December 2022
Updated October 2024
Democracy could be seen as the most fair and equitable method of “living together” in societies. It is basically a “Numbers Game”.
Democracy comes from the Greek word “Demos” which means People and the Greek word “Kratos” which means Power. So basically Democracy means “Power to the People”. Some would say that Democracy is “Mob Rule” but they are usually members of a minority group that thinks they are right and everyone else is wrong!
In our modern day, we tend to live in societies and this means we all need to get along with each other as peacefully as possible. The thing is, we are all individuals with different ideas and different likes and dislikes. For us all to get along as peacefully as possible in a cordial and amiable manner, it seems we need “rules” to try to ensure that we respect the needs and desires of our neighbours. “Treat others as you would like to be treated by others” seems to need rules!
So who makes the rules (and laws) ? Generally speaking, rules and laws are made by a small minority of our societies. This small minority are our “Democratically Elected” politicians who become the “Elected Government”. Many rules and laws are based on religious beliefs (dogma) and many are based to give protection to the minorities e.g the wealthy. Some rules and laws are for the benefit of most of the society. Some rules and laws are not for the benefit of “most” (of society) but seem to creep in unnoticed. There sems to be a very big absence of rules made for the Individual e.g.Individual Rights.
Democracy is about numbers. It should be a case of where “Most of” (the people) are happy. Democracy should be all about what most of the people want and should be beneficial for societies as a whole. Unfortunately, we have the (fictitious) “51%” rule which doesn’t really help in a democratic situation. Mathmatically 51% is more than 49% or even 50% but 51% is not “most” in reality.
We all like to be happy and do what we choose. If we lived alone on say an “island” with no other people, we could basically do what we like, when we like and how we like but when we have a situation where we are joined by another person, we now have to consider what the other person needs and we now need to consider how we can live together and allow our individual needs and fancies to be met.
What happens when there is a disagreement between the 2 inhabitants? Do we talk to each other and try to find a solution where both are reasonally happy, do we fight and the winner takes all or do we do a “Rock, Paper, Scissors” thing? Of coarse there is the “Compromise” option!
If we juxtaposition that with currently the 68 Million people (in th UK) who are all individuals, we have a problem, a very big problem. If we consider the world population of 8+ BILLION individuals, the idea of Democracy is adventurous, to say the least!
We can’t always do what we want, when we want and how we want because to get along peacefully in an amiable fashion, we need to consider the needs and desires of others in our society. Having rules that are acceptable to “Most” people is not perfect but it is the best that can be achieved, where we want to live in relative peace and in an amiable fashion.
Democracy at its best is when most people agree. Imagine a situation where say 10 people want to arrange to go out for a meal together.
Scenario 1. There is a choice of 2 venues and you need to choose one. If six choose Venue 1, 4 people would not be happy but based on the “51%” rule, Venue 1 would be the chosen venue. If eight chose Venue 1, only 2 people would be unhappy. If nine choose venue 1, only 1 (person) would be unhappy. In all cases each person could choose to go along with the “crowd “or make their own plans.
Scenario 2. The same 10 people but the choice of venues is now 4 (or more). This gets very interesting! If 5 people choose a Venue and the other 5 chose something different (made up of the 3 (or more) other venues), you have a problem because 5 people are “happy” and 5 people who are not happy.
How about if only 4 people decide on a venue and the other 6 have choices that don’t agree. maybe 2 of them want venue 3 and 2 want venue 4 and 2 of them want venue 2. Mix it up however you want but in principle Democracy is all about making “most” people happy.
In many cases Democracy is not achievable, if “most” of the people are not be happy with a certain situation. So we may then have to Compromise.
Compromise is an attempt to make everyone as happy as possible. It usually means that no one is 100% happy but to “keep the peace”, everyone accepts being mostly happy is the best that can be achieved. In this case, the 10 people could chose to visit each venue in turn at different times and that could be a workable solution but Democracy is all about making “MOST” (of the people) happy and quite often this can not be achieved.
Its a numbers game and Democracy works best when “most” people agree. The 51% rule is not really “most”. In a group of 10 people, 7 is almost “most” but 8 is definitely “most” and means that only 2 people are not happy. Ideally, all 10 being in agreement would be the best situation but that is probably a bit utopian.
So democracy could be seen as “mob rule” but in this case, choosing a venue that is acceptable for most people is just a situation where “most” people agree and “most” needs to be 7 or preferably 8 of the 10 people.
Democracy needs redefining. we need to remove the 51% rule but at the same time we need to “specify” what is considered to be “most“. 9 out of 10 is definitely “most”. 8 out of 10 could be seen as “most”. 7 out of 10 is almost “most”. Anything less than 7 is definitely not “most”.
Democracy in Politics is a minefield. For some reason, we have allowed our societies to be “Governed” by “Elected Politicians” and we have “General Elections” to decide on which “Political Party” gets to be the “Elected Government”. In most cases, the “Elected Government” is usually not chosen by “most” of the people and is often a lot less than the 51%. In most cases the “Elected Government” are a minority of the total votes unless there is only a choice of 2 parties! In most situations, the “Elected Government” consists of “MPs” (Members of Parliament) who are not qualified to hold the posts they have been given so they have to have “paid advisors”. The paid advisors might not actually be “sympathetic” to the political views of the MP!
Unfortunately, General Elections don’t really have much effect on how the Country is run. In reality, the Country is “run” by the “Establishment” and the “Elected Government” are puppets of the higher management of the “Establishment”. The “Establishment” (in turn) are puppets of those with the greatest wealth and those that “own” the most land. Westminster (UK) basically appears to be a cesspit of greed and corruption and the “Establishment” have their own agenda. Democracy in a political way is a pipe dream but is made to look like it works.
A quote by Mark Twain. “If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us vote“. This does seem to be the case and is very much a disappointment because getting to a situation where everyone over the age of 21 (now 18), inc women are allowed to vote took a lot of effort over many years. This Democratic “Political System” (in its current state) is basically a sham but is made to look like the “Nation” get to chose the “Elected Government” in the General Elections.
The actual elections are open to abuse with things like “postal voting” and no proof of Identity or proof of “entitlement to vote”. In principle the voting in general elections is broken. It is designed for a 2 horse race. It needs an option of “non of the above” and it needs an option to make it a legal requirement to vote.
Having a “non of the above” option wouldn’t really solve the problems, unless the system as a whole is overhauled. The main problem is the “Establishment”, this doesn’t change and isn’t really affected by General Elections. The “Establishment” never changes and the “Elected Government” become puppets of the “Establishment”, who in turn are puppets of those with the most wealth and who “own” most of the land.
In a “Democratic Political system”, the “Establishment” needs to be “refreshed” whenever a different political party is elected or the process of “Voting” is a waste of time. In addition to this, we have (in the UK) the House of Lords. In principle the HoLs function is to make sure the “Elected Government” do the job and stick to their manifestoes / their promises during running up to the elections. Unfortunately the HoLs has passed its “sell by date” and needs replacing with an “Upper House” made up of “elected” (by the people) members, who would oversee the “Elected Government” and make sure that they carry out their election and manifesto promises.
Democracy is probably a utopian dream that can never really be achieved unless 75+ % of voters agree on a political party to become the elected Government. The fact that we have a few political parties (more than 2) means that is very unlikely that any of the political parties would achieve 75% of the votes. This means that an “elected Government” will only ever be a “minority” e.g. not elected by most of the people.
Our current world appears to thrive on greed and corruption and is on the brink of collapse. Democracy doesn’t stand much of a chance in this situation. We need to remove the greed and corruption but that is probably a utopian dream.
Divide and Conquer has been a very successful system for over 2000 years and works very well with social control and indeed in battles. People that “work together” in large numbers are difficult to control but small groups are easier to defeat.
Our modern world is designed to divide us all to make it easier for a small minority to control us but we are all INDIVIDUALS and this means that Individuals are the largest “Minority Group”. We need to protect our INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS! We need to make absolutely certain that our Individuality is not eroded, otherwise we will all become drones that live for the benefit of the smaller minority groups.
Looking back through history to a time we started living in societies, we appear to have always been “controlled” by a small minority of people. The “voice of the People” has rarely been heard. In the modern world, the wealth of Nations is created by the 95% and the wealth of Nations is held by the 5%. This means that the “Most” are being controlled by the few!
We need to reverse the situation so that the 95% hold the wealth. This should remove the situation where people are living in poverty and should remove the appalling “Homeless” situation.. We currently have quite a few BILLIONAIRES and a lot of people living in poverty or below the “poverty line”, this means that we are a failed society. Poverty and Homelessness should never exist in an affluent society, we need to share the wealth and suitably remunerate those who carry out the “Essence of Business”.
Those that don’t carry out the “Essence of Business” should not be paid higher than those that do e.g. Management. It would be fair to say that the “business” relies on “teamwork” but where a business makes its income from say digging holes, the people digging the holes are carrying out the “Essence of the Business”. Without people to dig holes, there would be no Business.
We need to make Democracy work. “Power to the People” needs to be addressed. We need to remove the situation where we are controlled / governed by a small minority of self proclaimed elites.
The Earth belongs to no one and no human has any legitimate means to own land because the Earth has no sales office.
We are all individuals but we are mostly friendly and amiable, we just need to find ways to live together in a peaceful and amiable fashion.
We can do this by respecting ourselves and the needs of others. We should all strive for happiness but not at the expense of the happiness of others. For democracy to work, we need a situation where at least 75% of the people are happy with (or would be willing to accept) a given situation or circumstance. Some would argue that that is not achievable and they might be right. Some would argue that the 25% are being ignored and that would be because they don’t agree with democracy. The same people will do anything to go against the Democratic “vote” to get their own way. These people are selfish, they are not interested in what “Most people” want, they are the dregs of societies that use greed and corruption to get what they want. They don’t care about the needs or desires of others as long as they are profiting and maybe happy.
Most people are naturally “Benevolent” and are happy to share their good fortune with others less fortunate. Some are “Altruistic” and have been cajoled into “Self Sacrifice” where they will give all of their good fortune to others less fortunate and leave themselves in a less fortunate situation. Some are just “I’m alright Jack, pull the ladder up”, they don’t care about anything but themselves.
Political Democracy is based on Benevolence and numbers, it is a situation where “Most People” agree on a given situation. “Most People” should be a minimum of 75% and ideally 80%. In most cases this is not achievable because we don’t have a “2 horse race”.
With regards to “General Elections” (to elect a government) it is almost certain that the “Winners” will not be anywhere near the 75%. The voting system is broken and needs fixing (it has never really worked). If we look at the “number of seats” that are / can be held by any political party
An option of “Proportional representation” is IMO a bit of a non starter because it “massages the numbers”. One person, one vote is IMO the best option but the system needs a thorough overhaul.
Political Democracy can only really work if there are only 2 political parties. The elected Gov would then be the party that most people voted for e.g. 75%.
It might be a better option for the people to vote for a Prime Minister and whittle this down to a choice of 2 candidates by a series of elections. This could also be applied to “Cabinet Ministers” who would be elected by the people based on their abilities to do the job of a cabinet minister, that would be fun!
We would still have the problem with the “Establishment”, who appear to influence the elected government and then we would still have the problem of the House of Lords. The best option for the HoL is to close it down and replace it with an “Upper house” consisting of people elected by the people and would never have unelected “Life time Lords”. The Upper house would only function to make sure that the elected government are doing what they promised the people they would do.
In principle Political Democracy is a pipe dream and the “Elected Government” will never be the choice of “most”
If things don’t change, they stay as they are!