Democracy to me seems to be a flawed institution that has no real-world advantages over any other form of government. Democracy is a sufficient yet crude implementation of a utopian vision that can never become a reality.
May it be matters of corruption, progress or liberty. Democracy does not have any meaningful real-world advantages over other forms of government. The only thing Democracy ensures is near immunity from systems collapse in a state because in a Democracy, the government is liable to changes and hence is seen as responsible but never is the system itself seen as the problem, as it has the potential to rework itself and be rid of these problems, but that only happens in a perfect world, not in our dynamic, ever changing world.
Systems collapse is seen as a bad thing but it ushers in the progress of mankind. It is a tool to destroy the overcomplicated institutions, which no longer properly serve their purpose and have outlived their usage but have become so relied upon that removing it without stumbling is impossible. Still, systems collapse, even though brings a few minor setbacks, is for the greater good of mankind and in a way is also inevitable. Isn’t Democracy then, by fighting system collapse, only delaying the inevitable and chipping away at society slowly and in a way, giving it a slow and painful death. Even the universe itself is said to run in cycles, of creation and destruction, then why should we try to fight it. A great example would be the Bronze age collapse. The institutions at the time had served their purpose for long and had expired past their usefulness, in no way could the society go any further without imploding in on itself. The top-down institutions had worked until then but could not continue any longer in the way they were but removing them would also have caused collapse as the society had come to depend on them so much. As was the case with the fall of Rome, or even the fall of Feudalism and other conservative institutions during the nineteenth century.
Perhaps then, should we ask the question if modern Democracy has outlived its usage and should we start considering other means to push the boundaries of humanity and to bring in further progress which may again become obsolete in time. Humans have made inconsiderate decisions in the past, so are we to trust all humans to be just and thoughtful of not only themselves but of the common good and the generations to come, on taking a quick look at history, I believe the answer to the question would be no. So now we have to introduce a new concept into the equation and that is the “tragedy of the commons” which in a very oversimplified way means to act in a selfish way and act against everyone so that nobody else acts against you. It is a literal embodiment of the mentality,” If I don’t do it somebody else will”, but the system can only run perfectly if everyone mutually cooperates. I don’t believe modern democracies are equipped to fight the tragedy of the commons as can be seen in the wealth disparity and sustainability of many nations today.
Democracy is an old idea, it may have seemed good during a world in constant repression but the sad reality is, the true idea of Democracy can never be realized because it is too perfect of an idea for a not so perfect world. This incompatibility is what causes the downfall of Democracy. People like Hitler also came to power by democratic means which goes to show the absurdity of the system and how people can benefit through it at the cost of others. As a conclusion I would say that Democracy is somewhat like the Middle-Income trap of political ideologies, it does have advantages in some situations but it also limits our progress as a society and community.
The author's views are personal only.
