Democratic political and societal systems built on voting. That is the foundation of democracy. Without the majority built on votes, a ...
Democratic political and societal systems built on voting. That is the foundation of democracy. Without the majority built on votes, a political system cannot refer to legitimacy. No democracy exists without broad voting for the candidates who are applying for leadership, and who can be anybody from the people, from society.
Even progressive politicians campaign that everybody should go and vote, campaign to encourage voters to participate in the selection process. Behind this, motivation is the trust in the common wisdom: if more people vote, then it does not just provide legitimacy to the political system, but - and it is the main point - it supposes, the elected leader is the person who is more suitable for the actual, current task. However, that is not the consequence of the broad voting. To demonstrate that the general voting is not a fundamental solution for the societal problems and cannot grant proper leadership is that even the dictatorial systems are using broad voting also to legitimate their existence.
As historical and actual examples show, to vote for anyone by everyone is not an assurance for a well-functioning society. It could be by proper nomination, but the nomination is one of the major flaws in the malfunctioning political systems.
Leadership should be a service, a ministration. However, to be an actual minister became a privilege with advantages. Why are there so many applicants for the societal offices? Because the applicants see leadership as to be a servant of the society, but a way to create personal success and as a way to access benefits. Leaders become more powerful and wealthier. Politics became a pursuit for those goals. Candidacy became an aspiration for money and power. Who are the candidates? Mostly those, who pursue these goals.
Maybe the situation is not so bad. There are many political candidates who have honest goals and programs to make the society better without selfish interest. However, the political fights - as we see - are ugly, and discourage honest people from the fight. The candidature process is contra-selective. It gives advantages to the bad candidates and gives disadvantages to the right candidates, according to how they would fulfill the goals of the leadership for benefiting society.
Yet, there are honest candidates who are feisty enough to fight against the odds and win a nomination - and they fall into an existing system. They find themselves in a corrupt, money, and power-hungry system, where the majority of the fellow members of the system are settled and accepted the existing rules and enjoy its benefits. These honest leaders' mission must not just to work for the benefit of the society, but to stay alive in this hostile environment, try to remain honest, and maybe try to change the system.
The society, the people are seeing the problems and waiting for the change. They need it, and they are expecting the change. And they try to vote for it. And they get what? The prominent candidate, who seemed appropriate for the position and promised to act for the benefit of the society, even pledge to change the system turns to accept the rules and becomes a member of the existing settings, accepts the advantages and the benefits, and even becomes the maintainer of the state, or if the person wants to remain honest, just simply quit after facing the challenges. Or, even worse, it turns out that the candidate just lied about everything to get selected.
And the people must wait for the next election and hope for the best, while the beneficiaries, those who have the power secure their positions, enjoy its benefits, and sustain the inapt system. Politics, money, and power are a self-reinforcing relation.
Even in the democratic society, the problem is in and is with the system, which cannot be solved just by voting, by the regular selection of the leaders. We are in a doomed society. Much-needed reform is necessary for democracy. You can find a proposal for this reform in a thought.
No comments