This is partly due to the rise of non-democratic supranational entities such as the EU and the UN where non-elected representatives are creating laws that are endorsed by the political leadership in the member state nations. These enormous autocratic powerhouses have become handy tools for the political leadership to restrict personal freedoms of the electorate and greatly diminish the influence of the average voter. Many of these adopted laws run contrary to the various national laws, and in some cases they are in direct violation of the constitutions of the membership nations, but because accountability for politicians is a thing of the past there aren’t any serious repercussions for the members of the political elites. And the sad thing is that the average person in Europe seems to accept that this is the way it is supposed to be. There is no real indignation or will to protest to rectify this enormous abuse of power, and this lack of righteous anger is real discouraging. Ordinary people in Europe have over the years been so accustomed to this massive abuse of power by the political leadership that they have learnt to accept it.
The massive encroachment on individual rights in Europe hasn’t taken place over night, it has been a slow and gradual process which has been disguised as a democratic process, actively aided and abetted by an almost unified politicised media corp. The political leadership would never have managed to pull off this formidable task without the media’s unwavering support. And it is because of this massive conditioning process that so few individuals in Europe today openly challenge the massive authority that these politicians are given, or more correctly that these politicians have managed to accrue over the years. Democracy is supposed to be majority rule, not minority rule which unfortunately is the case for Europe today. And this minority rule has had a devastating effect for the continent. The European ruling elite have been able to thrust Europe into the grips of disaster where financial ruin and social unrest are highly likely scenarios.
But Europe hasn’t progressed down this path as a result of unfortunate circumstances; it is headed down this path because of a lack of fair and democratic political decision making. This scenario could have been averted if there had been a drastic reduction of power entrusted to the political elites and had the decision making processes been returned to the people where it rightfully belongs.
It is easy to shed light on the ills of the autocratic minority rule of Europe, but how can the continent be saved from this repressive political elite? Well if we accept that the current European political system is hostile to basic democratic principles then it stands to reason that the first step that has to be taken in order to obtain more democratic governance in Europe is to abolish the traditional political system. This is not as crazy as it sounds; in fact it’s a very sane idea. Because do we really need to be governed by politicians? Aren’t there other ways to organize a society which eliminates the need for traditional politicians’ altogether? Societies aren’t built by politicians, nor do these politicians develop the essential infrastructure and ensure that everything runs smoothly in society. Societies are kept running by ordinary people who go to work every day and work hard to make this happen, despite the enormous restrictions placed upon them by the political establishment. My argument is that the duties that fall under the auspices of the political establishment could be carried out by individuals with far less dictatorial powers provided society was willing to give it a go. In many cases the squabbling and political fighting undertaken by politicians only slow down progress and leads to wasteful spending.
Today European governments aren’t passing legislation and amending laws in order to improve society, but rather to increase their sway over society and the average voter has very limited opportunities to prevent this. That’s why it should be the duty of every voter to attempt to weaken the authority of these undemocratic power entities. But of course within the context of today’s political system this is an impossible task to achieve. The political plutocracy will not voluntarily give up their positions and their power. Therefore it’s futile in my opinion to discuss how radical changes can be implemented by working from within the current political system. The political system will only change if drastically societal changes occur.
But it is important to look ahead and try and come up with sound alternative ways of governing for the future. How can societies become more democratic and award more influence to the people? In my opinion this can only be accomplished by a drastic redistribution of power and an absolute rejection of the notion that a handful of people should have absolute control in a society. It is not democracy when a tiny minority have complete control over all decision making processes. When all power is in the hands of one individual it’s called dictatorship, but when the power is shared by a handful of people within the legal structures of a political party it’s somehow referred to as democracy.
For a system to be truly democratic there needs to be mechanisms in place that allow the people to dismiss the decision makers if they disobey the will of the people. Shouldn’t the average citizen be allowed to intervene and force the resignation of any elected representative during their elected term if there is a strong opposition to the way these representatives are carrying out their political duties? Why is it that a politicians or political party are allowed to remain in power for the full term when they blatantly violate their mandate, and why aren’t there appropriate measures in place for voters to dispose of these deceitful politicians?
Another valid point for the abolition of today’s political system is that it is an ineffective way of governing. In Europe a politician is not first and foremost interested in pragmatism and in implementing cost savings policies, but in amassing power. Bureaucracy and regulations are for the most part intended to condition the populace to even greater future infringements in matters concerning personal choice.
In my opinion the private sector is more adept and better equipped to effectively operate a society. The private sector can’t afford to waste time and engage in unnecessary actions that would result in loss of profit and decline in competitiveness. So why shouldn’t the political system emulate the ethos of the private sector? Why is that we allow societies to be governed ineffectively by politicians that wouldn’t be able to survive a week in the private sector? Why don’t we demand more pragmatism and realism in the way our societies are governed?
Instead of having inexperienced career politicians decide important societal matters wouldn’t it be more prudent to have a system in which individuals with relevant experience in their fields of expertise are elected to represent the people? Wouldn’t it make more sense to elect an engineer with relevant experience to plan and approve new essential road and infrastructure projects rather than a career politician with zero experience in this field? It’s interesting to look at how politics could be organized in the future or at least look at how politics could be made more democratic. In my opinion the only way to achieve this is to get a more fair distribution of power.
Today the only real power voters have is through the ballot box at parliamentarian elections which generally occurs every four years. All the other decisions are made by the politicians and they are strictly off limits for ordinary people. In any other situation in life there would be an outcry of such meagre display of democratic principles. A system where all the decisions are made by a tiny minority can never be described as a true democracy. In order to prevent the abuse of power it is essential to distribute it to as many individuals as possible, and not entrust it all to a tiny minority. I believe that individuals entrusted with power will almost always at some stage attempt to abuse this power, and if there isn’t anyone powerful enough to stand up to them this abuse will be allowed to continue unpunished.
So would it be undemocratic to abolish the current political parties and take away the power from the politicians? Is the existence of politicians a necessity to ensure democracy? Surely if an alternative arrangement to parliamentarianism means more influence and power to the average citizen then it has to be considered a positive change and not negative one? So what would constitute an ideal alternative to today’s parliamentarian way of governing?
Well I believe that politicians or perhaps candidates is a more fitting word, should be elected on merit and be elected to undertake to tackle specific tasks. I would abolish the unaccountable four year rule that we have today. I believe that direct elections, in which voters elect their own candidates is the only true democratic election process. That means that only individual with relevant expertise in crime prevention should be allowed to apply to serve as minister of Justice. Only individuals with relevant experience should be allowed to serve as minister of Finance etc. I also believe that if they are elected they should have no say in other unrelated matters unlike today’s politicians who gets to meddle in everything. The elected candidates should only focus on the task they been elected to undertake. I also believe that the candidates should be able to produce a detailed plan as to how they would go about achieving their tasks. I believe that they should be elected by the people through an election process; for a specific period of say 18 months. In my opinion it makes more sense to have individuals serve for a limited period of time as this would put more pressure on them to produce results.
Voters should also have the opportunity to dismiss those candidates who during their term fail to deliver on their promises just like any normal person runs the risk of being sacked if they aren’t up for the job. The argument that politicians who don’t deliver on their promises simply gets booted out at the next election is meaningless as they still get to govern for four more years before they’re eventually dismissed, something which of course is unheard of in the private sector. Nor do I believe that it is unreasonable to demand that politics be off limits for anyone who hasn’t been working in the private sector for a specific number of years and has managed to gain some real life experience. Nor do I believe that political parties/elected representatives should be engaging in trying to influence people to think and act in a certain way. They should invest all their efforts into ensuring that the mechanisms needed to successfully operate a society are present and running smoothly. A politician’s job is to represent his constituents, not to lecture his constituents or try to alter the way his constituents think and behave. The right to think and act independently without exterior governmental pressure is a basic human right. Governmental pressure in the form of awareness campaigns etc. is simply governmental abuse. If an employer were to attempt to influence his employees to adopt certain views and political ideas and punish those who don’t obey it would be considered abuse of power.
Some American conservative political commentators thought that it was problematic that President Obama won in the last presidential election. They argued that there were almost as many people who didn’t vote for Obama as there were people who voted for him, yet those who didn’t vote for him are forced to endure his presidency. One alternative would be not to elect a president, but rather a dozen or so individuals to undertake specific assignments. It would be a more democratic election process for the voters, as it is highly unlikely that voters would agree with all the political views of a presidential candidate. It would be a lot easier to cast a vote on specific issues. An individual would then be able to vote on a Minister of Justice with strong anti-Islamic views, vote for a minister of Finance with pragmatic financial views and vote for a Minister of the armed forces who doesn’t intend to invest trillions of tax dollars on rebuilding third world hellholes. Maybe this would be a better alternative? At least it would give ordinary citizens a lot more power than they have today.
Even if parliamentarianism continues in the future one of the first things that should be introduced is shorter terms for the ruling parties. Instead of staying in power for four years a maximum period of 18 months should be the introduced. This would at least in theory ensure a more effective government and fewer broken election promises. Politicians should also be subjected to an ability test before they’re allowed to take office. After all it’s an important job which affects everybody, so why shouldn’t there be mechanisms in place that ensures that the candidates are in fact suited for the job? Ordinary workers have to sit through gruelling job interviews before they’re given jobs. Shouldn’t the same principle apply to politicians?