4 ms·
Democracy is not ineffective by definition. It has been kept ineffective so that the ruling elite can do what they want. Should the voters have the right to imm
by kavalg 5y ago
Democracy is not ineffective by definition. It has been kept ineffective so that the ruling elite can do what they want. Should the voters have the right to immediately remove a politician from power (not by protest, but by direct voting) things will look very different. Now, politicians don't serve the electorate because they simply can can afford it. It doesn't have to be that way. It is just that because the feedback loop is slow/broken and people loose faith in democracy.
If that is fixed, next battle will be for your mind (I am looking at you mass media).
- mcv 5y agoBut the battle is already for your mind. Propaganda is turning out to be a pretty big threat to democracy. Look at the whole Trump and QAnon thing in the US, where media happily keep feeding people utter nonsense because it makes people want to hurt their political opponents. It's by far the most blatant example, but not remotely the only one. Democracy is fantastic when you've got an informed electorate interested in the truth and in good governance, but it can get really messy when hit with tribalism, celebrity worship, conspiracy thinking, and an overdose of propaganda. That said, it's still better than the alternatives, because it's ultimately self-correcting.
- kavalg 5y agoRight, thanks for pointing this out. I forgot to mention the problems of scale. My answer to this would be that democracy shall be fixed on the smaller scale first (municipality, city etc) where people can feel the effects immediately (e.g. traffic jams, pollution, parking spaces, bueraucracy etc). Then hopefully people will get a taste of real democracy and will start choosing their leaders more carefully.