The Illusion Of Democracy

Democracy is the rule of the many over the few. We always hear that “it is the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people”. Yes, these people concede, the minority do not get their way but at least most people do and that is fair. As long as you agree with the majority you don’t have to suffer their decision. This could be likened to the popular description of democracy as two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. Is what the majority decides always the best decision – for all? On what basis do they take their decision? Are they so well-informed as to be able to take a balanced and weighed decision having taken every aspect into consideration? And is it really they, the majority, who take the decision?
If someone suddenly collapses in the street would the people gathered around take a vote to decide who should take care of the injured person? Would it not be more likely that the question would be raised “is anyone a doctor”? In other words, one would look for someone with qualifications, competence and skill who is trained to deal with an injured person. No need for a vote, common sense decides the course of action.1

It is a mystery to me that no one has applied to democracy the age-old maxim of divide et impera.

The democratic system divides the population into parties of ostensibly differing policies and ideologies. Let us say we have 5 major parties in a country. If the population would divide their votes equally between the five parties they would get 20% each with a voting participation of 100%. This way no party gets the upper hand. So let us give one party 30%, another 28%, 23%, yet another 15% and the last one 4%. The party with 30% of the votes wins and gets to rule. But 30% is actually a minority not a majority, which means that our theory of most people getting their way is not true. The actual percent is of course lower because 100% electoral participation is a fantasy. This is why it is more important for the democratic politicians to convince the people to vote – no matter for whom, because the lower the number of voters participating in an election, the less justified are the politicians to claim the system is legitimate. If fewer and fewer people actually did surrender their power to the politicians claiming to be their representatives eventually the system would implode.

If we go deeper into the issue democracy is the manipulation of the masses – the mass mind – by a minority to further their own interests. But is this minority qualified to rule over the majority? Are they in possession of the qualities demanded to have the authority to wield the political power and take decisions that have consequences for everyone? Today it is unquestionable that the authority to rule is derived from economic wealth. Quantity of economic assets decide who becomes a ruler. What we in fact have is the rule of quantity over quality; quantity of money over quality of ideals. You can advocate for any ideology – no matter how degenerate and corrupt – if you have enough financial support, while advocating for the highest, most noble ideals is bound to fail without any money to support it in the political arena. A most fitting example is the recent creation of a political party advocating paedophilia in Holland. Without financial support and powerful connections this idea could never get any media coverage.

Now, the more parties in a democratic system of government the more division in the country and hence the smaller minority that rules over an ever larger majority who didn’t vote for the ruling party. Most people would want to believe that the more political parties there are available, the greater the “freedom of choice” – the more political parties, the more political opinions you’re allowed to have, seems to be the logic – only the people would not want to put it that negatively. Of course, supporting any political party outside the established ones is very suspicious and highly questionable – after all: the established political parties have been “authorized” by the political establishment itself.

Like I mentioned above, these days democracy is so hollow that politicians up for elections don’t even care if the people actually vote for them, as long they vote. It’s like the feeble-minded politically correct say: “it’s not the winning that’s important, it’s the taking part.” Personally, I don’t intend to take part in this hollow charade anymore. I’m not interested to be on the “winning” side.

Recommended reading:
Why I Do Not Vote by Butler Shaffer

The Illusion of Democracy by Rene Guenon

A Short Essay on Democracy by Henry Louis Mencken

Freedom and Democracy by John Hospers

  1. The Illusion of Democracy by Rene Guenon()
, by Kartavirya This entry was posted in Metapolitics. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback.

One Trackback

  • By Iluze „demokracie” « Hrdost on November 29, 2012 at 17:23 pm

    […] *** K tématu: C. Z. Cordeanu: Několik připomínek k demokracii ***  Překlad článku The Illusion Of Democracy publikovaném na webu Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like […]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


  • The whole drift of our law is toward the absolute prohibition of all ideas that diverge in the slightest form from the accepted platitudes, and behind that drift of law there is a far more potent force of growing custom, and under that custom there is a natural philosophy which erects conformity into the noblest of virtues and the free functioning of personality into a capital crime against society.

    - Henry Louis Mencken