The Death of Democracy

Democracy means different things to different people. The definitions range from a system of government in which the State is responsible for providing every necessity of life, and even many of the conveniences of life, to one in which the citizens are exhorted once every four or five years to vote for a Party that makes promises that everyone knows they have no intention or prospect of keeping. The ancient idea of democracy – that it is government of the people by the people – does not seem to exist and, in fact, probably never did exist. In those ancient democracies, the people who participated in the system were those who had the most to gain or lose from the decisions made by the politicians who acted on their behalf.

In modern times, democracies seem to have evolved into a system of government under which professional politicians are voted into high-paying positions, in which they exercise the power of those positions to gain wealth for themselves with little or no ultimate responsibility to the people who voted to put them there. In most cases, they have earned nomination for those positions not by service to the people, but by service to the Party, which chooses those candidates on the basis of their perceived loyalty to the Party lie, rather than on their capability of making a meaningful contribution to the welfare of the people. In some cases, that nomination is bought by cash contributions, present or promised, or by the offer to make lucrative opportunities available. Generally, the support of the public is gained by extensive marketing, either paid, in the media or by ‘street parties’, or by means of promotion by door to door canvassing. It is seldom that a candidate is elected as a result of realistic, well-considered policy proposals – consider the campaigns by Barack Obama, who stated almost solely ‘Yes we can’, and Donald Trump, who promised to ‘Make America Great’. Neither of these campaigns offered a considered argument or a sound way of honoring the promise, but were based on a denial of the value of the previous incumbent’s achievements. In the case of Obama, the administration was marked largely by ‘more of the same’, with a hesitation to offer any bold moves for consideration by the people, and in the case of Trump, the administration has been marked by a series of lies and obfuscations, bombast and threats, and ill-considered and potentially deadly dangerous decisions, without any consideration being given to a range of expert opinions. In the case of South Africa, the election of Jacob Zuma was based on his selection by a small group of Branch delegates, most of whom had, and have, no understanding of the basic issues involved in the effective management of an economy but who understood well the politics of buying favor with key people by promising lucrative posts or contracts, to be delivered once he was in power.

The examples are legion, and one fact becomes abundantly clear to a dispassionate observer. In all but one of the modern democracies, there is no meaningful participation by the people in the processes of government, or in any important question faced by government, beyond the four or five-yearly election, in which the issues are seldom meaningfully canvassed, and the manifestos of the Parties are carefully blurred, with the intention of accounting for the performance by the winner only in respect of promises and policies which, in most cases by chance, the Party making the promise has at least partially performed, and the elected representatives of the people are selected by the powerful few in the Party on the basis of their capability and desire to toe the Party line. Only in Switzerland can one see a meaningful participation in the activities of the government by the people who put them there.

Why is this so? Why has democracy strayed so far from the original intent?

The first reason is that democracy offers a concentration of power to those who are willing to sell their souls in the gaining of wealth. It is very seldom that one can point to a politician who truly believes that he or she is there for the good of the people. Few politicians leave office with less wealth than they had on taking office. Ian Smith, the Prime Minister of Rhodesia, entered office with, reputedly, only a sports jacket and two pairs of trousers, but, some years after he was forced out of office, he died with a sizable fortune, including a farm in the Western Cape, South Africa. Few politicians consider themselves to be bound by their fervently-expressed views when they leave office. Malcolm Fraser, the Australian Prime Minister, often railed against supporting foreign businesses when he was in office, yet, when he left office, he wasted no time in taking the Australia franchise for Volvo, a totally foreign manufacturer that competed head on against Australian Ford and Holden. One cannot help comparing modern politicians with the Popes of old, who tendered for the office of Pope. One does not invest substantial money and effort in competing for a position that merely pays a living salary!

The second reason is that, in the modern understanding, a democracy implies the election of individuals as representatives by the mass of voters. By definition, ‘average intelligence’ implies that half of the measured population has a lower than average intelligence, and the other half an above-average intelligence. However intelligence may be measured, it is known that people with lower intelligence respond better to emotive statements and arguments than to statements that require reasoned evaluation and consideration. They succumb more easily to simplistic slogans and arguments that appeal more to their emotions and unconsidered views. That, of course, means that the speakers who rant, who repeat meaningless slogans, who espouse policies that do not necessarily address the complexities of a modern country, are more likely to be elected. An example in point is the debate on ‘expropriation without compensation’ in South Africa. Why ‘without compensation’? No government in South Africa has ever shied away from using the public purse for any purpose that may suit their book, so why not now? It is clear that this demand is attached to a racialist desire to ‘punish the Whites’. Several surveys have shown that the average Black – nearly 89% - does not want or need land. They do not know how to farm it, and have no desire to do so, and would much prefer a cash settlement of any claim to dispossession of land. However, a repetition of the demand by the extremist Economic Freedom Fighters has brought about an acceptance of the view that there is a desperate hunger for land in the Black population. The fact that giving every Black person a small piece of land (if, in fact, that is the intention, in the face of a statement by the leader of that Party that the intention is for the government to hold that land and grant a lease on it to persons they consider ‘suitable’ to derive benefit from it)is a sure means of condemning a large proportion of the Black population to a life of serfdom, tied to a peasant farming existence, at a time when the world is preparing for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, in which intellectual capabilities will have to be maximized if the country is to regain its position as a leading industrial nation. The thought that the land held by the tribal Kings and Chiefs – one of the least democratic systems of government possible – brought a quick response from the Zulu King, who, dressed in his animal skins, threatened to break away from the South African Republic. That, in turn, brought a groveling apology from President Ramaphosa, who stated that it had never been the intention to interfere with the tribal lands. He did not state whose lands he intended to interfere with, but it does not take much imagination to conclude that it can only be the lands, and subsequently the other assets, of the Whites, who produce the bulk of the food and wealth, including the economically-productive jobs, in the country. The fact that the Zulu King’s hereditary position is derived from the despotic and blood-drenched subjugation of other Zulu clans by King Shaka only two centuries ago does not seem to figure in any discussion of democracy in South Africa.

A third reason for the non-ascendancy of the principles of democracy is the fact that modern democracies are too large for the average citizen to believe that his or her input, by participation in a discussion or by casting a vote, can have any meaningful effect on the outcome. Even the communities that routinely resort to violence, such as the burning of twenty seven schools in Vuwani in order to force the tarring of a road, forget their anger at the ruling Party when it comes to time to vote, when the sweet-talk and promises that ‘we will do better this time’ carry the day. As a senior SA Communist Party leader said some years ago, if the average voter could read a newspaper, this Party would be out of power.

Probably the main reason why democracy does not work as it should, is that the politicians are empowered, and willing, to transfer the wealth of the society from those who earn it – the taxpayers – to those who vote for them. There is no system of punishment for those who transgress the rules of civilized society. Those who burn schools cannot be forced to pay more taxes to rebuild them because they do not pay taxes. The handing of social grants to 19 million recipients who are indigent is no more than a means of taxing the generators of wealth in the nation to buy the votes of the non-wealth-generating recipients, so reducing the ability and the motivation of the tax-payers to create more economic activity that would assist the present recipients to earn a living. The ‘giving’ of a fee-free university education to those who can’t pay the fees has gone a long way to degrade the value of that education, by cutting research, a critically important function of universities, and by inviting those, who are either incapable of gaining a degree or unwilling to do the hard work that a degree should entail, to take a free holiday for four or five years. The objective of supporting the higher education of the nation could more sensibly be achieved by granting a loan to deserving students, with the condition that the loan would be written off at the end of each year to the extent that the educational achievements required are made. That would permit the deserving students to gain their degrees while not imposing a needless financial burden on the universities and the taxpayers. However, the need to win the votes of the fractious university students overrode the need to achieve the real goal of achieving a better educational standard.

Perhaps the failure of the modern democracy can best be summed up in an old story. A politician on the campaign trail wrapped up an hour-long statement of his promises. “Well, folks,” he said. “Those are my heartfelt policies, but, if you don’t like them, I’ve got others.”

Perhaps the time has come for the voters to demand the right and the opportunity to hear and debate the questions of government, and the selection of all the senior people who will implement the will of the people. At the same time, we need the honesty and goodwill of citizens who are willing to make the decisions for the good of all, even if that costs them some opportunities for themselves.