Our Excruciating Modernity

On democracy

Isn't democracy a flawless force for good? I do not think it is, and I shall challenge the belief that it is not to commend forms of elitism or devaluate democracy, for it is, as Churchill said, the worst form of government, except for all the others, but rather to reason that it is not, as is often stated, a utopian ideology or an irreproachable ideal. I also intend, simultaneously, to encourage Man to be a sceptic, to doubt, question and judge all he sees, hears, knows and, in this instance, specifically those deeds, ideas, individuals, objects and systems that have come to be near-globally hailed as attainments of perfection, of which democracy is a member. Democracy is egalitarian, it equally distributes power and influence by placing a token acting as guarantor of nothing more than one's advancement into existence, into the hands of each individual, who, according to their own choice once again, use the token, proof of mere presence on the face of the Earth, in votes whose subject matter range from everything to everybody to nothing to nobody. In democracy, perhaps the most meaningful of votes is the one where Man chooses the captain of the ship he finds himself on. In this vote, all must hand their personal token, which also acts as a symbol of trust and faith, over to an individual they each deem worthy of leading the State. In this process, there are two elements of particular significance, Why and How Man chooses a particular leader. Many would confidently answer the first of these questions by claiming that Man chooses a leader simply because he "favours" said leader, but this is insufficient and raises yet another question, Why does Man "favour" a leader? The response to this question is that Man is an emotional creature, instinctively assesses his fellow Man as well as his surroundings based upon perceived appearance, and has a distaste for honesty seeing as it is more troublesome to entertain than comforting deception, which allows Man to preserve the merry opinion he has of himself. Therefore, the mass, which is, by definition, a majority, now decides in whom to place its trust according to its fluctuating emotions, to each candidate's appearance, and to their respective promises, which often conveniently include the fulfilment of the majority's often unfeasible and unconscious desires, which answers the Why. But, the true concern here is that changing one's appearance and making unrealistic promises to give high yet unrealistic hopes to Man in order to alter the motion of the populace can be done with ease, whereas exposing hard truths about a State, its inhabitants, and consequently, voters, is likely to result in public outrage. Calling for reform that is often necessary but involves any form of compromise, leaves Man with a bitter aftertaste, side effect of candour, that he prefers to forget rather than perpetuate by according his vote to the candidate who made use of said candour. Therefore, convincing a population with hard truths and without illusory and delusive optimism is near impossible, which answers the How, and has resulted in the forceful yet predictable replacing of democracy by a dark, deceitful and treacherous system, demagoguery. This perverse metamorphosis has already occurred and I have found democracy to be, in contrast with the common belief, insufficient, for it recklessly accords all of Man with power whilst disregarding his intellectual, epistemological, and emotional condition, the latter of which he, irrational creature, is visibly controlled by.