Improving Our Standard of Living (Wattpad Edition)

Chapter 40: Opposition to Democracy

In a representative democracy, the people don't determine the laws. They elect representatives to do that for them. The United States Senate, House of Representatives, and President are examples of representative democracy. So are the parliaments and prime ministers of other nations.

Direct democracy is a government in which people vote on laws directly, rather than having representatives do it for them. It may, however, retain representatives and allow them to make laws by default. The people intervene only when a percentage of them sign a petition to hold a vote on something.

That's how Switzerland does it. A minimum of 2% of the population must sign a petition for a vote to be held. The petition can be a new law, a change to an existing one, or a repeal of an old rule.

There are many arguments against direct democracy. But they were all used against the representative form before it became popular.

Let's not forget our history. Representative democracy was considered a crazy, liberal idea for most of human civilization. (With a few exceptions.) The people who hated it did so with much greater passion than those who are against direct democracy today. The numerous English civil wars, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the American Civil War, and countless others were all very bloody. And they were all fought for a mere taste of the kind of representative democracy that current generations enjoy. Entire wars were fought over whether to give rich men—and rich men only—the right to vote. The idea of freeing slaves, giving women and the poor the right to vote, and allowing working class people to start their own businesses was considered utterly ridiculous for much of human civilization.

Direct democracy isn't unachievable or too idealistic. It's merely a continuation of the democratization that has so drastically elevated the human condition in just a few centuries.

Historically, no demographic was against democracy more than the wealthy elite. Oligarchs determined the political and economic policies of societies for thousands of years. They owned the business assets, took most of the fruits of labor from the working class, and used legislation to keep their wealth and power intact. The wealthy elite resisted every democratic reform throughout history. And they always had the advantage. That's why it took so long for nations to democratize.

As I mentioned, many of the most important reforms required bloody revolutions. Free markets, the abolition of slavery, and universal suffrage, for instance, weren't granted to the people by the good graces of the rich. Violent rebellions forced the oligarchs to accept those reforms. The feudal lords and aristocrats didn't wake up one day and say, "We should stop taking almost everything the peasants produce for ourselves. Instead, we should give them the right to acquire property and start their own businesses so they can compete with us. And while we're at it, we should give them the freedom to vote on new laws. That way, we'll have less political power too."

No. The transition from feudalism to democracy and free markets required numerous uprisings.

The establishment of labor laws, unions, minimum wages, and the modern welfare state are more examples. They were proceeded by countless deep recessions and worker rebellions. The capitalists didn't wake up one day and say, "We should give our employees a greater say in the workplace. And we should give them a larger share of the fruits of their labors."

No. The working class had to fight for those rights.

Fortunately, in more recent times, democratic reforms haven't been as turbulent. In fact, countries around the world are democratizing at a rapid pace, while violence continues to plummet.

But almost every reform is proceeded by struggles between the common people and those in power.

Democracy is the only threat to oligarchy. That's why opposition to it has always been funded by oligarchs. A large part of that opposition is arguments put forth by certain media organizations and think tanks. Propaganda.