One of the world’s most misunderstood terms is ‘liberal democracy’.
These are two contradictory concepts put together to achieve a healthy balance, kind of like constitutional monarchy.
The democracy part you already know. The liberal part means respecting individual and minority rights. Minority as in, any group that wants something different to that of the majority.
In a pure democracy, the majority can vote for anything at all. They or their representatives can seize property from the minority, ban unpopular religions or imprison rivals without charge.
A liberal democracy incorporates human rights to balance against the tyranny of the majority, most famously in America’s Bill of Rights. There, the majority cannot vote to silence people, seize their weapons or imprison them without a fair trial.
The Constitution can be changed but there’s a process and it’s tricky. Usually it’s only amended when there is very broad support. This is mirrored across the Western world and some other countries. Up until recently it worked pretty well. We had stable, wealthy, free societies.
What went wrong?
A few things. First, the increasing power of massive corporations, together with an alliance of all elites against the rest, mean that freedom of speech, movement and commerce can be infringed by private entities in ways that skip around Constitutional rights.
Another is that the courts, also being elites involved in the Cloud Alliance, can simply disregard the law when it suits their side – unfairly prosecuting here, failing to prosecute there, and so on.
A further factor is the breakdown of the old balance between liberalism and democracy.
Today, democracy is too strong. We see this most clearly in the UK and Australia where rights are not so firmly imbedded in law as in the US, instead traditionally upheld by Anglo-Saxon precedent. With the majority trembling before Covid, the worst virus ever to befall Mankind, people gave up their freedoms without a fight. The minority who still wanted to be allowed to leave the house or the country found that the ‘liberal’ part of liberal democracy had failed them.
Having said that, democracy is failing, too. Majorities can be contrived through aforementioned elite control of discourse or through direct manipulation.
I’m not opposed to liberal democracy. For a long time, it was the right system for us. However, it’s now dead and we need to find a replacement.
One should be cautious of barracking for one political system over all others. Each has its advantages and drawbacks; none has ever ushered in a paradise on Earth and none is likely to in the future. Each contends with the same impediment: us. If we were perfect, any system would be fine.
I’m not ready to advocate a particular alternative yet. What I will say is, the public are not yet ready to admit defeat so our successor political system should continue to be called liberal democracy even though it is not. As is the case with our current system.
Of the two, I value liberty over democracy. I haven’t voted for a decade. More than anything, I just want to be left alone. Anyone promising that will have my attention.
I used to think that democracy, while contrary to liberalism, quietly upheld it: we would vote out anyone who infringed upon our rights. Now I realize that is wrong. My countrymen will do no such thing so long as they are properly groomed for autocracy.
For these reasons, I think we should dispose of democracy. How? I have no idea. But the post-war era, while shining bright, eventually proved that democracy cannot protect our individual liberties. In fact, it cannot always procure majority desires. Did you ever vote for mass migration or endless foreign wars? Was there ever a way to vote against them?
I can’t think how to limit voting without upheaval and instability. Maybe it’s not that hard. Two years ago I would have assumed that suddenly stripping all rights away would cause riots but that didn’t happen. Maybe we just need a new pandemic to justify limiting the vote to a few, prominent citizens who can be trusted to do the right thing. For social distancing, you see.
But it depends on who gets to vote. Those working in the private sector paying significant tax rates – maybe okay. Our present media/corporate/academic elites – no.
Woke Capital supports war, money printing and population replacement more than anyone. In fact, it’s very hard to determine who is really in the ‘private sector’ in the modern, mixed economy of most Western countries. Do you count organs of the military-industrial complex? Silicon valley giants nurtured by intelligence agencies? Airlines bailed out every three years? Subsidized agricultural giants whose surplus is bought up by USAid and sent to impoverish African farmers? Banks profiting from .gov’s printed money? Subsidized energy producers, both fossil and renewable? Fat, cosseted pharmaceutical industries? News and social media outlets that do the government’s dirty work? A manufacturer in bed with the CCP?
It’s hard to think of a business bigger than a cafe or local mechanic that is truly private.
Getting rid of egalitarian elections does not solve the underlying problem of our hostile elites.
This could all go terribly wrong.
Edit: I’ve since discovered more about why our rights and votes suddenly become worthless. Look out for a future post on this topic.