Pillars of Destruction #2: Democracy
Why this Barbaric Outdated System Needs to be Renewed, Fast!
“How bad is it, doctor?” My reaction: “This patient is a goner, but we may save the children.”
Democracy. Criticise it and many people say, “What do you want? It’s has its flaws, but it’s the best we have.” Is it? Is this the best we can do? I pose that we seriously need to consider: What comes after democracy? What’s next?
Introduction
I fear most of us, will need, at the least, another 200 years before they can look back at this, by then historic, system. I bet they’ll judge it deeply barbaric, let alone seriously flawed. Some symptoms are evident. Currently, many western democracies have been highjacked by corporate players and their money. Populists and vested interests use all media available to play easy emotions rather than discuss deeper real-world issues. Meanwhile, the ongoing collapse of our ecosystems, climate change, dystopian tech ‘solutions’, and growing poverty ravage complete countries. The amount of people who’ll have worse lives than their parents is growing rapidly.
Democracy seems as incapable as dictatorships when it comes to adequate responses to global pollution and stopping the biggest culprits.
How come our democracies aren’t helping? This article offers:
- A list of evident and less evident system flaws and failures of democracy. If you won’t read all of it, just check how many weaknesses there are, and know, there are people who consciously (seek to) exploit one or more of them.
- A ‘fun’ game called ‘Sick Democracy’ to play at home with friends. Warning: You may lose some friends because of it.
- Some starting points to find alternative paths, concrete steps, and fun ideas towards creating something better and beyond.
1. Twelve Fundamental Flaws of Democracy (+4 new ones)
Democracy is basically barbaric and outdated ritual warfare between gangs that got you convinced that since there’s no obvious killing and you can safely participate, it’s all civilisation, .. and then they use your votes to enrich themselves more than the other party did. With one party pandering to the anxious fearful minds, and the other to the ‘let’s keep it civilised’ they change barely enough to have you keep your hopes up it actually makes a difference. It’s all ‘what can we get away with’. It’s run much like a business trying to get away with selling shitty chicken rice. They’ll put in the tiniest possible amount amount of chicken, before customers actually walk away.
Our current form of democracy blinds voters, corrupts candidates, and is in general a barbaric and flawed ideology that even hurts the countries it is supposed to uplift. I divided these then into the three main bloody arguments against mainstream democracy!
And that’s even before adding the latest misuses brought by modern times.
I. Democracy is a Barbaric Concept!
#1 Democracy is Ritual Warfare.
Yes. Democracy is a ritual. Basically, it is generals meeting on the battlefield. These generals debate pretending to be bigger, better, stronger than the others, with better promises. Then the soldiers take sides. The general who gets the biggest army behind him wins the day. And this ritual battle is repeated every 2, 4, or 6 years. And when you consider it a battle, playing dirty becomes okay and dangerous for democracy itself. It’s also telling you this is safe, and you have influence, now line up and vote for one of the few (mostly two) candidates, that seem to matter, one bad and the other worse. Happy democracy!
Why do we assume the winner of a ritual battle, who can best others in a debate, or is best at making other candidates look worse, is someone who can include all ‘losers’ and unite the whole to progress as a collective?
(added in later) “Our election victories in the Midterm happened, because we (the DNC) recruited some excellent candidates.” ~ Barack Obama on midterms 2022. Note he doesn’t say “we supported people who were making a difference, and dared to speak up.”
#2 The Ones ‘Who Choose Who and What You Vote For’ Decide.
We all remember the American, best of two evils, 2016 choice between either Hillary or Trump. But even in the primaries, most candidates were more of the same, except perhaps Bernie Sanders, who was cheated, and people like Jill Stein, who got ignored. The power, to select* what candidates you can choose from, is damaging any real choice. Link to News about such corruption unveiled. These people also set the rules. Like if you don’t get a day, let alone an hour off work to go and vote, making it so that many poor in the USA can’t vote. This gives the upper classes an unfair advantage, in a country where everyone was born… equal?
*) There’s even a historic book that claims to show how the old elite stayed in power in the time that most kingdoms turned into democratic republics. Here’s a video that also shares this history: saying the USA is a plutocracy, and explaining how that came to be.
Note: choosing the best of two evils even adds perils of its own. (edit 2018)
Why do we accept that voting for a pre-selected few is a real choice? Do we have enough clarity on who pre-selects or sponsors the candidates with what motives? What if we want to select awesome people who are not on the list? How do we get everyone to get a fair (chance to) vote? Now we live with the false hope every four years, that finally we can make a difference, by choosing more of the same, or a disaster. Hmm.
#3 Debate and Ideology Kill Possible Solutions.
Democracy loves debates. I call debates a solution killer. In debates, there must be a winner and the other side has to be fought against. Parties always strive for getting a great deal before allowing the other side to implement a watered-down version of their ‘solution’. Sadly their solution often is based on ideology, not reality.
The bias (read ideology) of a party blinds it to real solutions their ideology doesn’t embrace. The proof that the ‘trickle down’ ideology doesn’t work is very clear, yet ideology and (financial) interests too often forbid accepting reality checks. Ideology: Forbid sex education because talking about sex makes more sex happen. Fact: Sex education prevents teenage pregnancies and often postpones sex. Ideology: The USA keeps selling their justice system as the way to fight (eh, address?) crime. Fact: the USA has way more prisoners (22% of the total global prison population) than all other countries (USA has 4% of the global population). For every country, every political party, such lists of fact vs. ideology & conviction are very possible. When parties would consider truth and facts rather than established convictions they could solve issues. Now they sell their own ideology as the solution to the other parties flawed ideology. And thus they keep everyone from reality checks.
What if we allowed for way more dialogue, in which shared visions can arise? What if we allowed our leaders to slowly design real-world solutions based upon real-world wisdom and realities, beyond bias and ideology?
#4 Voting Fallacy & Rules.
People tend to vote for parties and or candidates that have a better chance to be elected, not for the one they’d really want. They fear their vote is lost when they spend it on a less popular personal choice. And there are countries with counting systems where this is more or less the case. So a huge portion of voters already compromises when they vote. And this gives large parties in power a huge, at times even unfair, advantage over newcomers. People must be deeply fed up before newcomers can really challenge the establishment. And too often the alternatives are opportunistic populists playing this sentiment. Not an alternative, is it?
Here’s another take/video on this same issue.
What if voting without compromise was promoted or celebrated? What if people really wondered why they water the wine before they vote? Does it make the establishment more lazy and corrupt, when challenging them is harder? What if you voted for issues, not politicians?
“If voting was effective it would be illegal.” ~ Phil Berrigan
II. It Leads to Corrupt(ed) Candidates
#5 People Who Want To Be Elected Are Not the Best Candidates*.
Some people really want to make a difference. But the idea that ‘you having power is the best solution’ is not a good idea. Most politicians also have huge egos, sociopathic tendencies, long for power, long for attention and glory. They see it as a contest, a business, or a step supporting their personal interests. Somehow such people often lose sight of the real needs of the average people. Even when they start with noble intentions, later often keeping their position becomes more important to them, than staying true.
*) In Ancient Greece, you were selected to lead through a lottery! Indeed. All voters were also candidates for important positions. Thus mostly a commoner, one of the 99% we’d say nowadays, would win. Thus self-serving members of a small elite had way fewer means to use offices of power to strengthen their own position. And commoners would seek to build personal ‘gravitas’ just in case they ever were selected.
Might it be, the right one to select is somebody who is very conscious of the damage he or she might inflict through wrong choices? Somebody who rather tries to be wise than appears to be a strong ‘leader’ who promises to be ‘the answer’; somebody who prefers consideration before blaring rally cries. And why don’t we prepare our children with gravitas? How come preparing children to work for a company seems enough ‘life’ preparation?
#6 The Plague of Career Politicians
We like to have leaders who know what we are doing but occupying a government seat for too long changes them. Power corrupts. Too many intimate relationships with main lobbyists, main business leaders infect their understanding of reality. And this often leads to a worrying disconnect with the actual reality of voters. Many people don’t understand the carefully framed non-committal language career politicians excel at. And on top of that, too often, they end up putting more energy into holding on to a position than in really serving the people. And we the people, trust their experience and studied smile and vote for them as long as they don’t rip us off too badly.
Could we have yearly tests to fact-check how in touch politicians really are? Could we bring them in a general way more in touch with normal people and way less in touch with trained lobbies? If a politician doesn’t dare to mingle with the common folk, we must assume he’s not working for, let alone listening to, them.
#7 Shopping List Voting Corrupts Candidates.
Too many candidates lose track of the needs of the whole system. When candidates play to what wins more votes, the people forget what’s most healthy for the whole. We think it is normal when certain candidates seem to please big chunks of the population to gather a majority behind them. Yet in the pleasing, they avoid addressing real issues, for fear of losing votes. No wonder issues like climate change and the efforts we should put into it are lower on the list than tax reduction. Even worse, they start to play our emotions (“Fear Illegal Immigrants!”) or bribing us with tax reduction promises, to frame you into thinking they are your best answer.
Why do candidates totally focus on our fears and longings? Whether they choose to play us emotionally or adapt themselves to please us, ‘being real about real issues’ (even when they use such phrases) gets thrown under the bus. How can we all make long-term fundamental issues go over shallow anxieties?
#8 Risk of Winner Takes All.
From Mussolini forward, we have seen dictators rise through democratic means. Often in countries new to ‘democracy’ we often see a winner takes all culture. Power-seeking winners often change the rules once they’ve taken the seat. In most recent years we all saw Putin, Erdogan, and many others expand their powers. Moreover many also intimidated opponents, sidetracked them, had critics imprisoned, tortured, or disappear. Democracy isn’t asshole-proof.
What system can protect itself against men using the rules against the system itself? What system can help people to protect them against their urge to vote a ‘strong leader’ in when the pressure is high?
(2019 edit) And then money in politics is a whole evil on its own, especially in the USA. It makes evil legal. And Socrates' arguments too, which leads to voter fallacies.
“When a Politician uses Spin Doctors, he says to you, the voter: “I will manipulate the truth to get you to vote for me.” In short, I don’t really serve you nor the truth.
III. Democracy thrives on Voter Fallacies
#9 Democracy is a Poor Man’s Religion.
Every 2,4,6 years you may pray to some flawed ‘Gods’ (mostly men as capricious as the Greek Gods, far removed from anything really divine). These little gods all claim to hear your prayers and promise that if you vote for them, your prayers will be answered. Well, it’s the easiest praying in the world, just color a box or press a button. And mostly after praying you to go home and complain when your flawed God doesn’t deliver. Meanwhile, you forget you are as much a God as the one you voted for and have all the same powers. Yet, as long as you hope your prayers might be answered, you don’t act yourself.
Why do we select a few, in the hope they will deliver, what we could help make happen ourselves? Why don’t we open our eyes to the fact that voting is like praying with hopes someone else will grant our wishes? How can we stay involved after voting, and act ourselves, when the government fails us, or candidates turn out to mostly have made false promises? How can we take more control over our own lives? For now implementing direct democracy in some neighborhoods over budgeting seems like a hopeful experiment.
#10 People Confuse Power and Status With Trustworthiness.
To assume that men who are great at taking care of themselves will also take care of you when they promise so is a stupid & dangerous misconception. Our biology or social conditioning admires success and power and voting for men having lots of it is a dangerous trap. In reality, such men, like Berlusconi and Trump, mostly use their victory to take even better care of themselves.
Why do we even consider self-serving leaders as a promising choice? We all know people who give a lot, who support others through care where they can. Might it be such people would actually also be better for the people as a whole? Might it be we should be able to forward candidates as the people and not let parties do that for us?
#11 Voting According To Self-interest Isn’t in Your Best Interest.
During campaigning, people compare parties to how much of their personal shopping list might be granted by them. Yet voting for lower taxes or for somebody pleasing your part of the population, might not be what you really need. Currently, both false and true promises ignore the decaying of our eco-systems, let alone building stronger bigger dykes just in case of bigger storms. Our bodies rather react much more to (perceived) clear and present dangers than to seemingly abstract threats. And unscrupulous politicians play those triggers rather than help you face reality. Or as Socrates argued, voters tend to vote for sweets, when they really need a doctor’s medicine. And to know real value between these two you need educated voters. Brexit is a nasty example of a message sold to voters British pride, yet too few of them could oversee consequences. And now they pay the price.
How do you know that the people warning you about a danger they’ll protect you from aren’t the danger themselves? How do you know your self-interest is best served by those whose promises come closest to your wishes? Why do we keep on voting for our shopping list? Why do we forget the health of the whole system as soon as someone promises to grant you some personal wishes?
#12 Democracy is a Restrictive Box.
When pre-selected candidates play to your emotions, show off their strength, neglect issues that might harm their number of votes; when candidates debate but never really listen, never accept great points of other parties, and avoid essential issues if they would cost votes, then democracy is an outdated model. Yet the whole establishment running the shows protects it, as if it’s the foundation of civilisation not to be discussed. And this lack of real innovation and discussion, with so many points easy to list, as I do here, is killing the ideal of democracy.
Where is public investigation testing the quality of (y)our current democracy? Who wonders loud enough who dares to question the fairness and quality of their own form of government? And what would help open the box to better and more ideas for a better form of government, at the least democracy 2.0? How to make people wonder beyond the restrictive fallacy of “It’s the best we have.”?
#edit: more bad news: Noam Chomsky adds the damage Neo-liberalism does to democracy. And here he explains how the whole frame about it, has been manipulated from the start. Also saying: think for yourself as an autonomous authentic human being, think outside the box, matrix if you like. No wonder all debates within the box ‘democracy is good’ somehow never are fulfilling. Here a clear TEDx talk by Larry Lessig, makes it very clear that US democracy doesn’t represent the people anymore.
IV. Four more Modern Cases of Abuse
#13 Globalisation
With global corporations having spending power bigger than many countries, new problems arise. Many countries seem (forced?) to give advantages to global corporations over any local enterprise. Starbucks doesn’t pay taxes in the Netherlands, while it doesn’t offer more, let alone better-paid jobs, than local joints, in the same locations they now occupy. Strange. Their use of private prison workers and Monsanto GMO coffees doesn’t really sound attractive to give them such an advantage. So what happened behind closed doors? What more decisions do governments take that don’t show up in the public eye because they have unethical aspects? These big corporations with better access to government officials get huge advantages this way. Advantages in which they’ll use all the weaknesses listed above and below to their own benefits. Because profits way too often outmatch ethics.
How essential is a thriving economy, and bending over to corporate interests, compared to real freedom, local entrepreneurship, and access of normal people to their government? How to regulate the misuse of corporate power? What fallacies make us believe we shouldn’t disrupt their businesses? And what would really happen if we did?
#14 Modern Marketing/Propaganda
Parties want to win, thus they hire marketers to sell their message. Marketing makes them seem less interested in what you want, as in selling you what they want. “Give us the power and we’ll give you…” And even when they listen, or shape their program points based upon a public inquiry, the intention becomes: what will help us get more power in government, not in really caring. Learn this, when a politician has a spin-doctor, he’s actually saying: “I am willing to mold my words and reframe reality any which way to win your vote.” And all too soon smart framing can become lies and no one knows what to believe anymore (see video;) ) When the truth is manipulated, more and more people will take decisions based on false information, which, then when real issues appear, like environmental breakdown, or a massive increase in cancer due to our industries (which no one likes to talk about) they can’t be solved, because the truth, let alone alternatives viewpoints, aren’t available (enough). :(
Informing the public with what they need to know, or what certain parties are all about is essential. Yet how can we reduce the power of players manipulating what you hear, reducing air times of opponents, and playing potential voters on subconscious levels in order to win, quite possibly at your cost? And why don’t we all see that professionals selling parties and politicians corrupt the playing field in order to get results?
#15 Corruption
As we saw with career politicians, being too approachable to upper-class lobbyists, often former colleagues make them open for bribes. Such financial bribes are forbidden in many countries. In such cases, things like sweet functions in big corporations are offered as a follow-up for after their political careers. Which offers these corporations even more easy access due to these political experts, who no doubt have also many friends left in politics. Often enough, also opportunists sliding their way into upcoming parties, with too few legitimate qualified candidates, have a habit to see a political role as a means to personal profiteering. And that’s not even mentioning legalized bribing as is the custom in the USA.
Countries like the USA and the UK have become oligarchies. Many of the mentioned points mixed up become a hot pressure cooker benefitting the rich elites. Career politicians + wealthy lobbies + corruption + poor man’s religion + success = trustworthiness fallacy + huge marketing advantages for the richer parties + etc. means the system is broken. And the more arrogant the ‘winners’ get, the more entitled they feel, or more brazen they’ll play the system to take the last step: blatant rigging.
Where to begin with this? Can we get money out of politics? Can we make consequences for lying politicians much higher, let alone scrutiny much fiercer when corruption seems to be at hand? How to keep the system protected against people out to misuse, corrupt either the system and or people within it?
#16 Rigging
Yes, all other points aren’t even including conscious cheating. Many countries have trouble keeping really honest elections. Votes may get lost, certain voters banned (blacklisting, closing polling stations), we know the drill. You can forbid exit polls thus hide irregularities. The USA adds Gerrymandering and superdelegates as tricks on top of that, let alone meddling in own or other countries, with modern technology. Not even mentioning all other aspects making it hard for the poor to go out and vote. Tech, from photoshopping to big data abuse, seems to have made meddling way easier. It started with electric voting machines that can’t be controlled. Now we find marketing that is pure manipulation, using people's private information on Facebook to influence them in subtle and not so subtle ways. Cambridge Analytica is just the first or the first that got caught in the act.
How to prevent all democracies stay away from this, or end these crimes when they happen? How to bring more awareness to how essential honest elections are for democracy, even compared to ‘winning’? How to activate everyone involved to fight and expose anyone rigging?
And the smarter the tech gets, the worse democracies will become. Already organizations have been targeting audiences just to sway voters through all kinds of modern tricks, most people, and laws, aren’t prepared for.
And then Modern Technology..
And then we haven’t even discussed how modern media makes matters worse, because of user tendencies. Shouting and anger give more effect, more followers, thus more people play angry, or get really angry. As a result they split society for their own follower count.
The Challenge to move beyond Democracy.
With the Netherlands 10th on the Democracy Index (lots of disguised lobby corruption, outside influencers and settled politicians preventing innovation) and the USA still 21st, even including Gerrymandering, Blacklisting, Voting Computer ‘Malfunctions’, ‘lost’ votes, and rigged marketing by Cambridge Analytics (read the Billionaire Mercer) and other parties, things look bleak.
So here we are in a system where possibly corrupted candidates may lie to play the frames of people to gain votes, after which the loyal voters can go back to sleep and those who ‘won’ can do as they like, within restrictions put onto them,… if there are any. Let’s investigate the beyond, after we played this little essential game, to help you long for what might come next. :) We seem to have come to the end days of democracy. It seems to get played more and more by an elite. It’s has become a truly barbaric farce. Too many people become too apathetic to vote because they don’t believe it matters anymore. And voting alone is not enough to repair the flaws in the system. We need something new entirely.
EXTRA: Here is a link to David Von Reybrouck in the Guardian offering an overlapping or similar tale. And we leave with the question: Is the USA still a democracy or an Oligarchy (as the university of Princeton claims) or Plutocracy? Check these forms of government you feel which your country is closest to. And if you want to dig deeper into this struggle of people vs elite, go here.
2. “Sick Democracy”, the Game.
This game makes the players experience how democracy corrupts itself through a fundamental flaw at the heart of it.
Invite any group of players to play, as long it’s more than two. Put in the middle of the table a pile of (game)money. Each turn a player may make a proposal to divide a pre-established part of the money; all depending on the currency you play with. It could be anything from five ‘nuts’ to $1000 per person. ;) Players may never repeat a proposal that has been played before.
In my turn, I may propose something like: “Anyone with blue jeans on, gains 100.” This proposal is framed to have me in the majority because I noticed most players wear blue jeans. Thus the more you are part of the majority, the more you win. After some discussions about proposals you may edit a proposal, like add to the jeans proposal “And anyone with black jeans gets a 50.” when you feel this way you win the vote, or don’t anger losers towards revenge when it is their own turn. When you win the vote the game currency is divided according to the proposal. If not, nothing happens. Then the next player's turn begins.
When half the money pile in the middle is gone, also rule proposals may be made. “Everyone who has more than 1000 must give some money to those that have less.” if you want to show a ‘human’ face, but not challenge the system. Or go very sick: “From now on, only people with blue jeans may vote. Other players still may make proposals in their turn.”
You will understand that at some point, because of the democratic process, the game has become rigged. The dangers of prejudice against minorities are huge. Only humanity can keep the losing side in. For the winning players, it will become in their interest to keep the losing side playing, to win even more money in the long run. For this, some risks have to be taken, because open revolt would spoil the game for all, mostly the current winners. That too makes the game sick.
Purpose of the game: Winning the most money of the starting pile, while keeping all other players playing, preventing them walking out, or worse start a revolution.
NB: And you can understand that a group of people born and raised in the late game, may consider this late game as ‘the way things are’. And protestors can be seen as spoilsports, where perhaps some rules need to address that issue. Oh my.
So, What Comes After Democracy?
Around 2004 I already posed the same question. When a friend and I tried to offer a weekend about it at a school for Philosophy, most people wondering about this question kept asking us things like: “Are you proposing also a vote against?” “Have you thought about everyone getting 10 votes?” We told them: “No, not different voting! Something new altogether!” We got blank stares. The weekend didn’t happen. It felt to us, that the capacity to think beyond the box of democracy altogether was still very low at that time. I hope and fear, given all the current corruptions, we’ve moved on since then. Are we ready to re-invent the best way we govern ourselves as a people? Whether that is your town, country or the whole world I leave it up to you.
Asking this question led us to discover many alternative systems already being tried out in different settings, shapes, and states of development. Methods like Socratic Dialogue, Deep Democracy, Enlightened Conversations, Circle Meetings, Open Space Technology all enriched the way we could organise meetings and make decisions within organizations and communities. Below you’ll also find a lot of alternative models such as Sociocracy and Holocracy. For now I don’t want to state what new approach is best. I do hope you get involved and start asking questions where it matters.
Some Ideas To Get Started
One Very Bad Idea to Avoid: National Referenda
It seems a great step: referenda. Especially populist right and left-wing parties love calling for them. And what do they lead to? People being played on their emotions and anxieties. All the irregularities happening around Brexit tell us, that smart marketing and manipulation had more influence than consideration and fact-checking. So more referenda might mean more emotion, means easier being played, means misuse of citizens as voting fodder. Turning issues into simple ‘yes or no’ is often already a manipulative framing. Huge long-term decision-making needs national dialogue with a huge diversity of opinions, slowly developing into a shared sense of direction. Especially diversity of opinions and considerations are essential for mature decision making.
“The question is, how to make the powerful afraid of us?” ~ Chris Hedges, speaking to activists and those socially willing to make a difference locally.
Challenge it: Experiment, push for change.
Where and when you can, speak out against the eroding ‘normal’. Help make it not normal that those with a lot of (ambition for) power get to rule, decide over all those that prefer a gentler normal. Just consider how few people make the war in Syria worse and how many don’t want it or have been kept out of all considerations. Thus also where and when you can experiment with alternatives, try out things in your organisation, network, meetings, family.
Or as to be seen in this short clip, start over, or perhaps better go back to the roots. In this Mexican town, you will be chosen as representative, by others. You can’t put yourself forward, which as we have seen leads to trouble.
Challenge it: Right to Challenge.
This already is introduced and implemented in a few countries, like England and the Netherlands. If you think you can offer something better and cheaper than you government does, you may challenge them and they have, at the least, to research your suggestion. If it is accepted you may also be the one to execute it.
Better Democracy: More Participation
One friend replied to the question, “What comes after democracy?” with “More democracy”, meaning more participation, more involvement of all people. How to involve citizens more in all processes of democracy? How to make meetings between sides more part of the process? When the Parkland students (survivors of the school shooting in Florida) met a senator and an NRA spokeswoman in a town hall, the disconnect between these ‘professionals’ and ordinary people became very clear. They tried selling a fixed answer to people who wanted an open discussion. It’s a tragedy when civil servants don’t feel like servants of the public anymore. The answer to that disconnect is not to avoid such meetings, but to demand more of them!
Increased Participation: Citizen Movements
In the Netherlands, there are cities with citizen movements seeking to improve their own city. These movements engage in taking care of community gardens, discussing traffic issues, or seek to actively make improvements to their city. And city governments seek to learn how to facilitate such involvements rather than see them as a threat. Exactly what good governments should do, facilitate civilians' needs and wishes.
Better Democracy: More bridges to overcome disconnect.
People who protest aren’t enemies of the state. They are citizens who speak out about an issue they’d love to see action taken on. If a politician can’t face such people, then he may have a disconnect. Thus how to build more bridges between the professionals and worried citizens?
Decrease the Gaps: Wisdom Council.
The distance between professionals and ‘ordinary’ citizens can be closed when a Wisdom Council can advise and feedback political proposals. In the Wisdom, Council is chosen wise citizens of all ages, and of all minorities. On a global levels, there are some wisdom councils, like the grandmothers, but power doesn’t tend to take wisdom seriously, as it may interfere with their interests.
Decrease the Gaps: Burger Buddy.
In the Netherlands, we also had for a while Burger Buddies, normal citizen buddies for politicians, and high-ranking civil servants. I remember when the first buddy came back from her first appointment with a city hall employee, she was still confused as to what that employee was actually doing. One buddy became famous when he toured a minister through his Dutch Moroccan neighbourhood. It made her change her ideas of her politics.
Different institute: 200 in a 3-day conference.
Why not have a 3-day conference with 200 outstanding citizens chosen from a lottery, deciding among them who has the best leadership skills, highest moral values, and integrity, and give them either a leading role, or a controlling balancing role, most governments give out to older experienced politicians who are basically more of the same, but a bit more nuanced.
Different Thinking: Integrity and Gravitas
I sometimes ask people, “Who do you hold in the highest regard as leader in this world?” Among the most mentioned names are Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, Gandhi. Men we don’t see in modern politics. Why don’t we educate budding politicians to be like them, rather than these administrative compromisers avoiding any real point of view? Why not have a ‘Gravitas & Integrity Top 500’ every year, instead of the Fortune or Power Top 500?
Different Vision: Wonder, Imagine & Dream
This is just a start. From here on, dream louder, envision new possibilities, ask questions that offer clear improvements. Dare to dream of something better. Support those who take action for more honest politics and politicians. Because in the end, a government for and by the people, needs active people who will take the matters into their own hands to keep it that way. And each time smart professionals found tricks to use the system to their advantage, the people must be ready to protest or act against that.
Collaborative Anarchy.
Here’s an interview by Russell Brand with Ruth Kinna, a Professor of Political Philosophy about Anarchy. In the interview to add to the illusion of democracy, and offer a start towards an alternative: We the people can operate as a swarm. This can be the terrible anxious lynch mob, or.. it can be self governing masses, without any clear authority, like wildebeest or zebra hards. Modern technology for collaborative decision making like deep democracy, swarm leadership and tools like Loomio, offer more and more possibilities to make it real.
Learn, research: What more is possible?
10 alternatives are listed here. The article is slightly biased and not extensive, yet gives some ideas. This is another one, with fewer alternatives and closer to the old model, but a bit better researched. You can even check some wacky (according to the writer) alternatives. Or perhaps just skip the election. Or take a deeper look at holocracy https://gerardchiva.com/2017/03/12/holacracy-from-feudalism-to-fractalism/ If you want an outdated extensive list, then this Wikipedia page is a start, yet somehow it neglects anything that would upset the current status of democracy too much. The fact that not even Sociocracy or Holocracy are mentioned is weird until you read somewhere the CIA might re-edit a lot of stuff on Wikipedia.
And while we’re at it, let’s also renew Capitalism, see this post. Each idea will also have consequences for how we see or shape our governments. And with possible new technologies or even future disasters, we might end up in any of these places.
Link to Pillars of Destruction #1 Link to more articles like this one.
