The French parlimentary electoral system was specifically set up at the beginning of the 5th Republic in order to be gamed in exactly the way it was this electio. It was specifically tailored to ensure that a popular but "radical" could be neutered and its representation in the national assemby minimized regardless of actual support. These kind of deals have happened in numerous parliamentary elections in the 5th Republic. The only difference is that in the previous these deals were between center and center right parties (and sometimes even the socialists) to keep out the communists and this time it was to keep out the National Rally.
But 198 democrats didn't, I imagine. Not individually according to their consciences. They voted as they were told to vote I expect. That's the two party system. That's not democracy at all.
It is the practical end result of democracy. For example if I were to invent a system called "Flyocracy" where you jump off a cliff and fly away like Superman I can't appeal to ideal forms and say that everyone who splattered on the ground didn't do it right.
It's simply what happens when you jump off a cliff. And the 198 democrats who are owned by special interests is what happens in the US democracy.
The flaw in your analogy is that they do 'it' - fly off a cliffe - exactly as they should.
Our democracy representations are nowhere near like 'what they should'.
Your reasoning is similarly flawed and for the same reason: you can't be looking at the end result of democracy if there never has been any.
You are looking at the inevitable results of the system that has been put in place, or that 'grew' into place, that's true enough. But it was not, is not 'democracy'. That's patently obvious.
I understand what you are saying in that I'm looking a a process that, on paper, is very much not democracy. However my argument is that a large scale democracy that cannot be corrupted and co-opted, fairly easily and naturally at that, is not something that physically can exist.
"you can't be looking at the end result of democracy if there never has been any." becomes "you can't be looking at the end result of democracy because there will never be one". I concede that it may exist for a brief moment or by accident temporarily but the party system, co-opt and tribalization is impossible to eliminate at scale in a systemic fashion.
I am not interested in chasing definitions and interpretations this way and that. Let me return to where I want to be:
Democracy is everyone has a voice.
Let us implement that.
At the very least people should have enough of a voice to be able to raise it when war is in question. i.e. let people, enable people, to voice 'No' to warfare.
Not so. The bill for 'proof of citizenship' simply works to deny the franchise for elderly and rural voters who lack any such proof. It is a ploy to control the election process in favor of the minority discussed in the essay.
First of all, kudos for the correct pluralization of a Greek word (polis). Honestly, that's pretty rare to see these days :)
As for "democracy," let's not forget that a Greek term has been shoehorned onto what was clearly a Native American (both US and Canada) system. In the original Greek, it literally meant a lottery for male elites in which every job, including "president" and head of the army, was randomly assigned. And even the ancient Greeks hated it and thought it was stupid.
The NA version, however, is closer to what we think of democracy when we think of it in the "pure" ideal sense - small groups of similar-thinking people (aka tribes/clans) electing a representative to meet with other representatives to determine and discuss inter-group policies/governance.
The original United States version of this was a combination of the two concepts - only people with land (i.e. mostly elite men, but it's worth mentioning that a tiny fraction of these were black men) could vote, but they represented their in-culture constituents.
This was the system in place prior to the 1787 coup, which was then replaced by the split version wherein every white adult male could vote for the House of Representatives but only the state legislatures could choose the Senators (plus the ludicrous Electoral College) etc. And add in political parties, which George Washington (amongst many others) warned were completely undemocratic and a legacy of the pro/anti royal factions in Britain. And so on and so forth until the shit we have today that calls itself "democracy.".
Keep in mind that the original USA version of democracy involved a country with 2.5 million citizens, a time when the biggest cities (like New York and Philadelphia) had 25-30k inhabitants. Today, we'd call that more of a town than a "city" and NYC alone has more people now than the entire USA in 1776.
So yeah, the system designed for 30k inhabitant cities isn't gonna work for a country with six times zones and a third of a billion people all under one roof. Duh. (Same goes for the EU).
That being said, there IS a solution that's been right there the whole time except that nobody's allowed to think it, i.e. countries should be capped at a population of X people, wherein X is probably no larger than 100k people.
Sound extreme? It's already ongoing. Some are island nations like Palau and Tuvalu. Others are "micro" states in Europe like Lichtenstein and Monaco. And guess what? If you look at these nations, you'll see that they are a) peaceful and free of major civil strife b) democratic in action if not form and c) nice places to live (socially, if not also economically).
But here's the kicker: every single one of those "micro" nations has a different form of governance. Some are "true" democracies like St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Others are clan-based/family systems while others are hereditary monarchies. One is even a theological dictatorship (Vatican)! And they all WORK for the people who live there.
Therefore, the short answer to "why democracy sucks" has nothing to do with the form or shape of governance but that there's just too many goddamn people lumped together in one polis. When the United Nations has >10,000 members, things will be much better.
Until then, we're ALL living in a feudal system of nobles and peasants that's just been rebranded as democracy (in some areas).
You are correct that smaller entities may solve the problem.
However, most of those small countries exist in the shadow of the large ones. Monaco is t really a country, just a tax play for billionaires on the French Riviera. Without France, there is no Monaco, no infrastructure, no electricity, no road no healthcare, no research etc.
I like it but want to claim that actually democracy has not been tried. The two Party system is nothing remotely like democracy. And therefore what it has done is noway indicative of how democracy works.
But isn't that the problem, in the US anyway; our government will always devolve into two parties.
The UK has more than two parties, but in reality it is always Labour vs the Tories, with the Liberal party flip-flopping to keep the Oligarchs who own each party happy? It is instructive to listen to the complete contempt that "The Duran" has for parliament. It was also a tragedy to see George Galloway lose his just won seat. And now, Keir Starmer, with a history linked to the CIA and MI-6, has come to power to benefit the Oligarchs who populate the "City of London". More austerity, more squeeze on the commoners.
Exactly what is happening in the USA but slightly more streamlined.
We don't want to worry about what 'our government' will devolve into, do we?
We want that it will be as we decide, from time time, even moment to moment.
So we worry better about what we will devolve into.
And we might appear to be primed to devolve into two parties but I don't think so. It's over simplification that sees it like that.
Yes, generally we devolve into two points of view - 'pro' or 'con'.
But that's not two parties.
The pros will swap with cons over different issues so they can't be each in their own party consistently.
The basic problem is the people have no voice hence they can't say anything. Hence they can provide no direction or leadership. No guidance. Inject no common sense.
We have to listen to the people. Is it not obvious? What alternative do we have? We've spent in the modern world, say, since '45, listening to 'representatives' and 'leaders' and they totally unfit for purpose. Proven. Again and again.
Where else are we going to go? AI? Might not be a bad idea.
The point of this article was how useless Democracy is because it can be so easily manipulated. People are convinced that "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here", or that there are so many little girls trapped in little boys bodies that we have to spend and spend and spend to free them.
The people have no voice because the people are to stupid to see how they're being manipulated. Their "voice" is against one another not in unison.
So, in the USA, it absolutely has devolved to just two parties.
My question if parties were illegal. People had to be individuals. The founders were against parties but soon joined them. So need to be illegal. Punishable by death
Even the Old Testament recognized that lending money for interest was wrong
The correct pluralization of "polis" is "poleis", both words written here with standard latin transliteration. The words are written in Greek as such: "πόλις", "πόλεις". In Modern Greek (and actually since roughly the third century, ει is pronounced the same as ι, which, along with a few more of these gotchas, leads to incorrect spelling often, as people who havent learned the correct way will spell words phonetically instead of the proper way.
Even if sortition were to be somehow instituted, the upshot of this would be a transfer of practical power to the administrative bureaucracy, since the bureaucracy would be the only ones with any institutional knowledge of how to Get Things Done Around Here.
I am not aware of such a specific platform plank. That said, in 2016, Trump claimed that he would "drain the swamp".
This admittedly is a vague promise, but once elected, he proceeded to surround himself with what can fairly be described as "swamp creatures". Needless to say, not much got done.
Democracy has always been hackable. Given our nature as creatures of biological evolution, designed to seek out dominance, that's just inevitable. But the advent of tech created a brief tactical advantage for some elite groups. That's kinda leveling out now. How I see it.
"Given our nature as creatures of biological evolution, designed to seek out dominance, that's just inevitable."
Sorry but that's so not true! Many research proves without any doubt the opposite. Humans are inherent cooperative. Following one particular individu as a group in certain circumstances is based on virtue, knowledge and merites. All of our cultures have had different leaders for different circumstances in their heritage. (indigenous people had a chieftain for peacetime and another for being at war with another tribe)
If people would not be wired to seek cooperation but competition, we simply would not exist.
One group would have eleminated/absorbed all other groups by dominance and in the end died out by incapacity through inbreeding in that group.
To me, you are trying to externalise responsibility. Better to understand IMO. Capitalism is a self-reinforcing feedback loop, which started back in the 1700s when Brit mill owners reinvested their profits back in their machinery. It made more profit, which got reinvested, and so on til we have the global situation of today.
Whereas pretty much everything created by natural selection is a self-sustaining feedback loop - a heap of thermostat-like processes, essentially, endlessly monitoring and trying to bring things back to homeostasis.
As humans, we are stretched between these two poles, desperately clinging to ideologies, and this is how it is.
thanks for your lecture on capitalism and it's history...
the only ones that external responsibilities are capitalists, they always find their way to the governments after they fucked up to bail them out with the money of the working class (thats why we call it privatisation of profit and socializing of losses)
The situation is just basic Cybernetics. It's totally non-complicated. The current issues are coming because we have this dynamic between Hierarchies and Markets. This is what's really going on underneath. The State is actually trying to rein in capitalism, get control, and block decentralisation. This is why things move towards Techo-Totalitarianism. It has nothing to do with capitalism itself.
For most people living in the West, they have been so pumped full of propaganda, they cannot understand what's actually happening. So they just blame capitalism or the left or whoever.
Can Plato's spectrum of governance accomodate China?? If yes, where does it align? If no, is there an undiscovered perspective, much like imaginary vs. real numbers??
It appears to be a question of control over the greed of the rich and a certain Patriotism that included "all Chinese"; "all Russians"; "all people" (Thus the Belt and Road success)
The only institution capable of reigning in the power of huge, wealthy corporations and banks is the government. Once the government is captured by these forces it's all over, regardless of what type of government it is, or how it is structured. This capture is done by bribery—both legal and illegal. In democracies it takes an enormous amount of money to mount a campaign; thus we have “donor democracy.” Likewise, the opinions, beliefs and values of the people are manipulated by the media, which is controlled by a few large corporations. The difference between the two major parties is thus minimal. Their foreign policy is virtual identical—determined by the MIC and multi-national corporations. Domestic policy, is likewise very similar. The difference is in “cultural” issues—abortion, radical feminism, gay rights and religion—where the peasants are encouraged by the elites of both parties to hate each other and to slug it out--as long as corporate financial power isn't challenged. This slugfest is financed by large corporations through foundations, grants and the media. The countries that have avoided this trap and which are fighting back have limited press freedom to prevent capture by the wealthy and have booted out the corporate funded NGOs. They are led by a tight ideological or religious elite which is largely impervious to corruption by money—the Shia in Iran, and the remaining communist/socialist block led by China. Russia has joined this block because it was rejected by the Hegemonic West as too insistent on its own sovereignty. Pick a side. This dynamic is what will determine mankind's future.
Jeremy Corbyn comes to mind and the fanatical attacks on him by certain Jews* calling him anti-Semite.
*Jews: I just can't bring myself to say Zionists because I don't believe "these people" truly support Israel. I admire Norm, Aaron, Max and many others so...
Disagree, Richard. At least w your theory in absolute terms.
If the US, for instance, could all but abolish the dc government, and revert to something like Articles of Confederation, the kind of small, devolution concept alluded to here, it is possible that moneyed interests could not hold sway.
Imagine a system where maximum political power is pushed down to the lowest political forms-- towns and counties. In that system, individuals can make a very real difference and effectively watchdog corruption and abuse of power. Criminals and psychopaths sociopaths can much more easily be identified and eliminated. Fundamental to this system would be the right to travel and leave a community that could not be corrected by consensus.
Even now we are seeing the Great Sorting in America where huge numbers of people are moving to likeminded areas. It's completely forseeable that states will start nullifying federal mandates even more than they do now to the point that the feds will be forced to acknowledge de facto independence.
We need to reimagine America out of its Imperial mania and government from dc.
Thanks Simplicius for such a thought provoking post. It's obvious that the current Western idea of of democracy is just a smokescreen. As a rule, leaders start off popular (obviously vetted in almost all cases) and follow orders from above which are more often than not very unpopular with the electorate. They reach their use by date and are shuffled off and replaced with another vetted clone. The UK is a great example. Corbyn was an obvious bogeyman for those calling the shots and was 'run out of town's well before the Tory meltdown.
There are numerous political systems all with their own pros and cons. The most important point is whose interests are prioritised by the ruling elite. A benevolent dictator who prioritises the interests of the nation and the citizens is miles ahead the average Western leader. One only needs to check the abysmal polling of Western leaders. That said, judging democracy from a US viewpoint is definitely not fair on democracy. A well functioning democracy with adequate checks and balances is as good as any other system. Unfortunately over time corruption is inevitable in any system so there is certainly room for improvement.
Seems to me Mosca, Sorel, Michels and especially Pereto had most of this all pretty well sorted out just before and just after WWI but they remain, as yet, largely undiscovered, or at least undiscussed in American political science literature. Machiavelli after all invented political “science”. Not sure most of their work has been even translated into English. Pereto’s “residuals” and “derivatives” provides at least a parallel explanation for what you cover, and of course they all demonstrate that democracy is essentially impossible. The “Iron law of Oligarchy” is persuasive. Someone is always on top. A good primer for anyone interested is James Burnhams “The Machiavellians”…a short 1943 volume that gives an intro that is very much relevant to our times.
There is a problem with this point of view. Viktor Orban established an illiberal democracy in Hungary supposedly to defend the majority interests of Hungarians against the equalizing pressure on of the EU but the result is total loss of freedom for its own citizens who flee the country to the neighboring places with more inclusive policies. Good government seeks the balancing points between different interests of its citizens and doesn’t allow one group to dominate all others. All dictators always use the rhetoric of defending their country against the invasion of foreign liberal corruption that need to be eliminated like the Jews in nazi Germany
There's really no "fleeing" going on in Hungary. People there are quite fine with what he does, and what he does is this: play the opposition to maximise monetary benefits for Hungary. Hungary as a country has only ever thrived on the teat of a foreign nation and these days it's no different. Orban knows this, most Hungarians know this, and the only true opposition to Orban going on is from people with ties to the "liberal" west (I.g. the alfabet people). This opposiion by the way gets a lot more freedom to express itself than in many other "democratic" European countries: billboards can be seen accusing Orban of pedophilia. Just imagine what would happen if they pulled a stunt like that in say, Germany.
If you look at the latest UN population data it seems Hungary has slowed the decline in population and the last year of data (2023) there was an increase of 100,000.
I live in Austria. I saw a lot of Hungarians working in Austria, but they used the good money they earned here, to build a house in Hungary - fleeing the country looks different. But today, a lot of Austrians have moved over the border to Hungary. The taxes are low and the rule of law works - and most important: no crime by migrants! In Vienna fights with knifes or axes between rivaling migrant hordes are normal, and even shootings are seen again and again.
As Capitalism turns to Imperialism, Democracy turns to a dictatorship of finance capital. The political and economic are closely linked and your kind of ignoring the primary economic side of the problem. A democracy is not possible in a society sharply polarized economically. It's nation based Capitalism that is impossible at the global scale we've reached, not democracy.
The western globalists want to solve the problem by replacing sovereign nations with an unelected group of western billionaires (the primary beneficiaries of Capitalism) which as we can all see is an absolute abortion. Nonetheless, the global economy on which we all depend requires a unified governance. The Brics model is another attempt to solve the contradiction. While that would be a great improvement on the existing world system of western billionaires, it will require a world war to utterly crush the western billionaires and their imperial killing/deception machine. The last world war ended with nukes, so firmly establishing a multi polar order with out the western oligarchs is a highly dangerous endeavor, at the very least. There is another alternative. The people who actually make the global economy run are the working class. They can shut it down too. That's the sleeping giant and the only viable solution to the contradiction. The battle cry in every nation and language going forward should be "replace the imperialist wars abroad with a civil war at home. Yes, it requires unity, organization, education. One last punishing labor would be required of the global labor force. It's proven it has the power to carry out such a task. But, as always the question is leadership. Will intelligent people, like many talented substack writers finally turn their educational efforts towards such a task? Can they see its necessity, that's it's the only way forward? In such an act, democracy would be reborn on a higher level. The revolution doesn't have to just disband and go home, democracy doesn't have be choosing between two billionaire puppets every four years. It can be everyday. It needs to be, everyday, working in parallel to the false democracy of the western oligarch, seeking to crush it out of existence.
You're partially correct. Most industrial jobs were offshores decades ago. However, there remains a massive and powerful working class in the West. Ports, agriculture, service, education, and tech are all run in the west by a class that relies on a wage for its survival. In other words, a working class. But your error is not uncommon. The two oligarch parties in the US will not even speak the term working class. They don't make the news or the movies, but they make up the vast majority of the western population.
You are so right and I agree with you in all what you are saying.
Simplicius is a well meaning author, brilliant in his writing but also hold captive by a view that tends to concentrate on the fringes of what is really the case.
To address capitalism as the basic system-failure that leads to all other horrible developments is not part of his thinking and other authors at substack as well.
It's critisism of symptoms but avoiding the core issue at almost all cost, as it seems to me.
Carl Schmitt by the way was one of the german Nazi great thinkers, who gave them the intellectual touch that they lacked in any other way.
Karl Popper also is known for a worldview that is political rightwing but they still make it onto the stage, not because they were brilliant thinkers, so were Walter Lippman and Edward Bernays as well but they assured a worldview that suits the capitalis elite, gave them the intellectual golden edge so to speak.
Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Lenin also were great thinkers and theoretics.
But you won't find them referred to in the western world, because their ideas and worldview truly threatens the capitalist system. Their intellectual work empowered the working people to an extend that needs to be repressed by all means and to all cost.
Last thought in this; quoting Solzhenitsyn shows me that the author is in a certain way of thinking about society. Not only is that quote utterly BS but Solzhenitsyn is a pure example of bribery and corruption.
"Archipelago Gulag" was a roman, a fiction story but in the west it has been transformed into a reality and Solzhenitsyn - against knowing better - sold his soul, commited treason to his country and lived very well in the west by doing so.
“Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Lenin also were great thinkers and theoretics.
But you won't find them referred to in the western world, because their ideas and worldview truly threatens the capitalist system.”
They’re not taken seriously in the West since the 1940s when it became obvious that their ideas made people’s lives a lot worse. The Marxist view of history is also based on wrong assumptions, which means everything that follows is built on a foundation of sand. That’s why real-world attempts at Marxism reliably produce misery and suffering. If it wasn’t for the adoption of Marxism by many nations (at the point of a gun, not voluntarily) in the 20th century, it would already be a kooky fringe ideology consigned to the dustbin.
From an economic theory standpoint, Marx has also been refuted and critiqued.
Thank you but a lot of stating things without any substantial argument leaves me nothing to go with. And no, no one has ever proved Marx/Engels wrong yet. Critics are even on god, so what are you trying to say?
By the way, Marx/Engels economic and social analyses of capitalism are playing out in real time just now, it's really hard to overlook the obvious.
Marx/Engels’ Labor Theory of Value was already rejected by the mainstream in the 19th century, because of its glaring holes and because it failed to describe current and future developments in economics. Leaving academic rejection aside, practical implementation of Marxism has been a miserable failure for 100+ years now. I don’t know how one can look at the history of Communist and claim it brought more prosperity, freedom, and less exploitation to the masses.
Marx’s prediction of capitalism turning to monopoly turning to a collapse of capitalism still doesn’t seem to be playing out anywhere; companies have been rising and falling. Google and Disney may not exist in 50 years.
Democracy has reached its limits. Everywhere it’s blocked by the lust of power, behind arrangements, shady deals and ultimately moral utter corruption.
As a political system it did not survive long after its founders almost 2500 years ago in Greece.
Anyhow if you see how people vote all over the world, it’s to ask if…. People really are aware of the power they have in their hands. People can’t rioting go subversive, revolutionary etc, vote is the only power that people have to say once on a while, F off, but lose the opportunity.
Just take the example of France, after years of riots, manifestations, utter public ultrage against Macron and his policies, when asked people just voted again for him and his party, knowing all the trickery that was cooked with the most radical hothead anti democratic morons.
Well it’s demo cracy after all, the will of people!
Democracy wasn't founded in Greece as it existed in India in different places prior to 500BC, predominantly in the Vajj Confederation. Similar to the Greek model, only aristocratic males were allowed to vote but the process was open in a similar way to the Greek forum.
What a brilliant post. Exactly what I need to read considering I am always banging on that what's needed is an implementation of 'real' democracy by introducing a digital voting app every person carries (if they like) in their pocket/purse on their smartphones.
This post seems to indicate that if they had that it wouldn't help because democracy doesn't/hasn't worked.
(1) democracy has never been implemented. It would be a first. You don't know how it would work out.
(2) the natural way for human beings has to be found/recognised/followed. I submit that is 'democracy'. Think of the small units. If they are free of coercion then they collaborate as equals very often don't they? 'democrats'. And they choose together what they want. They may choose a king in perpetuity or they may choose a king for a lifetime only (according to Frazer's Golden Bough that's common ). They may choose a select band of 'initiates'. They may choose different 'leaders' or advice givers for different tasks. My point of course is that they make these choices. What perhaps is apparent is the result of their choices but what's important is the fact that they make them. I submit that's democracy, by nature.
(3) The perceived inadequacies of democracy - in particular 'rule by majority' and 'rule by minority interest group' - are subject to democratic decision. Saying they turn out the way described is to assume such a decision has been made. Why? The democratic assembly would surely have the wit to decide that democratic assemblies should exist in each smaller bailiwick (if that's the right word). And so on.
(4) Competing interests have traditionally been the hobby horses of special interest groups who have knowledge, power and means completely unavailable to the people. Hence they run wild. The people simply do not know what is going on. But today is the 21st C and just as we can now have a 'digital democracy' in each pocket we can also have instant access to all relevant data on any issue PLUS the advantage of access to the best 'experts' on the subject PLUS access to AI help make sense of it all.
It is simply a very different environment today. Just as the 20th C was totally different to ancient Athens so the 21st C is already totally different to the 20th, could we but see it. All meaning that processes may be quite different and even when the same produce quite different results.
Your (1) reminds me how the Socialists argue: It has never been implemented in the right way. Therefore everything we have seen so far, was a failure. Really?
sarcasm I suppose. do you think that's worthy of you? you be the judge.
tell me, how 'democratic' do you think the permission to vote for one of a couple of political parties once every few years is?
Tell me: what do you think of the practical difficulties of getting populations in the millions informed of issues in the world of the 20th Century?
Tell me: what do you think of the practical difficulties of collecting all their votes for that 'once every few years vote for a Party' - large, small, medium, what?
Tell me: do you think there's any possibility at all that 'representative democracy' with periodic voting for someone who in fact represents not you but a party could be at all a 'step' in a progress towards a better manifestation but currently the best that could be arranged?
Tell me: do you think it possible at all that there could in practical terms be a gradual development in the manifestation of practical democracy implementations?
Tell me: do you think it at all possible that we are somewhere along that continuum?
That is exactly what I think (and talk about) every time we cross that state by car from Germany to Italy and back: looking around, my standard remark is: »Seems like everything is in order here, must be connected to the referendum system they have«. I still am of that opinion, although, it seems to me, the Swiss sovereignty has been stolen by the U.S. a couple of years ago and now they participate in Nato’s war to destroy Russia and China next. Why is there no referendum concerning that? Do you know?
Sadly not! Even in Switzerland the "Elites" are ignoring the results of direct democratic voting. Especially when "The people of Switzerland" vote against the combination of Islam and Migration.
Last paragraph nails it.
The French parlimentary electoral system was specifically set up at the beginning of the 5th Republic in order to be gamed in exactly the way it was this electio. It was specifically tailored to ensure that a popular but "radical" could be neutered and its representation in the national assemby minimized regardless of actual support. These kind of deals have happened in numerous parliamentary elections in the 5th Republic. The only difference is that in the previous these deals were between center and center right parties (and sometimes even the socialists) to keep out the communists and this time it was to keep out the National Rally.
I'm both causes, the working class vote was minimized.
That is was ultimately the target yes. As always.
In your excellent article you state,
"198 Democrats just voted to reject a bill requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration:"
This is a clear example showing how democracy, battles against the fabric of society.
Great work!
But 198 democrats didn't, I imagine. Not individually according to their consciences. They voted as they were told to vote I expect. That's the two party system. That's not democracy at all.
It is the practical end result of democracy. For example if I were to invent a system called "Flyocracy" where you jump off a cliff and fly away like Superman I can't appeal to ideal forms and say that everyone who splattered on the ground didn't do it right.
It's simply what happens when you jump off a cliff. And the 198 democrats who are owned by special interests is what happens in the US democracy.
The flaw in your analogy is that they do 'it' - fly off a cliffe - exactly as they should.
Our democracy representations are nowhere near like 'what they should'.
Your reasoning is similarly flawed and for the same reason: you can't be looking at the end result of democracy if there never has been any.
You are looking at the inevitable results of the system that has been put in place, or that 'grew' into place, that's true enough. But it was not, is not 'democracy'. That's patently obvious.
I understand what you are saying in that I'm looking a a process that, on paper, is very much not democracy. However my argument is that a large scale democracy that cannot be corrupted and co-opted, fairly easily and naturally at that, is not something that physically can exist.
"you can't be looking at the end result of democracy if there never has been any." becomes "you can't be looking at the end result of democracy because there will never be one". I concede that it may exist for a brief moment or by accident temporarily but the party system, co-opt and tribalization is impossible to eliminate at scale in a systemic fashion.
I am not interested in chasing definitions and interpretations this way and that. Let me return to where I want to be:
Democracy is everyone has a voice.
Let us implement that.
At the very least people should have enough of a voice to be able to raise it when war is in question. i.e. let people, enable people, to voice 'No' to warfare.
That's all I am saying and advocating for.
Not so. The bill for 'proof of citizenship' simply works to deny the franchise for elderly and rural voters who lack any such proof. It is a ploy to control the election process in favor of the minority discussed in the essay.
First of all, kudos for the correct pluralization of a Greek word (polis). Honestly, that's pretty rare to see these days :)
As for "democracy," let's not forget that a Greek term has been shoehorned onto what was clearly a Native American (both US and Canada) system. In the original Greek, it literally meant a lottery for male elites in which every job, including "president" and head of the army, was randomly assigned. And even the ancient Greeks hated it and thought it was stupid.
The NA version, however, is closer to what we think of democracy when we think of it in the "pure" ideal sense - small groups of similar-thinking people (aka tribes/clans) electing a representative to meet with other representatives to determine and discuss inter-group policies/governance.
The original United States version of this was a combination of the two concepts - only people with land (i.e. mostly elite men, but it's worth mentioning that a tiny fraction of these were black men) could vote, but they represented their in-culture constituents.
This was the system in place prior to the 1787 coup, which was then replaced by the split version wherein every white adult male could vote for the House of Representatives but only the state legislatures could choose the Senators (plus the ludicrous Electoral College) etc. And add in political parties, which George Washington (amongst many others) warned were completely undemocratic and a legacy of the pro/anti royal factions in Britain. And so on and so forth until the shit we have today that calls itself "democracy.".
Keep in mind that the original USA version of democracy involved a country with 2.5 million citizens, a time when the biggest cities (like New York and Philadelphia) had 25-30k inhabitants. Today, we'd call that more of a town than a "city" and NYC alone has more people now than the entire USA in 1776.
So yeah, the system designed for 30k inhabitant cities isn't gonna work for a country with six times zones and a third of a billion people all under one roof. Duh. (Same goes for the EU).
That being said, there IS a solution that's been right there the whole time except that nobody's allowed to think it, i.e. countries should be capped at a population of X people, wherein X is probably no larger than 100k people.
Sound extreme? It's already ongoing. Some are island nations like Palau and Tuvalu. Others are "micro" states in Europe like Lichtenstein and Monaco. And guess what? If you look at these nations, you'll see that they are a) peaceful and free of major civil strife b) democratic in action if not form and c) nice places to live (socially, if not also economically).
But here's the kicker: every single one of those "micro" nations has a different form of governance. Some are "true" democracies like St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Others are clan-based/family systems while others are hereditary monarchies. One is even a theological dictatorship (Vatican)! And they all WORK for the people who live there.
Therefore, the short answer to "why democracy sucks" has nothing to do with the form or shape of governance but that there's just too many goddamn people lumped together in one polis. When the United Nations has >10,000 members, things will be much better.
Until then, we're ALL living in a feudal system of nobles and peasants that's just been rebranded as democracy (in some areas).
You are correct that smaller entities may solve the problem.
However, most of those small countries exist in the shadow of the large ones. Monaco is t really a country, just a tax play for billionaires on the French Riviera. Without France, there is no Monaco, no infrastructure, no electricity, no road no healthcare, no research etc.
I like it but want to claim that actually democracy has not been tried. The two Party system is nothing remotely like democracy. And therefore what it has done is noway indicative of how democracy works.
But isn't that the problem, in the US anyway; our government will always devolve into two parties.
The UK has more than two parties, but in reality it is always Labour vs the Tories, with the Liberal party flip-flopping to keep the Oligarchs who own each party happy? It is instructive to listen to the complete contempt that "The Duran" has for parliament. It was also a tragedy to see George Galloway lose his just won seat. And now, Keir Starmer, with a history linked to the CIA and MI-6, has come to power to benefit the Oligarchs who populate the "City of London". More austerity, more squeeze on the commoners.
Exactly what is happening in the USA but slightly more streamlined.
We don't want to worry about what 'our government' will devolve into, do we?
We want that it will be as we decide, from time time, even moment to moment.
So we worry better about what we will devolve into.
And we might appear to be primed to devolve into two parties but I don't think so. It's over simplification that sees it like that.
Yes, generally we devolve into two points of view - 'pro' or 'con'.
But that's not two parties.
The pros will swap with cons over different issues so they can't be each in their own party consistently.
The basic problem is the people have no voice hence they can't say anything. Hence they can provide no direction or leadership. No guidance. Inject no common sense.
We have to listen to the people. Is it not obvious? What alternative do we have? We've spent in the modern world, say, since '45, listening to 'representatives' and 'leaders' and they totally unfit for purpose. Proven. Again and again.
Where else are we going to go? AI? Might not be a bad idea.
Why not try listening to the people?
The point of this article was how useless Democracy is because it can be so easily manipulated. People are convinced that "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here", or that there are so many little girls trapped in little boys bodies that we have to spend and spend and spend to free them.
The people have no voice because the people are to stupid to see how they're being manipulated. Their "voice" is against one another not in unison.
So, in the USA, it absolutely has devolved to just two parties.
My question if parties were illegal. People had to be individuals. The founders were against parties but soon joined them. So need to be illegal. Punishable by death
Even the Old Testament recognized that lending money for interest was wrong
Simplicity would solve most problems
What would a house cost if were no mortgages
Probably would be dirt cheap
The correct pluralization of "polis" is "poleis", both words written here with standard latin transliteration. The words are written in Greek as such: "πόλις", "πόλεις". In Modern Greek (and actually since roughly the third century, ει is pronounced the same as ι, which, along with a few more of these gotchas, leads to incorrect spelling often, as people who havent learned the correct way will spell words phonetically instead of the proper way.
Even if sortition were to be somehow instituted, the upshot of this would be a transfer of practical power to the administrative bureaucracy, since the bureaucracy would be the only ones with any institutional knowledge of how to Get Things Done Around Here.
Isn't that what is known as "The Blob?"
Isn't that one of Trump's planks, to "fire everyone"?
I am not aware of such a specific platform plank. That said, in 2016, Trump claimed that he would "drain the swamp".
This admittedly is a vague promise, but once elected, he proceeded to surround himself with what can fairly be described as "swamp creatures". Needless to say, not much got done.
The Chevron ruling recently is a small, yet definitive, first step towards defanging the blob.
Yep. I think so. I'd even measure it as greater than 'small'. :)
Democracy has always been hackable. Given our nature as creatures of biological evolution, designed to seek out dominance, that's just inevitable. But the advent of tech created a brief tactical advantage for some elite groups. That's kinda leveling out now. How I see it.
"Given our nature as creatures of biological evolution, designed to seek out dominance, that's just inevitable."
Sorry but that's so not true! Many research proves without any doubt the opposite. Humans are inherent cooperative. Following one particular individu as a group in certain circumstances is based on virtue, knowledge and merites. All of our cultures have had different leaders for different circumstances in their heritage. (indigenous people had a chieftain for peacetime and another for being at war with another tribe)
If people would not be wired to seek cooperation but competition, we simply would not exist.
One group would have eleminated/absorbed all other groups by dominance and in the end died out by incapacity through inbreeding in that group.
Yes, the cooperative ones get led by the dominant ones
true, because that's the intrinsic mechanism of the capitalist system, that's why capitalism is so anatagonistic to human nature
To me, you are trying to externalise responsibility. Better to understand IMO. Capitalism is a self-reinforcing feedback loop, which started back in the 1700s when Brit mill owners reinvested their profits back in their machinery. It made more profit, which got reinvested, and so on til we have the global situation of today.
Whereas pretty much everything created by natural selection is a self-sustaining feedback loop - a heap of thermostat-like processes, essentially, endlessly monitoring and trying to bring things back to homeostasis.
As humans, we are stretched between these two poles, desperately clinging to ideologies, and this is how it is.
thanks for your lecture on capitalism and it's history...
the only ones that external responsibilities are capitalists, they always find their way to the governments after they fucked up to bail them out with the money of the working class (thats why we call it privatisation of profit and socializing of losses)
The situation is just basic Cybernetics. It's totally non-complicated. The current issues are coming because we have this dynamic between Hierarchies and Markets. This is what's really going on underneath. The State is actually trying to rein in capitalism, get control, and block decentralisation. This is why things move towards Techo-Totalitarianism. It has nothing to do with capitalism itself.
For most people living in the West, they have been so pumped full of propaganda, they cannot understand what's actually happening. So they just blame capitalism or the left or whoever.
Humans are inherently cooperative with the in-group, and competitive with out-groups.
Brilliant. You nailed it.
Can Plato's spectrum of governance accomodate China?? If yes, where does it align? If no, is there an undiscovered perspective, much like imaginary vs. real numbers??
"Benevolent tyranny?"
Russia too.
It appears to be a question of control over the greed of the rich and a certain Patriotism that included "all Chinese"; "all Russians"; "all people" (Thus the Belt and Road success)
The only institution capable of reigning in the power of huge, wealthy corporations and banks is the government. Once the government is captured by these forces it's all over, regardless of what type of government it is, or how it is structured. This capture is done by bribery—both legal and illegal. In democracies it takes an enormous amount of money to mount a campaign; thus we have “donor democracy.” Likewise, the opinions, beliefs and values of the people are manipulated by the media, which is controlled by a few large corporations. The difference between the two major parties is thus minimal. Their foreign policy is virtual identical—determined by the MIC and multi-national corporations. Domestic policy, is likewise very similar. The difference is in “cultural” issues—abortion, radical feminism, gay rights and religion—where the peasants are encouraged by the elites of both parties to hate each other and to slug it out--as long as corporate financial power isn't challenged. This slugfest is financed by large corporations through foundations, grants and the media. The countries that have avoided this trap and which are fighting back have limited press freedom to prevent capture by the wealthy and have booted out the corporate funded NGOs. They are led by a tight ideological or religious elite which is largely impervious to corruption by money—the Shia in Iran, and the remaining communist/socialist block led by China. Russia has joined this block because it was rejected by the Hegemonic West as too insistent on its own sovereignty. Pick a side. This dynamic is what will determine mankind's future.
"This capture is done by bribery"
Add to that blackmail, fake news campaigns, personal threats, threatening one's family and if that fails assassination.
Jeremy Corbyn comes to mind and the fanatical attacks on him by certain Jews* calling him anti-Semite.
*Jews: I just can't bring myself to say Zionists because I don't believe "these people" truly support Israel. I admire Norm, Aaron, Max and many others so...
Well put. Thanks.
Very well put.
Disagree, Richard. At least w your theory in absolute terms.
If the US, for instance, could all but abolish the dc government, and revert to something like Articles of Confederation, the kind of small, devolution concept alluded to here, it is possible that moneyed interests could not hold sway.
Imagine a system where maximum political power is pushed down to the lowest political forms-- towns and counties. In that system, individuals can make a very real difference and effectively watchdog corruption and abuse of power. Criminals and psychopaths sociopaths can much more easily be identified and eliminated. Fundamental to this system would be the right to travel and leave a community that could not be corrected by consensus.
Even now we are seeing the Great Sorting in America where huge numbers of people are moving to likeminded areas. It's completely forseeable that states will start nullifying federal mandates even more than they do now to the point that the feds will be forced to acknowledge de facto independence.
We need to reimagine America out of its Imperial mania and government from dc.
Thanks Simplicius for such a thought provoking post. It's obvious that the current Western idea of of democracy is just a smokescreen. As a rule, leaders start off popular (obviously vetted in almost all cases) and follow orders from above which are more often than not very unpopular with the electorate. They reach their use by date and are shuffled off and replaced with another vetted clone. The UK is a great example. Corbyn was an obvious bogeyman for those calling the shots and was 'run out of town's well before the Tory meltdown.
There are numerous political systems all with their own pros and cons. The most important point is whose interests are prioritised by the ruling elite. A benevolent dictator who prioritises the interests of the nation and the citizens is miles ahead the average Western leader. One only needs to check the abysmal polling of Western leaders. That said, judging democracy from a US viewpoint is definitely not fair on democracy. A well functioning democracy with adequate checks and balances is as good as any other system. Unfortunately over time corruption is inevitable in any system so there is certainly room for improvement.
"Kosher-izing the drinks (and much else)"... is yet another way of subsidizing Israhell...
Seems to me Mosca, Sorel, Michels and especially Pereto had most of this all pretty well sorted out just before and just after WWI but they remain, as yet, largely undiscovered, or at least undiscussed in American political science literature. Machiavelli after all invented political “science”. Not sure most of their work has been even translated into English. Pereto’s “residuals” and “derivatives” provides at least a parallel explanation for what you cover, and of course they all demonstrate that democracy is essentially impossible. The “Iron law of Oligarchy” is persuasive. Someone is always on top. A good primer for anyone interested is James Burnhams “The Machiavellians”…a short 1943 volume that gives an intro that is very much relevant to our times.
There is a problem with this point of view. Viktor Orban established an illiberal democracy in Hungary supposedly to defend the majority interests of Hungarians against the equalizing pressure on of the EU but the result is total loss of freedom for its own citizens who flee the country to the neighboring places with more inclusive policies. Good government seeks the balancing points between different interests of its citizens and doesn’t allow one group to dominate all others. All dictators always use the rhetoric of defending their country against the invasion of foreign liberal corruption that need to be eliminated like the Jews in nazi Germany
There's really no "fleeing" going on in Hungary. People there are quite fine with what he does, and what he does is this: play the opposition to maximise monetary benefits for Hungary. Hungary as a country has only ever thrived on the teat of a foreign nation and these days it's no different. Orban knows this, most Hungarians know this, and the only true opposition to Orban going on is from people with ties to the "liberal" west (I.g. the alfabet people). This opposiion by the way gets a lot more freedom to express itself than in many other "democratic" European countries: billboards can be seen accusing Orban of pedophilia. Just imagine what would happen if they pulled a stunt like that in say, Germany.
What does "total loss of freedom" mean? Freedom to do what? Is every single Hungarian in a gulag now?
Loss of liberty doesn’t have to start with a gulag but it almost inevitably ends there
If you look at the latest UN population data it seems Hungary has slowed the decline in population and the last year of data (2023) there was an increase of 100,000.
What source are you using?
No official source just what everybody saying
I live in Austria. I saw a lot of Hungarians working in Austria, but they used the good money they earned here, to build a house in Hungary - fleeing the country looks different. But today, a lot of Austrians have moved over the border to Hungary. The taxes are low and the rule of law works - and most important: no crime by migrants! In Vienna fights with knifes or axes between rivaling migrant hordes are normal, and even shootings are seen again and again.
Wow! Didn’t realizmus it so bad
Since 2010, he has been democratically elected until today...
As Capitalism turns to Imperialism, Democracy turns to a dictatorship of finance capital. The political and economic are closely linked and your kind of ignoring the primary economic side of the problem. A democracy is not possible in a society sharply polarized economically. It's nation based Capitalism that is impossible at the global scale we've reached, not democracy.
The western globalists want to solve the problem by replacing sovereign nations with an unelected group of western billionaires (the primary beneficiaries of Capitalism) which as we can all see is an absolute abortion. Nonetheless, the global economy on which we all depend requires a unified governance. The Brics model is another attempt to solve the contradiction. While that would be a great improvement on the existing world system of western billionaires, it will require a world war to utterly crush the western billionaires and their imperial killing/deception machine. The last world war ended with nukes, so firmly establishing a multi polar order with out the western oligarchs is a highly dangerous endeavor, at the very least. There is another alternative. The people who actually make the global economy run are the working class. They can shut it down too. That's the sleeping giant and the only viable solution to the contradiction. The battle cry in every nation and language going forward should be "replace the imperialist wars abroad with a civil war at home. Yes, it requires unity, organization, education. One last punishing labor would be required of the global labor force. It's proven it has the power to carry out such a task. But, as always the question is leadership. Will intelligent people, like many talented substack writers finally turn their educational efforts towards such a task? Can they see its necessity, that's it's the only way forward? In such an act, democracy would be reborn on a higher level. The revolution doesn't have to just disband and go home, democracy doesn't have be choosing between two billionaire puppets every four years. It can be everyday. It needs to be, everyday, working in parallel to the false democracy of the western oligarch, seeking to crush it out of existence.
The people who actually make the global economy run are the working class.
The Western working class were offshored late last century. At least in the Anglosphere. Now they are rising up and it's called BRICS and associates.
You're partially correct. Most industrial jobs were offshores decades ago. However, there remains a massive and powerful working class in the West. Ports, agriculture, service, education, and tech are all run in the west by a class that relies on a wage for its survival. In other words, a working class. But your error is not uncommon. The two oligarch parties in the US will not even speak the term working class. They don't make the news or the movies, but they make up the vast majority of the western population.
You are so right and I agree with you in all what you are saying.
Simplicius is a well meaning author, brilliant in his writing but also hold captive by a view that tends to concentrate on the fringes of what is really the case.
To address capitalism as the basic system-failure that leads to all other horrible developments is not part of his thinking and other authors at substack as well.
It's critisism of symptoms but avoiding the core issue at almost all cost, as it seems to me.
Carl Schmitt by the way was one of the german Nazi great thinkers, who gave them the intellectual touch that they lacked in any other way.
Karl Popper also is known for a worldview that is political rightwing but they still make it onto the stage, not because they were brilliant thinkers, so were Walter Lippman and Edward Bernays as well but they assured a worldview that suits the capitalis elite, gave them the intellectual golden edge so to speak.
Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Lenin also were great thinkers and theoretics.
But you won't find them referred to in the western world, because their ideas and worldview truly threatens the capitalist system. Their intellectual work empowered the working people to an extend that needs to be repressed by all means and to all cost.
Last thought in this; quoting Solzhenitsyn shows me that the author is in a certain way of thinking about society. Not only is that quote utterly BS but Solzhenitsyn is a pure example of bribery and corruption.
"Archipelago Gulag" was a roman, a fiction story but in the west it has been transformed into a reality and Solzhenitsyn - against knowing better - sold his soul, commited treason to his country and lived very well in the west by doing so.
“Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Lenin also were great thinkers and theoretics.
But you won't find them referred to in the western world, because their ideas and worldview truly threatens the capitalist system.”
They’re not taken seriously in the West since the 1940s when it became obvious that their ideas made people’s lives a lot worse. The Marxist view of history is also based on wrong assumptions, which means everything that follows is built on a foundation of sand. That’s why real-world attempts at Marxism reliably produce misery and suffering. If it wasn’t for the adoption of Marxism by many nations (at the point of a gun, not voluntarily) in the 20th century, it would already be a kooky fringe ideology consigned to the dustbin.
From an economic theory standpoint, Marx has also been refuted and critiqued.
Thank you but a lot of stating things without any substantial argument leaves me nothing to go with. And no, no one has ever proved Marx/Engels wrong yet. Critics are even on god, so what are you trying to say?
By the way, Marx/Engels economic and social analyses of capitalism are playing out in real time just now, it's really hard to overlook the obvious.
Marx/Engels’ Labor Theory of Value was already rejected by the mainstream in the 19th century, because of its glaring holes and because it failed to describe current and future developments in economics. Leaving academic rejection aside, practical implementation of Marxism has been a miserable failure for 100+ years now. I don’t know how one can look at the history of Communist and claim it brought more prosperity, freedom, and less exploitation to the masses.
Marx’s prediction of capitalism turning to monopoly turning to a collapse of capitalism still doesn’t seem to be playing out anywhere; companies have been rising and falling. Google and Disney may not exist in 50 years.
Democracy has reached its limits. Everywhere it’s blocked by the lust of power, behind arrangements, shady deals and ultimately moral utter corruption.
As a political system it did not survive long after its founders almost 2500 years ago in Greece.
Anyhow if you see how people vote all over the world, it’s to ask if…. People really are aware of the power they have in their hands. People can’t rioting go subversive, revolutionary etc, vote is the only power that people have to say once on a while, F off, but lose the opportunity.
Just take the example of France, after years of riots, manifestations, utter public ultrage against Macron and his policies, when asked people just voted again for him and his party, knowing all the trickery that was cooked with the most radical hothead anti democratic morons.
Well it’s demo cracy after all, the will of people!
Democracy wasn't founded in Greece as it existed in India in different places prior to 500BC, predominantly in the Vajj Confederation. Similar to the Greek model, only aristocratic males were allowed to vote but the process was open in a similar way to the Greek forum.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajjika_League
Could you remind us their Aristotle or Plato?
What a brilliant post. Exactly what I need to read considering I am always banging on that what's needed is an implementation of 'real' democracy by introducing a digital voting app every person carries (if they like) in their pocket/purse on their smartphones.
This post seems to indicate that if they had that it wouldn't help because democracy doesn't/hasn't worked.
Here: I post these everywhere:
https://abrogard.com/blog/2023/12/25/dont-write-to-congress/
open source voting apps (proof of principle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_voting_system
But I think
(1) democracy has never been implemented. It would be a first. You don't know how it would work out.
(2) the natural way for human beings has to be found/recognised/followed. I submit that is 'democracy'. Think of the small units. If they are free of coercion then they collaborate as equals very often don't they? 'democrats'. And they choose together what they want. They may choose a king in perpetuity or they may choose a king for a lifetime only (according to Frazer's Golden Bough that's common ). They may choose a select band of 'initiates'. They may choose different 'leaders' or advice givers for different tasks. My point of course is that they make these choices. What perhaps is apparent is the result of their choices but what's important is the fact that they make them. I submit that's democracy, by nature.
(3) The perceived inadequacies of democracy - in particular 'rule by majority' and 'rule by minority interest group' - are subject to democratic decision. Saying they turn out the way described is to assume such a decision has been made. Why? The democratic assembly would surely have the wit to decide that democratic assemblies should exist in each smaller bailiwick (if that's the right word). And so on.
(4) Competing interests have traditionally been the hobby horses of special interest groups who have knowledge, power and means completely unavailable to the people. Hence they run wild. The people simply do not know what is going on. But today is the 21st C and just as we can now have a 'digital democracy' in each pocket we can also have instant access to all relevant data on any issue PLUS the advantage of access to the best 'experts' on the subject PLUS access to AI help make sense of it all.
It is simply a very different environment today. Just as the 20th C was totally different to ancient Athens so the 21st C is already totally different to the 20th, could we but see it. All meaning that processes may be quite different and even when the same produce quite different results.
I think along those lines.
Your (1) reminds me how the Socialists argue: It has never been implemented in the right way. Therefore everything we have seen so far, was a failure. Really?
sarcasm I suppose. do you think that's worthy of you? you be the judge.
tell me, how 'democratic' do you think the permission to vote for one of a couple of political parties once every few years is?
Tell me: what do you think of the practical difficulties of getting populations in the millions informed of issues in the world of the 20th Century?
Tell me: what do you think of the practical difficulties of collecting all their votes for that 'once every few years vote for a Party' - large, small, medium, what?
Tell me: do you think there's any possibility at all that 'representative democracy' with periodic voting for someone who in fact represents not you but a party could be at all a 'step' in a progress towards a better manifestation but currently the best that could be arranged?
Tell me: do you think it possible at all that there could in practical terms be a gradual development in the manifestation of practical democracy implementations?
Tell me: do you think it at all possible that we are somewhere along that continuum?
No. Don't bother. I don't wish to know.
Well, democracy works in Switzerland ...
That is exactly what I think (and talk about) every time we cross that state by car from Germany to Italy and back: looking around, my standard remark is: »Seems like everything is in order here, must be connected to the referendum system they have«. I still am of that opinion, although, it seems to me, the Swiss sovereignty has been stolen by the U.S. a couple of years ago and now they participate in Nato’s war to destroy Russia and China next. Why is there no referendum concerning that? Do you know?
Switzerland also has media that toes the mainstream line.
Why do you not have a referendum on foreign policy issues such as supporting the Kiev regime? Is there a majority of Swiss in favour of that?
Sadly not! Even in Switzerland the "Elites" are ignoring the results of direct democratic voting. Especially when "The people of Switzerland" vote against the combination of Islam and Migration.