The Future of Democracy
The word democracy comes from Greek words meaning “people govern.” Generally, people around the world assume that democratic decision-making is the best possible and therefore the most acceptable. The problem is that nobody knows exactly what it means. Ideally, people would agree and create rules on an equal basis that would be valid for the whole community, but this is impossible because every society faces an unlimited number of decisions that no one person can decide on due to a lack of interest, knowledge, or time.
Therefore, today an indirect form of democracy where people elect their representatives in government at the polls is generally accepted. Candidates who win the most votes receive a mandate to govern on behalf of the people for a given period. The people’s representatives in government should represent the interests of their electors, but they cannot do so successfully because they lack sufficient insight into the wishes of the voters who elected them. It goes without saying that an elected government has no desire to meet the needs of people who did not vote for it. Besides that, representatives of the people are quite privileged, and as such, they more often represent their own interests or the interests of a privileged class of people who help them in elections rather than the interests of the people. So, in practice, indirect forms of democracy cannot adequately follow the will of the people and therefore are not satisfactory. Also, democratically elected leaders can cause significant harm to the people, and there is no adequate defence for this. For example, democratically elected Adolf Hitler and George Bush are remembered mostly for the destruction they initiated “in the name of the people.”
The will of the people can be followed more directly through referendums, where people decide issues of self-interest. People intend to accept or reject the proposed decision. This form of democracy also has significant disadvantages. Firstly, a majority might outvote a minority and inconvenience it, which is unacceptable. The principle of consensus among representatives on issues people should vote on makes this form of democracy more acceptable. But direct democracy is rarely used, mainly because governments do not like people interfering in their business and because organizing referendums is not a simple process. Finally, each society faces a vast number of decisions that cannot be put to referendum because people lack the knowledge to make them, are not interested, or do not have time to participate. And so decisions in society are always made by privileged authorities that do not follow the will of the people sufficiently.
Does this mean that the will of the people cannot be carried out? Can democracy not be developed? Social science scholars do not see a solution to the problem of democracy and cannot reach consensus on what a developed democracy should look like. Establishing a developed form of democracy requires discovering a new pathway that effectively implements the people's will. To reach it, one needs to think outside the box. I have managed to create a straightforward and original way, leading to a fully developed democracy.
***
Let’s allow every person who, within the scope of their activity, can affect us in any way, to do it freely of their own will. We do not even have many choices because we cannot interfere with the freedom of activities of presidents, doctors, mechanics, or any other workers. Nor do we have the ability, time, right, or perhaps even the desire to do so. However, all these people may create advantages and disadvantages for individuals and society through their actions. We have developed the ability to sense whether the activities of a president, doctor, mechanic, or anyone else benefit or harm us. And according to it, we should have the right to reward a person who creates convenience for us and punish a person who causes inconvenience to us. Such a right would certainly direct all people to cause the least inconvenience and provide the greatest convenience to others. Such a social orientation would undoubtedly follow the will of all the people in the best possible way, thereby creating a developed democracy.
My philosophy is based on people's equal rights because it is the only proper orientation of society. In this regard, let each person have the same power to punish, say, three individuals who hurt him or her most in any month, and to reward, say, three individuals who provide the most significant benefits to him or her each month. This is the essence, and the rest is a technical matter that will be handled through an internet application. Everyone will be able to negatively evaluate people they dislike, for example, their prime minister, neighbour, or boss. And vice versa, everyone will be able to positively evaluate people they like, for example, their friend, teacher, or singer. The sum of all the positive and negative evaluations that individuals receive will tell each person how they are appreciated in society.
I also propose that rewards and punishments have an equivalent value of, let’s say, one dollar. Each award a person receives from someone will add one dollar, and each penalty will take one dollar away. In that way, everyone becomes an authority with a small, direct power in society. If everyone has equal rights and the power to judge by giving rewards and punishments regardless of written rules, such a democracy becomes a form of anarchy. That is why I call such an evaluating system democratic anarchy. I am confident that this is the only possible path toward full democracy and a good society.
Democratic anarchy will guide each member of society to respect others. People will become valuable to all people. They will create the greatest possible advantages for the community and eliminate all forms of disadvantage. Such a measure will definitely decrease uncontrolled or insufficiently controlled individual power originating in privileged social status. I must stress that the privileged status of individuals causes the most significant inconveniences and problems for society. In this way, the public will realize a great, direct power in society for the first time in human history, resulting in highly harmonious and constructive social relations.
Many people, including university professors, have remarked that people cannot judge others objectively. I have answered them that objectivity is desirable but not essential. People judge others based on their feelings, and everyone is obliged to consider the consequences their actions may have on others. By adopting this system, the desired outcome will occur, bringing considerable benefits to society. Furthermore, a system that supports people's equal rights will foster objectivity in the community, and when that happens, people will judge others more objectively.
Individuals will not have much power in society, but their collective evaluations will be very powerful. A person who receives many negative assessments would try hard to avoid doing anything inconvenient to other people. Besides, someone who receives negative evaluations would never know who evaluated them negatively, so they would try to improve their behaviour towards everyone. As a result, bullies would not harass children at school; bosses would not abuse their employees at work; neighbours would not make noise at night; salespeople would not cheat their customers; and politicians would not lie to people. They will all try to please other people in the best possible way. This will take privileged powers from all people; it will eliminate social evil and form a good society.
The system of democratic anarchy will especially affect authorities. The higher an authority's position in society, the greater the responsibility it bears. For example, the President of the US might receive 100,000,000 negative evaluations from the American people due to poor policies, lies, and criminal aggression against other countries. That would cost them $ 100,000,000 in just one month. On the other hand, I doubt their supporters would evaluate them positively because they might prioritize other positive evaluations and spend them elsewhere. Non-privileged presidents would no longer dare to implement bad policies. And if it happens somehow, they would run away from their positions very fast. Only the most skilful and brave individuals would dare to lead countries. They will no longer be authorities, but our servants.
People will judge other people freely. In this regard, I have received many complaints suggesting that people may evaluate others maliciously due to spite or envy. I answered that such a risk exists, but I would add that assessing one dollar individually might not cause significant harm to anyone. The damage an individual can cause is insignificant compared to the damage authorities can inflict, since they often affect entire societies. Take the example of Adolf Hitler and George Bush again. In the system I have proposed, these individuals would receive numerous negative evaluations from people early in their careers, so they would no longer dare to cause harm. Their followers would also receive negative assessments, so organized evil would hardly rise in such a society. It is possible to prevent people who receive many negative evaluations from participating in governing society. In this way, authorities will no longer dare to carry out aggression and wars.
Is it worth allowing individuals to wrongly judge others for one dollar if such trials would abolish all forms of destructiveness in society? Sure, it is. Also, the new system will develop objective values and a sense of conscience among the people, where malice and envy would hardly exist. If something like that still existed, each person could correct a possible wrongful assessment he had given to another individual by instigating a correct evaluation, even many years later, when he experiences enlightenment under the influence of the new system. And they will.
So what if influential people who own mass media unfairly accuse someone of evil in society, prompting people to give inadequate evaluations to the wrong person? Such things are easily possible in today’s society. However, a proverb says, “Lies have short legs.” One day the lie will be revealed, and I would not want to be in the skin of those who lied, because people will surely punish them.
Democratic anarchy will finally and unconditionally create a good society, making it the greatest invention of all time.
***
Under pressure from democratic anarchy, an elected government will inevitably follow the people's needs. Authorities would not dare make the most important decisions for society alone, as they can easily make mistakes that might provoke public wrath and widespread criticism. If the authorities are unsure of the people’s needs, their responsibility, shaped by the fear of public evaluation, compels them to foster love for participation in decision-making processes through referendums. In this regard, they will develop a simple, fast, and efficient method for direct decision-making by the people, most likely online.
People will directly create society's macroeconomic policy because it is the foundation that directs the economy and affects the entire community. How? Simply, people first need to decide how much of their gross income they want to pay in taxes. The average of everyone’s choices will determine what percentage of their salary each worker sets aside for taxes. Furthermore, each person can decide how tax money is spent. Each person will determine how much tax money they would set aside for: the defence of the state, public safety, education, health, housing, recreation, infrastructure, etc.
Theoretically, people can decide on collective consumption within the consumer groups as much as they want. These shared-consumption groups will have a far greater overall impact if they are democratically allocated. Through lived experience, people will learn how much money to collect in taxes and the best way to spend it. Thus, this spending will follow people's needs more efficiently because it will no longer be disconnected from society. In this way, people will become more active members of society and accept their community more readily. Given that the new system offers stable and good relations among nations, people will no longer allocate money for the needs of armies, and armies will cease to exist. In the democracy I have proposed, war will no longer be possible.
The people must make strategic decisions directly because that is the only way society’s policy will certainly follow their interests. Professionals could make all other decisions, and they will be directly responsible to the people for those decisions. Once people gain the power to participate in decision-making processes concerning their own interests and can judge those who make decisions on their behalf, it will present the most developed form of democracy. There’s no better political way. Such a democracy will realize the dreams of dreamers throughout human history. Once such a democracy is accepted, people will become so satisfied with it that they will not allow anyone to seize it from them.
***
This is just a basic idea about the future of democracy. You can't understand it well enough without reading and analyzing my book “Humanism,” available free of charge here: Table of Contents.
January 15, 2011