The Greatest Illusion

Is democracy the very best we can do?

These days I am not at all sure that 'democracy' is the best we can do in terms of governance models - at least not in the way it's consistently deployed in the West. In one sense it seems to be on its deathbed.

What is democracy anyway? Why are we so keen to protect it - and from what? Better alternatives? There seem to be so many varying claims on that one word. Is 'demos' the will of the people dutifully carried out by a cadre of trusted agents of the public's choosing? I suspect that's a 'no' given that most representatives wouldn't have a clue what the 'will of the people' actually is. Also the people's 'will' probably differs markedly from that of the warmongers in London, Canberra, Brussels, Berlin and Washington.

Besides, people in high places never think to ask us. Or quite possibly they are justifiably petrified by what we would tell them. With over a million people turning out in London last week to protest the continuing genocide in Gaza, and with major Jewish celebrities publicly supporting Palestine, they probably know already what we would be saying.

But perhaps democracy is just the institutions of state that are charged to keep the peace and ensure our security. Given the number of times force is used by the state against its own citizens, and journalists are locked up for telling the truth, that also has to be a negative. Is it the media then, as they instruct us what to think and do? Oh, oh! Perhaps we shouldn’t even go there, given that journalism is already dead.

Is it a utopian mix of all three of these perhaps, even though they appear to be in tension? Again probably not given that democracy and politics seem to be incompatible if current experience is anything to go by.

Democracy is a simple concept. Understanding it does not require you to have a Ph.D. although there are several facets that skew our expectations, making its practice far more challenging than its base theory. The most crucial of these factors is that the system should embody the will of the people. But how can that happen if citizens are only asked about their policy preferences every few years, and even then not in very great detail? It's become more a case of 'take it or leave it'... so not at all in the spirit of democracy as intended.

Indeed, representative democracy, where citizens choose impressive envoys to make decisions on their behalf, seemed to work better in the days immediately following World War II when reflecting the needs of the community was a no-brainer. It was detected through extensive door-knocking, townhall meetings, and out on the hustings. Today, it's possible to simulate those situations through the use of social media and smart phone apps. But we don't, wary of the falsification of data that can turn an opinion inside out.

Most politicians would probably prefer not to know what 'we the people' want. After all their default operating mode is one of unabashed self-importance. In their own eyes they exemplify the 'creme de la creme' of society. Mind you, even the most dedicated and honourable representatives can't adequately mirror the diverse views of their constituents today due to things like gerrymandering, voting flaws, and lobbying.

Another angle supposes that democracy is upheld not primarily via elections but through the institutions that are established for the sole purpose of maintaining democratic cultures and constructs - functioning to ensure stability along with the efficient administration of the society. Institutions like the courts and legislative bodies, for example, play a vital role in upholding the rule of law, ensuring that laws are applied consistently and that individual rights are protected. Health care systems operate in a similar manner. Or at least, they should.

The separation of powers among different branches of government - executive, legislative, and judicial - is designed to prevent any one branch from exerting undue authority, thereby helping to calm conflicts and maintain public order. Yet, these institutions themselves are certainly not immune to challenges. They can become weakened or corrupted, leading to instability and the erosion of public trust. Furthermore, overly bureaucratic institutions struggle with adapting to contemporary societal mores, hindering any ability (and willingness on occasion) to respond effectively to change.

A third view emphasizes the role of the media in shaping public belief and discourse. The media is tasked with educating the public, providing information crucial for making informed decisions, understanding the ramifications of voting a certain way, and holding representatives accountable. Ideally, a diverse media landscape ensures multiple views are available to the public. Media integrity and objectivity is vital. But inbuilt bias - whether ideological or financial - routinely distorts information and influences public opinion in the most devious of ways. The concentration of media ownership, along with the rise of disinformation and fake news, undermines democratic processes by distorting facts -  artificially dividing public opinion.

In the modern context, a range of additional factors add even greater complications to the realisation of democratic ideals. The advent of digital technologies has transformed how citizens choose to engage with the political process, allowing for direct involvement and mobilization of movements. Yet, these platforms can also create echo chambers, where users are exposed primarily to information that brazenly reinforces their existing credo, resulting in increased political polarization and sporadic outpourings of public rage.

The mere presence of money in politics, and the power of lobbying, invariably impacts policy outcomes, typically favouring wealthy interests over the public good. Corporate influence, too, extends to media and political processes, further obfuscating today's political landscape.

Globalization presents different challenges. Transnational issues - including climate refugees, wars, global heating, deforestation, migration, industrial methods of food production, water conservation, dissolute regimes, and pandemics - all require cooperative approaches that strain traditional democratic processes focused on purely national interests. The tension between national sovereignty and the need for global governance mechanisms of some kind adds another layer of complication to democratic decision-making. And so it goes on...

For these and a myriad other reasons, democracy is not working properly anywhere in the world. We still defend it to the hilt however, and get really upset when someone suggests China is more democratic than the UK, for example. We're all trapped in illusions of freedom, and democracy - a delicate dance between the will of the people, the effectiveness and stability of its institutions, and the role of the media to inform and educate the voting public - might turn out to be the greatest illusion of all.

It's clear from the spate of political charades in the West this year, not least the highly publicised Party conventions that provide the run-up to the election for the US presidency, that the marketing of allegedly differing ideological positions is a subterfuge, a smart act sustained by the political classes to prevent deep change.

The role of the media in all of this is to instruct the public how to think and how to vote and they do that in a manner that would be praised by Edward Bernays if he was still alive. A range of distractions, from theatrical insurrections and court proceedings, to celebrity endorsements and high profile defections, are manufactured as part of the process of keeping the voting public both amused and bemused. In such a setting the accusation of international interference from Russia or China, or anywhere else for that matter, is a red herring - opaque in its sheer naivety.

All of this leads to more intriguing questions. Like this one, which I find particularly troubling. The empire's incumbent rulers are intent on keeping up the insane pressure on countries like China and Russia who are focusing on development rather than war. In so doing they are shaking off the dominance of a world order based purely on mercenary Western interests. To counter that shift, enormous amounts of funding are being ploughed into the Industrial-Military complex. Continuing support for Israel is vital. So is turning a blind eye to the CIA and its covert operations in foreign countries. Hiding the harm being done to our health by the Industrial-Pharmaceutical complex too is par for the course. It isn't a coincidence that Robert F. Kennedy Jnr. has joined the Trump camp to uncensor the state of medical science.

In 2016, the comfortable status quo between the Republican and Democrat parties was threatened by the election of Donald Trump. It caught everyone off guard. The establishment can't afford to let that happen again. If Trump wins the presidency on 5th November 2024 the waves will wash up against foreign shores. But mostly they will crash up against American power structures and the interests of the 'deep' state.

The courts have had a field day, yet Trump is still a free man. The young assassin missed his mark by a centimetre. Trump is still alive. The media is falling over itself to express its support for a vice-president who acts as though she's had a lobotomy or is high on mephedrone.

So my question is this. Given that democracy is clearly a sham, and that another power rules in the US, can that establishment allow Donald Trump to win in 2024? If not what will they orchestrate in order to deny him the presidency? Time is running out. They cannot wait too long.