Development and new technologies are impossible without freedom of thought and creativity. The more freethinkers there are in the country, the closer it gets to achieving diversity and competition of views, sanity and thus to a democratic and civilized governance system. Democracy is a political system that works only if it has free and thinking citizens. Conversely, the ignorant barbarians are unable to think wisely and behave in a civilized manner; they are superstitious, need and want the Supreme Mind over them and are therefore suitable only as slaves under the control their master and his stick - as it was in ancient Rome.
And the current pseudo-democratic monopolies in the assortment assiduously encourage a barbarian cult of absolute bellwether in the herd, simultaneously suppressing the dissent and creative alternatives in the society and impeding its fully-fledged development. In doing so a shameful anachronism leaves the door wide open for Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and other 'Great Teachers' and admirers of their own greatness and superiority over the feral masses and with inevitable ruins. Leaderism is a religion of slaves, the birthplace of dim-witted fanatics and the road back to barbarism!
Freethinkers and trailblazers have created a civilization and humanized it. Their discoveries and technologies are the driving force of progress. But now, in the absence of a critical look and new ideas, democracy itself, as a guiding star, habitat and creative workshop for Homo sapiens, became merely another dogma and a subject of ideological speculations.
Meanwhile, objectivity and justice cannot be unilateral while the democracy controlled by the hereditary elite suggests about the collective sleep of reason.
100 years ago, the October revolution in Russia has proclaimed Communism as a only right teachings, has got rid of dissenters and announced the building of a new society, free from any forms of inequality and exploitation. The 'shortest path to a brighter future' inspired a wave of imitations in other countries (including Cambodia 1975). But the Bolshevik revolution of leaderism over the 80% of simply unlettered majority hadn't rid the world of autocracy and tyranny. It merely confirmed that in the absence of the open and vivifying competition any political monopoly and empire are losing dependence on society and the ability to develop, getting bogged down in corruption and inter-clan intrigues and are disintegrating under a weak leader. And after the fall of feudal communist regimes with lifetime monarchs, a caste of nomenklatura vassals with special privileges, fictitious elections of one appointed candidate and equality in poverty for the rest of the population, their former serfs are turning to the democratic experience of more successful and technologically advanced Western countries with competitively elected and regularly updated government.
Which modern political system is democracy actually and capable of working for the whole society?
The old-fashioned periwigs of 'respected lords' in the parliament that perseveres today that served as a democratic system of checks and balances for absolute rulers were primordially designed just to protect their own interests within feudalism. In addition, the over-crowded and unstructured nature of parliament is not conducive to the discipline, quality and speed of decision-making as well as an effective fight against corruption. In spite of subsequent modernization, this bulky and amorphous superstructure 'under the big boss' still is deprived of the opportunity to choose priorities and is not motivated by the inter-group competition for leadership or for the voices of voters. At last, under proportional representation the minority political party can't have any significant influence on decisions. These innate defects do not allow "democratic parliamentary government" to effectively represent the interests of all parts of the population, thus making it unable to adapt to a modern multicultural society. By origin -- it is a rookery for loafers who raise their own social status at public expense.
A lot of today's democracies act as The 'Big Brother of everyone' while promoting their own elites version of "democracy" to the countries of 'the third world'. Is then really democracy? Or this is merely the export of hidden corporate claims to world economic and political domination and resources of other countries with the servile support of local vassals? To export democracy, it would be nice, as minimum, to have it.
More to the point, even bipartisan "dueling" (two-party political system) is indeed a fascinating spectacle for the politically naà ¯ve who do not understand how it merely serves as a distraction from any kind of serious critique (dare we say "panem et circenses"?). The resulting winner will invariably favour the impresario, backed up by the money of the millions of simple-hearted sponsors. Everything becomes outdated without renewal. What were once useful past political movement with a working interparty competition have degenerated into a huckster's trick in today's modern socially developed societies. Now, with little effective difference in approach, this cunning "business model" connives at maintaining the financial status quo of the "Big Money", and is also cautious not to allow "strangers" into the powerful "club". This "closed joint-stock company" is intended not for "the rabble" who are creating the nation's wealth but only for the business elite that is appropriating it "on legal grounds" by its own laws; with that, the degrees of their freedom are separated by the thickness of a purse. The monetization of laws, health care, education, pre-election campaign, etc., puts citizens in obviously unequal conditions. But what about a declaration for the 'democratic society of equal opportunity'? A truly healthy and intelligent nation is, again, only possible when honest competition and equal access to a nation's resources is granted to all citizens.
With all due respect to the US founders, the large size of corporations and their dominating influence on government was unforeseen by most of them. But this is hardly the same democracy, as Abraham Lincoln said: "government of the people, by the people and for the people"! However, the slyness of a two-party system is a matter of political sanity and civic choice of Americans themselves.
Today the voices about the crisis of democracy are increasingly heard in the West itself as its inspirer and founder. It is not a crisis of democracy that hadn't existed before. This is just merely the inevitable old age, the sunset and twilight of an era of precursors, of a strange mix with the monarchy, inflexible and inadequate for a modern dynamic society in the absence of new ideas.
Unipolar political systems based on the principle of "the one is the winner, the rest are the losers" were thought up not in the interests of the people but only for the elite-hereditary domination over it. They do not represent equally the various parts and subcultures of the nation, are deprived of the working competition for interests (the voices) of voters within power, are prejudiced and unjust from the start and will never be able to bring freedom, peace and stable equilibrium to a diverse and continuously changing society. Under any ideological monopoly, be it the cult of money, a belief in the equality of the professor and scrounger, paradisiacal life after death or other political religion as an opium for enslaving the masses.
The injustice and oppressions of the monopolists in power are prompting freethinkers to seek new forms of government without anyone's domination, up to the ochlocracy and anarchy. (And with the inevitable subsequent dictatorship, because the history and nature show that less-organized forms will always be subordinated by better-organized ones.)
How can a nation-state government be make unprejudiced and actually working for all its citizens, flexible and adequate to the changing society, without rejecting but using the organizing power of leadership and political parties? How can a purposefulness, rapidity and decisiveness of one-man rule be combined with the diversity and breadth of views of democracy? The answer is the idea of
A new, MULTIPOLAR self-balanced political system.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
