On why Democracy is a Failure.
Firstly, when thinking deeply about any subject, you must apply logic. If you are thinking without logic, your thoughts and opinions are invalid. Secondly, we must take into account the level of education, the quality of thoughts of the general populace and amount of wisdom each person has achieved in order to ‘judge’ if the populace is making a beneficial decision for all concerned.
Right at this point you should be realising that democracy can never deliver the very best for a country. The reason being, only wise people know what’s best. The masses are not in a position to know what is the very best for the country they live in, because they lack brain capacity of cognitive skills in that area. Persons below average intelligence will invariably vote for the worst Party. This is because they are self-serving and that Party serves them best. Obviously someone who is unemployed for whatever reason will not vote for a party that will curtail their benefits.
So let us look at Democracy in Australia: We do not have one person one vote. We do have compulsory voting. And we do have illiterate, uneducated and disinterested people voting. The Donkey vote is counted and the only way to get out of voting is to cast an informal vote; or get fined.
Now let us look at the amount of ‘wisdom’ we can attach to the general populace. What percentage of the population is truly wise? This is my concerted opinion, I would say less than 1%. There are many intelligent people and certainly some who are clever. And by the way, you do not have to be very intelligent to be a Rhodes Scholar; you just need to be clever: that is clever at passing exams. A wise person does not place any credence in Rhodes Scholarships.
Our leaders need to be both wise and intelligent, not clever. So if a wise and intelligent person should become Prime Minister, chances are the general populace will not like them, because they will not have the capacity to understand some of the decisions taken and words that come out of their mouths. Having been a patriarchal society since the dawn of time, there will be further obstacles for a female Prime Minister, even from fellow females who are entrenched in that patriarchal dominance. A clever male will suck in all those uneducated, unwise and illogical persons who cannot comprehend the deeper aspects of life, into his way of thinking. A clever Rhodes Scholar can trick you and get away with it on account of who he has on his side. If he has wealthy and powerful people on his side, which he is keeping on his side via the crony system and the “I’ll scratch your back, if you will scratch mine” attitude; he can get away with the worst kind of deceit and be believable because he has power on his side. But hey, just take a look at that power base. What does it consist of? Gina Rinehart, Clive Palmer and Andrew ( Twiggi ) Forrest. And why are these individuals so powerful? Because they have free reign over wealth based enterprises. Are these 3 men wise men? I think not. They are clever men. Men are more prone to cleverness than women. Then we have MSM, also having a hand in how the country is run, by sheer misrepresentation of truth. If democracy was so great MSM would not be able to misrepresent the truth. It would be unlawful. But the only countries that enforce such laws are under dictatorship.
Having established that the majority of people worldwide are not wise people, we cannot expect that the populace of any nation will vote for the best person for the job. It is also not usual for a wise person to be in a position of candidacy. So we have a double dilemma here.
There are two categories of people who vote informal: one is an uninformed person who has the good sense at least to know that a Donkey vote is non-beneficial, and the other is the wise person who has established that no candidate is worth voting for. So who is going to get elected if most of the wise people of a nation do not cast a vote?
Now let us look at democracy from another angel. Let us take hypothetically, the ‘Two Party Preferred’ standard for a start. Let us say that one party gets 37% of the votes, remembering we have electorates to consider also. The ‘other’ party gets 33%, leaving 30% to the lesser parties. If you implement logic here, it is inconceivable to say that the winning party won by a landslide, when 63% of the population did not vote for that candidate or Party. It is also inconceivable for any leader to say they have a ‘mandate’ under these circumstances. A democracy does not mean that the ‘people’ have their say so to speak, only a small portion will, in this case scenario, the 37%. Now if we define in percentages, the uneducated, unwise and the uninformed, that very well may add up to 37%. Now how do you feel about our democratic system? Did your vote count at the last election? How often did your vote count?
This is just one scenario. Right now in Australia we have a ‘Hung’ Parliament. Not too bad if the Opposition is bi-partisan in most things. But they rarely are. People elect Parties based on personalities. They don’t like someone’s voice or hair colour, they tend to think they can’t do a good job. Governments are elected by the people, but then 50% of what they do is secret, classified and we the people are not allowed to know certain decisions that have been made on our behalf. We are not allowed to know what goes on in Caucus for instance.
Now John HoWARd sent us to war as a part of the Coalition of the Willing without a referendum. This should never have happened. We the people voted for him. He can make a suggestion, then we vote if we want our country to go to war or not. It is absurd that we can vote a Party in and then a few weeks later we find we are sending troops to a country that has not attacked us. Can anyone justify that action? There should be a referendum for every potent issue. Election time is the cheapest way and there can be several at a time. Not in the case of war which would be seen as urgent.
And another thing that is absurd about a democracy, the incumbent Government pays the salaries of not only the Opposition who are all morons with the exception of a very few, but pays the salaries of all the Independents and any other Parties as well. Now if this was a business, can you imagine a CEO paying the wages of a company in competition? And look at the way the Leader of the Opposition treats our PM. Look at the way many of his MP’s also treat her with disrespect. The ALP could suspend their salaries until they earned respect. As for calling everyone “The Honourable So and So” this is bizarre. None of them deserves this title.
Parliament should be conducted in an orderly, polite and intelligent manner. No one should ever be drunk, discourteous or insulting. Parliament should be role models of behaviour. Of course Our PM has the right to retaliate once in a while after scores of insults. Why should the Opposition get away with childish, moronic behaviour? And why is it that when the PM does lash out…..oh such wounded souls. Poor me, I’ve been insulted. Then go away to think up an even huger insults. Parliament is a circus, no matter what party is incumbent. It is totally bizarre to a highly evolved soul.
Democracy is a failure because the wise either don’t vote or they are in the minority. The morons are in the majority, so they are easily influenced by other clever morons, so they get their way. And morons usually vote for morons. This isn’t always the case. Out Prime Minister is dignified, intelligent deep thinker. She is tough, patient and a doer. I have a tremendous admiration for her.
Men have ruled since the beginning of history in Parliament. There have been Queens, but I’ll leave them out of it for now. It is time for women to take up their rightful places. The glass ceiling has now been broken in Australia at least. We have our first female Governor General. Our first female Prime Minister. Our first female Attorney General, been several female State Premiers. And females going to fight in wars. Not that I consider the latter a rightful place.
And another thing, the Speaker in any Parliament should be apolitical. It is bizarre to have a biased Speaker, or a Speaker who favours one over another.