The 2010's: The Decade Democracy Died?

[EmperorBatman999]

I am starting to come to the conclusion that this is becoming frighteningly true: Democracy is dying.

This has been an ongoing process, and the world wasn't really democratic (by this, I mean Liberal Representative Republicanism) in the first place, and that this is still an ongoing process that may take many more decades to finally complete. Yet today, in this decade, we are really starting to see the impact on democratic principles dying before our eyes.

This is a process coming from both the Left and the Right, which are becoming increasingly dated political terms as both sides tend to both be aligned with similar interests. It has become increasingly clear now that the people no longer form government, businesses and other elites do - at least, the facade of a popular government has vanished. Yet rather than this newfound awareness of this state of affairs liberating us and giving us a chance to get things back on our side, the population remains divided among themselves and they only bear a cynical apathy towards government. The people are effectively disempowered. The leakers, whom over the past several years have been revealing incriminating information about the actions of Western governments, have not roused mass outcry, but rather quiet shrugs as if this was expected to happen. Is civil society, the fabric meant to support and uphold democracy, collapsing into social tribalism?

Furthermore, Western countries have become plagued by election scandals that have again only received lukewarm responses. It is quite clear the American primary elections were rigged, something that would've warranted a UN investigation if it occurred anywhere outside North America or Europe, but just went by with more minor grumbles. In Austria, it is clear that the Van der Bellen-Hofer election was rigged against the right-wing candidate, and now the elites there are trying to delay re-vote. Across the board, in constitutional states, the rule of law has effectively been ended, with social and political elites getting free passes for fraudulent schemes that further undermine democracy, yet nobody cares.

It is clear too that civil rights and liberties are being curtailed, as we have seen, for the purpose of "safety and security." Even this valuing of safety has been used to trump free speech rights as now various special interests use their supposed right to safety to prevent others from criticizing them. This society appears to be one of incessant of bickering without any end or purpose.

Anyway, these are some thoughts, but I'm keen to discuss this matter more.

[Lugotorix]

I agree with all of your points, to the letter- the MSM is to blame for most of these problems, with a dim, partisan, all or nothing approach, that really benefits only the elites in the country. Propaganda simply wasn't as effective during Civil Rights and Vietnam, and the baby boomers are just consigned that third generation Americans are statistically doomed. Scientifically, without major innovation, things are going to get much worse for the common man, and in the next 100-1000 years, they'll be cut out of the loop. I'm of the opinion it will be horrific for the average American.

[Mayer]

The victory of anti-establishment movements like the Trump candidacy, demonstrates that democracy is still alive and kicking.

[empr guy]

It is quite clear the American primary elections were rigged, something that would've warranted a UN investigation if it occurred anywhere outside North America or Europe, but just went by with more minor grumbles.

I agree with a lot of your post but there's no evidence of rigging. If anything sanders was just as out of touch with the populace as any other candidate except trump, his message only appealed to the very young and mostly white. Trump also appeals to white people, but that's actually his intention, and he had ~9 other candidates splitting the not trump votes.

[Roma_Victrix]

If anything sanders was just as out of touch with the populace

And there's a consistent reason why he was "out of touch" with them, thanks to the media blackout about his campaign in the early stages during the latter half of 2015, aside from that SNL spoof that gave him some coverage. In fact, you could characterize the lack of coverage even going into the primaries as a "blackout", as suggested from a new study conducted by Harvard University:

Harvard Study Confirms Bernie Sanders Was Right: Media Blackout Badly Hurt Campaign

You'd be foolilsh to think this wasn't a deliberate and coordinated effort of the major media outlets. The message that Sanders had was unpopular with them, not so much the general populace (which more or less favors his social policies in regards to health care and education). But that's all ancient history. As we move forward it's going to be Hillary or Trump, no matter how much buzz Stein or Johnson might get (not very much, to be honest).

What is important, however, is the promulgation of free and independent media moving forward, now that the major media outlets have been seen to be compromised so thoroughly. As far as media on Youtube is concerned, even that is being stifled with their new ad revenue policies. If you so much as make a video that contains even a passing reference to a sensitive political topic (let's say you say the phrase "Syrian Civil War") then your video could be flagged and your ad revenue can be pulled. For all the Youtube radio outlet guys that is going to be devastating and that's perhaps precisely the point. Google Inc. wants Youtube to be more family friendly, as is obvious with this latest move, which I think in the end is going to cost them a bit as people just move elsewhere to watch these videos. Yet they'll still be making billions off the views of popular music videos and such.

[Sir Adrian]

Democracy is still alive and well in the eastern half of Europe - if you discount Hungary that is.

[empr guy]

And there's a consistent reason why he was "out of touch" with them, thanks to the media blackout about his campaign in the early stages during the latter half of 2015, aside from that SNL spoof that gave him some coverage. In fact, you could characterize the lack of coverage even going into the primaries as a "blackout", as suggested from a new study conducted by Harvard University:

Harvard Study Confirms Bernie Sanders Was Right: Media Blackout Badly Hurt Campaign

Name recognition and being out of touch are two different issues. Some people just can't get over the idea that people could actually not like the snake oil sanders was selling, but that's the truth. His message appealed mostly to a very young, very white demographic that historically doesn't come out to vote. Sanders also abandoned the south, implied their votes didn't matter, many people took that to mean that he didn't care about black people, and he did nothing to contradict that image.

And I say snake oil because there was no substance to his plans, just vote bernie and free college and racism is over. Yeah OK.

[jockmcplop]

The victory of anti-establishment movements like the Trump candidacy, demonstrates that democracy is still alive and kicking.

The victory of the Trump candidacy is perhaps evidence that democracy should be allowed to die.

[Heathen Hammer]

The victory of anti-establishment movements like the Trump candidacy, demonstrates that democracy is still alive and kicking.

But here's the thing.
In the past century, establishment easily controlled the democratic process by controlling the mainstream political parties and manufacturing public opinion through mass media. When your main source of information are TV and newspapers, you will still only know what establishment wants you to know and you can only chose from parties and candidates that were approved by the oligarchy. Situation started changing with the advancement of Internet, when MSM's lost their monopoly on forming public opinion. Blogs, youtube channels, image boards - they all gave anyone opportunity to spread his opinion or narrative, provided you are talented and interesting enough to attract attention. All of this is culminating today, when establishment spends billions on propping up one candidate and smear campaign against another one... and still loses to a grassroots movement of people posting images of a cartoon frog. We live in an interesting time.

[Mayer]

The flow of information fllushs away the old elites.

[Basil II the B.S]

Good post. Though I would argue it died in the 90s and we are just noticing it now.

[SLN445]

Hasn't this practically always been the case?

[Gallus]

This is a process coming from both the Left and the Right, which are becoming increasingly dated political terms as both sides tend to both be aligned with similar interests. It has become increasingly clear now that the people no longer form government, businesses and other elites do - at least, the facade of a popular government has vanished.

Very well said. The fact is, at least here, no matter who is elected, left, right, center, it doesn't matter. Oh sure, parties from all sides are full of big words before the elections, but once they are elected? Nothing changes. Even when new parties are formed, with "new faces", everything stays the same. "New faces" have won twice in a row here in Slovenia, but the policies are still the same as in 2008. People clearly want a change, but if not even new parties can give it to us, what can we do?

So let's get a step further - Did democracy really die in the last decade, or has it always been an illusion? We pick the people who lead us, but can we really pick how they lead us?

[bigdaddy1204]

I am starting to come to the conclusion that this is becoming frighteningly true: Democracy is dying...It has become increasingly clear now that the people no longer form government, businesses and other elites do ...The people are effectively disempowered. The leakers, whom over the past several years have been revealing incriminating information about the actions of Western governments, have not roused mass outcry, but rather quiet shrugs as if this was expected to happen. Is civil society, the fabric meant to support and uphold democracy, collapsing into social tribalism?

... the rule of law has effectively been ended, with social and political elites getting free passes for fraudulent schemes that further undermine democracy, yet nobody cares.

It is clear too that civil rights and liberties are being curtailed, as we have seen, for the purpose of "safety and security." ....

Interesting post, thanks for sharing. I agree with a lot of these points; but they also raise some interesting questions.

The more I look at the situation, I see that politics is a bad joke. Democracy is a bad joke. Politicians constantly lie, and say stupid things. They speak utter nonsense because they think it will appeal to the general public. Meanwhile, the great majority of voters don't know anything about the issues at stake and don't understand even the most basic information about the world around them. They are not equipped to make a decision; look at the UK Brexit vote for example. The most searched term on Google in the days after the result was "What is the EU?". This suggests that most people did not even know what they were voting for, let alone an intelligent view of the issues.

Democracy turns out to mean idiocy. Ask voters if they want better healtchare, they'll say "yes". Ask voters if they want to raise taxes to pay for the improvements, they'll say "no". So you end up with a situation where spending is going up, while taxes are being cut. It's madness. So the government goes further and further into debt.

You can see it with issues like terrorism as well. The response of world leaders to the threat of terrorism has largely been a complete, utter resounding failure. In this, the media has a major part of the blame. By constantly whipping up media hysteria and frenzied sensationalism in the news, the public has been given a grossly distorted view of the world. What I mean is that the chances in most western countries of being killed by a terrorist attack are vanishingly small, yet from all the media coverage people's perception is that terrorism is one of the biggest problems of the day. This is clearly nonsense - even a brief look at the statistics tells you that you are far more likely to be killed in a road accident, or to die from heart disease, obesity and other health-related issues. Why don't we pour billions of dollars into improving road safety, educating the public about healthy eating, and other measures that would save far more lives? Because politics is swayed far more by primitive emotions than by hard data, facts and common sense.

Unfortunately, I've come to the view that the only real hope of improvement is for a drastic change in the way the media operates. The hard truth is that the solution as I see it can't be achieved by the existing framework of media and politics. I believe that some of these issues can be fixed, but there is absolutely zero prospect of that happening so long as the current situation continues. The only solution I can see would be for a period of authoritarian rule, in which I would be given absolute dictatorial powers and complete control over all aspects of government with unlimited powers.

Under these circumstances, I could then address the dire state of the media, correcting all of the wrongs that I see in the way the media misleads and misinforms people. I would sweep all of that away and replace it with media of a far higher quality standard, that would finally start educating people about the right information and the right values.

I would then go ahead and completely alter the west's relations with the Middle East. I would finally shut down the Wahhabist forms of Islam, and impose tough controls on religion to make sure the correct version is being taught. All those who advocate war will be banned; those who encourage peace will be given my full support. Perhaps after my reforms have been implemented and allowed sufficient time to take root, then a carefully managed form of democracy could be resurrected, with appropriate safeguards to make sure it does not go off the rails.

Of course, some of the above was said half-jokingly, but there is a serious point behind it - I am thoroughly disheartened with the media and politicians and I just don't believe that they will do what is right. Hence the desire to take things into my own hands and ensure that right is done.

[Gallus]

The only solution I can see would be for a period of authoritarian rule, in which I would be given absolute dictatorial powers and complete control over all aspects of government with unlimited powers.

Under these circumstances, I could then address the dire state of the media, correcting all of the wrongs that I see in the way the media misleads and misinforms people. I would sweep all of that away and replace it with media of a far higher quality standard, that would finally start educating people about the right information and the right values.

I would then go ahead and completely alter the west's relations with the Middle East. I would finally shut down the Wahhabist forms of Islam, and impose tough controls on religion to make sure the correct version is being taught. All those who advocate war will be banned; those who encourage peace will be given my full support. Perhaps after my reforms have been implemented and allowed sufficient time to take root, then a carefully managed form of democracy could be resurrected, with appropriate safeguards to make sure it does not go off the rails.

Of course, some of the above was said half-jokingly, but there is a serious point behind it - I am thoroughly disheartened with the media and politicians and I just don't believe that they will do what is right. Hence the desire to take things into my own hands and ensure that right is done.

You know this is exactly how I feel as well. I know what needs to be done, I just need a couple of years of absolute power not only over my country, but over the whole world. After a decade of my enlightened rule the people will see the right way, and democracy can be given another shot. If it doesn't work out I will, naturally, take over again.

[Cyclops]

Not sure we have thoroughgoing democracy or ever had. There are established elites in most systems, where they aren't established they are usually handing out AK47s so they can get established. The elites give the people someone to vote for and blame, and change these representatives like we change our babies nappies, but people don't actually get to worried about "justice", they care about money.

Bill Clinton flipped on NAFTA, who cares? Happy days and a burgeoning stock market, so what if he bangs a few interns? Bush II lets in the terrorists (let that sink in) and passes the "I will spy on you and no on has rights anymore" act and gets re-elected. He crashes the economy "GTFO loser! We would actually vote for a black guy instead of the Republicans now!".

When there is a strong alternative elite with an alternative ideology vying for power then some crumbs fall from the table of the elite to the masses. When there's no alternative then less crumbs fall.

At the moment the only strong ideology that disagrees with capitalism is Islam. Some local tyrants ride Islam to power in their backward states and they make easy bogeymen. They pose less of a threat to our way of life than the communists, so the elites make a little effort to demonise them (and frankly evil like the Saudis do the rest) but we don't get many crumbs because swathes of westerners are not about to convert.

The Soviets had an ideology lots of westerners liked, it assumed ordinary people are all angels and who doesn't want to believe that? Educated people were stealing secrets and giving them to the communists (not realising they weren't real communists at all) not for money but for belief. Better hand out more crumbs and keep the plebs loyal.

TLR We get "democracy" or at least some money when there is a credible alternative ideology. We don't get it when there's an enemy (credible or not) we get more tyranny. Neckbeards need to come up with a 4chan manifesto and not just "rules of the internet".

[bigdaddy1204]

At the moment the only strong ideology that disagrees with capitalism is Islam.

Interesting.

Islam is broad spectrum, such that it is arguably meaningless without a qualifying word, such as Wahhabi or Sufi to denote what kind of Islam you mean. In relation to capitalism, many aspects of Islam are left-wing, which makes your comparison interesting because of course Communism was also based (at first) on left-wing ideals.

Democracy is in a poor state in many countries due to the lack of strong opposition. This is very true. I don't think Islam is being presented as a viable alternative ideology in any western country, though, mainly because it is poorly understood there and the number of adherents is 5% or less of the population. Plus, Islam doesn't really work as a political philosophy, because there is so much disagreement about what it actually involves. Even in those states where Islam has been a political force (e.g. Turkey, Iran), it tends to be used more as a cheap trick by crooked politicians to secure power for themselves by exploiting the emotions of the electorate, rather than a genuine political programme.

Even in Iran, where policies were given an explicitly Islamic justification, the problem is they were being implemented by extremist leaders who were not balanced. Khomeini's actions were clearly not all smiles and sunshine; his support of the US embassy siege was needlessly antagonistic and his statements were way over the top, while his orders for political murder were blatantly evil and his doctrine of valiyat e fiqh was a religious innovation that was not widely accepted by other Shia clerics, let alone by others.

Communism/socialism and Islam are similar in the sense that they stress international solidarity without reference to country or race but instead by allegiance to shared values; and in the sense that they focus on a more equal distribution of wealth versus pure Capitalism, which (in theory, and sometimes in practice too) allows unlimited wealth to fall into the hands of a small minority while everyone else has nothing. For example, in Iran in the years up to 1979, Islamic clerics criticised the Shah for wasting so much wealth on celebrations when there were villages without clean drinking water nor electricity.

I don't think Islam works as a political philosophy, as you can't legislate people's personal decisions. It kind of goes against the whole point, which is to make choices to better yourself. If that's enshrined in law, then there is no choice. Plus, what gives one person the right to decide how it should be interpreted and applied? The interpretations of the meaning of it vary so widely and so drastically that it's just not practical. Plus, as a political ideology it would only work if people behaved like angels, but reality shows us that they don't, they can't, and they won't. Which means it will never work. It's best left as a private matter for individuals, rather than a state doctrine. Which is why I would support Attaturk's measures on this subject - religion stays in the home, and has no place in politics.

That's not to say though that it can't provide a good inspiration for humane, progressive, modern politics. But it should do so indirectly, by boosting the politician's desire to do good, rather than by overtly becoming part of the political agenda. Such a display is, in my opinion, vulgar.

[Gallus]

In relation to capitalism, many aspects of Islam are left-wing, which makes your comparison interesting because of course Communism was also based (at first) on left-wing ideals.

Every religion was initially left-wing, even christianity. What the church turned it into later is a different matter of course.

[bigdaddy1204]

Every religion was initially left-wing, even christianity. What the church turned it into later is a different matter of course.

Yes, completely agree.

I think human corruption is unfortunately something that means religion and politics don't mix well. As for what ideology could possibly rescue democracy from its current situation, I think it depends on the country. In the USA, it's no secret that money completely dominates politics, and that only the very richest have a chance. It's also clear that big businesses have the politicians completely in their pocket. The result isn't a true democracy; it's an oligarchy, where policy is designed by the rich for the rich. The interests of the majority, meanwhile, are actively undermined. Essentially the majority are thrown under a bus so that a few can prosper. The solution is easy; rules need to be introduced that harshly cut the amount of money that candidates are allowed to spend on election campaigning, and the same limit must apply to all. That would level the playing field and give a broader spectrum of people a chance.

As for elsewhere, the lack of any opposition is a problem that seems to come from the natural cycle of growth and decay that inevitably takes place within any human institution. In some cases though the results are truly disastrous - look at Turkey to see how Erdogan has effectively dismantled the rule of law and replaced it with a tinpot dictatorship. It's deeply sad. Unfortunately though, I'm not sure there's any solution. The people were stupid enough to vote for him, despite his overt statements that he will not respect democracy. In such a situation, those who voted for him deserve every catastrophe they get. Again unfortunately though, it is the just under half the population who are deeply against him that will suffer the most, making the whole situation monstrously unfair.

[Cyclops]

Every religion was initially left-wing, even christianity. What the church turned it into later is a different matter of course.

Wat.

While early Christians practiced community of goods ("Christian Communism") the poor Saints in Jerusalem relied on dominations from wealthy converts abroad: Christian Communism wasn't really a left wing economic movement, rather a holding pattern as they awaited the return of the King (hardly a left wing concept). The natural hierarchy of Christian thought "we await the Kingdom of God" leads very naturally to a hierarchy of overseers (bishops), priests, deacons etc. so while there are strong social justice themes in Christian thought, there is also a very right wing power structure inherent in its principle concepts.

I can think of a number of religions that start pretty far right wing in the earliest form we encounter in historical sources. Tengrism as practiced by Genghis Khan was as far right as...well...Genghis Khan.

Taoism as in Chinese folk religion acknowledges there is an Emperor in heaven (as on earth) and says nothing about owning the means of production: the Tao Te Ching (which seen as the foundation text for Taoism) in fact expounds some pretty raw Legalist concepts (an extremely harsh right wing political doctrine from the warring states period) in the second half, stuff about keeping peasants ignorant and well fed so they are obedient. If we set that aside (as I believe it is not Taoist thought but a proto-legalist interpolation) then we can assume like Buddhism Taoism starts as a private belief system with little or no public political agenda. When one appears, its imperial-friendly.

The original teachings of Buddha are about non-attachment AFAIK (although there is an extremely dense overlay of religious thought piled on top by many later traditions) and is essentially atheist or at least agnostic, nihilist to the point of anarchist but not left wing in that it has practically no public political agenda. When Buddhism does manifest a public political agenda it is in support of monarchs like Asoka and the Son of Heaven.

Islam begins as God speaking to his messenger (Mahmud, Hud and others). This is strictly a monarchy like Christianity, Big Daddy in the sky issuing orders to be followed. Like Christianity Islam is a religion of love for brothers which has social justice elements but is in no way antithetical to private wealth, owning other people etc. Not Left Wing ever, and its administration owes a lot to the Roman Empire whose founding religion and later conversion to Christianity did not embody left wing ideology either.