nation is a nation that is united by a single system and also a single law and all that. A federation is a nation, that is divided by several smaller governments. There is a central federal State, and there is also a central Federal Law and all, but their power is limited. The smaller governments still have autonomy.
While a federation seems tempting, but it is only preferable in non democratic countries. As in a true democracy, the People have the power of controlling the nation. A federation seems nice as it seems it would add more democracy and autonomy. But in a democracy, the People already have absolute control, so why are further divisions needed? The feature of democracy is the People are united, why would we want to add further borders? It will only hurt the unity of the People and in the end, hurt democracy.
Transitory Notes
This is all I will have now, there will be a patch to this essay sometime. But I have to get this thing out first. After this, I will start writing on the system itself, here I talk about the philosophy of democracy, next time, I will discuss how to practice democracy itself. Anyway, if you have any suggestions, compliments and critiques, do send me a comment. Jesus Christ this was a long essay. I hoped you enjoy, and have a nice day!
No comments:
Post a Comment