Abstract
Who should wield the powers of government? Where do these powers come from? And how can we avoid derailments and abuses of power? Democracy is one of several possible answers to these three questions. If the powers are in the hands of an absolute monarch or an absolute ruler, we should not worry if he is benevolent and compassionate. But we have to fear that an absolute monarch or a dictator becomes over time corrupted by his powers. Psychological research has indeed shown that power increases confidence and reduces inhibition and empathy. Fear of derailments is particularly justified if the holder of power is surrounded by yes-men or by shady advisers who try to implement their own agenda. We therefore have to fear that an absolute ruler will not act for the well-being of his subjects but arbitrarily and exclusively for his own benefit or for the benefit of his noble class of people. We now classify natural selfishness as abuse of power because the subjects of a ruler are no longer the ruler’s personal property that he has the right to use and to exploit as he pleases. Subjects of a monarch are now individual citizens with rights that the ruler has to respect and that he manages on their behalf. To avoid abuses of power, parliaments that people elect, control the monarch and limit his powers. We call this a constitutional monarchy. Examples of constitutional monarchies are today the United Kingdom, Sweden and Japan where the monarchs have next to no power but ample funds for pomp. Government power and authority in a democracy do not come from God or from the virtue and wisdom of wise men at the helm but they come from the people. This raises the question how we can ensure that a mass of people exercises these powers more wisely than a compassionate monarch. Can people power be compassionate? The question how to avoid abuses and derailments actually arises for all forms of government. It is the ubiquitous conflict (Spannungsfeld) between freedom and authority. Any government needs authority to be efficient and people want freedom from authority. To solve this paradox is the main problem in all government systems. This is not easy. We can only judge by the results. ‘When the people are afraid of the government, that's tyranny. But when the government is afraid of the people, that's liberty’. This is the litmus test that Thomas Jefferson, the third American president, had proposed at the turn of the 18th to the and 19th centuries. People developed the call for democracy when enlightenment destroyed the claim of monarchs that God gave them enormous power and the right use these powers freely. People in past centuries were probably aware that monarchs had these powers and privileges but they took it as a natural or God-given phenomenon. Doubt about the godly source and justification of these powers led to the replacement of absolute monarchies with republics, in which the main and most important characteristic was the absence of a monarch. Once people had killed the monarch or had chased him away, all other features of republics were not clear. Democracies promoted different answers to the questions, who should exercise the people power and what the ultimate goals and values of a republic should be. Republics developed in different directions. Some republics emphasize human rights and civil liberties. Other republics, which call themselves Peoples’ Republics, made the socialist struggle against bourgeoisie the raison d'être of state and government. Other countries like Nepal or former East Germany refer to their system as democratic republics or people’s republic, which each sound like a tautology: two words with similar meanings. Yet other republics, which call themselves Islamic republics, see their main purpose in the service of Allah, of Muhammad and of the Quran. Synodality is the name for a style of governance in the Catholic church and in other religious organizations, in which people listen to one another in a spirit of participation, collaboration and shared responsibility. Conservative thinkers in the Catholic church oppose ‘synodality’ arguing that the church is not answerable to its people but only to a higher power that God exercises through his representative on earth. If current trends prevail, I predict that people with equal rights will elect the Pope in free and fair elections within probably one century if the Catholic church then still exists. At the beginning of the democratic evolution, only distinguished people like land owners and wealthy people were eligible to elect a government and there was at the beginning the opinion that the country was generally in good hands if privileged people who had with their wealth an important stake in society would govern the country. Government was management of assets – not management of people. Ordinary and common citizens were not eligible to participate in government because they had no significant assets. Women, black, poor people and Chinese had no rights anyway. Human rights movements then added the principle of equality. As a result of their efforts, women, blacks and other under-privileged citizens became eligible to go to the polls. This created in the 20th century – not even hundred years ago - the doctrine of universal suffrage, which made every citizen eligible to vote. Democracy with universal suffrage, combined with a guarantee of human rights became a political model that American democratic missionaries energetically propagate for implementation in the entire world. But the US try to promote democracy only to bring down or destabilize non-democratic governments in countries that compete with the US for dominance in the world. China is the prime target. Democracy has become the battle cry and a weapon of US foreign policy. The system of universal suffrage gave the mass of people the right to determine their government no matter whether voters are educated, mentally healthy or if they are committed to democracy and its underlying values. Universal suffrage allows even enemies of democracy to go to the polls. This is a feature that risks to auto-destroy existing democracies. In historical terms, the concept of universal suffrage is very recent. It is still in a testing phase and there are clear indicators that the test will end in failure. It is an overly brave assumption that a collective of people acts wisely in the interest of the common good. Such an assumption was possibly justified 100 years ago when people generally had a relatively healthy sense of responsibility and did not make selfish interests their highest priorities. People were 100 years ago probably as gullible as they are today but because the internet did not exist at that time, the masses did not easily become victims of mass messages with blatantly fake news and inflammatory content. Influencers and troll farms can now use mass psychology to direct the public opinion into any direction that they chose. Modern democracies have not yet built a defense against such dark maneuvers. Self-healing or self-organizing capacities in democracies are not strong enough to neutralize extremists on one side of the political spectrum with extremists on the other side. In addition, most democracies neglect civic education, which is essential for a democracy to function. Modern democracies in larger countries have developed gigantic administrations with overly complex laws, rules and procedures. All this overwhelms the majority of citizens. :People have practically no access to justice because it has become unaffordable and court proceedings take far too much time. Dissatisfaction prevails. In addition, high taxes drain the purses of average citizens while the masses of millionaires avoid paying taxes. As a result, the democratic system in the US and slowly also in other countries like Canada has become or is about to become dysfunctional. It seems that the experiment of democracy with universal suffrage has failed. People have lost trust in government institutions. They feel that institutions are corrupted by elites, corporations and foreign influencers. People have started to demand changes that will probably not be possible with democratic elections and with peaceful methods. Click here to edit your description