Democracy means 'Government by the People' (or, if the creators of this term employed the sarcastic undertone suggested by some historians, 'Government by the Mob'). That definition implies that all members of a community participate in the electoral process; but this is not the case.
And it's not only voters who are being excluded, but parties and candidates as well. Most countries won't allow a party to compete in the elections that intends to change the political system or whose views differ too greatly from those of the ruling parties; thus the United States and all its satrapies simply offer a choice between the right and the extreme right.
Apart from banning parties, there are many other ways of preventing change. In Germany the emergence of new parties is obstructed by the 5% Clause; any vote for a party that ends up with less than 5% becomes null and void, and the established parties successfully warn the electorate not to 'throw away their vote'. Thus the three established political blocs (consisting of four parties) had managed to keep the parliament to themselves since 1961, until in 1983 the Greens managed to break the monopoly and join the club.
In the 2000 US election George W Bush won due to the electoral system, although his opponent got the majority of votes (patronisingly being called the popular vote). And the 'loss' of thousands of absentee ballots is a common feature in US elections that's hardly deemed worth mentioning.
'Rule by the people' also suggests that people not only decide on their government but also on political issues. This implies that the public could enforce referenda on all topics they feel differently about than their government. But most 'democracies' do not give their citizens that opportunity.
The idea of democracy was to give people the right to choose their own government. Now people have realised that their vote doesn't make a difference, and more and more stay away from the polls. As an unmotivated electorate calls into question the whole concept of democracy, politicians preach that casting their vote is every citizen's obligation (for those who have one, that is) and treat those refusing to vote as disinterested outcasts.
Democracy is government for the highest bidder. Not all countries practise the baksheesh tradition as openly as Costa Rica or Ireland, but when we hear about the innumerable indications (and the odd conviction) of bribery, corruption, embezzlement, favouritism, self-service, abuse of power etc, we all know that this is not even the tip but a mere splinter of the iceberg. Whatever they tell us, most people don't go into politics to look after others; and the few who actually put their beliefs and principles above their bank accounts are soon found out and consequently will not make it into the decision-making elite of their parties, anyway.
An election promise is a contract between the candidate and his potential voters: You give me your vote, and I will protect your interests. As with any contract, the stronger side makes sure to keep the upper hand: a tenant has to pay a deposit to the landlord before moving in, an employee has to work for a couple of weeks before getting paid (which, in fact, is a deposit he pays to his employer), and the voter has to cast his vote before he can expect to be represented.
Democracy has also brought the delegation of governmental crime. In other forms of government the ruling class are free to do and take whatever they want, even if it is against their own laws. In a democracy, theoretically, the government could be held accountable for its crimes; on top of that voters might remember at the next election. Therefore it rather tolerates crime on a great scale, provided that it gets its share without being brought into connection with it. Organised crime would not be possible without the support of the authorities.
In 2015, amidst the corporate takeover of Europe which was initiated by several governments' policy of bailing out bankrupt banks at the cost of taxpayers and the general low-income population, and which led to the sale of state assets, the privatisation of services and the undermining and cessation of social security and employment legislation (a policy called 'austerity' which only applied to non-millionaires), Greece elected a government on an anti-austerity platform which promised to re-introduce social security, reverse unjust cuts and let corporations and tycoons bear a part of the burden they created. However, their financial masters told them it could never be and forced them to impose the very policies they had so vehemently opposed. This is how the 'cradle of democracy' became the coffin of democracy.
Also in 2015 the Irish government introduced an extra water charge in a buildup to privatise the water supply. 57% of all households refused to pay the double charge; this is a majority, and in a democracy - by definition - decisions are made by the majority. The Irish government, however, pressed ahead with the extra charge.
Democracy is the god above Christ, Yahweh, and Allah - the one who can't be questioned because he creates the illusion of capitalism serving the people rather than the other way round.
Democracy has failed us - and no, I can't offer an alternative. But if given the choice of entering the arena with a bull, a lion or a gladiator, I won't automatically choose the gladiator just because he has a human face. I certainly don't favour monarchy, tyranny, oligarchy or any other form of government over democracy - but neither would I choose democracy, at least in the form it presents itself today, over the rest!
The DRH also explains the recurring shift between 'left' and 'right' in most countries: 'While some societies have always been authoritarian, others oscillate between liberalism and authoritarianism. The cycle works as follows: deindividuation resisters and exempts [i.e. people who resist or aren't subjected to social conditioning] successfully fight for individual and minority rights; the dominant groups resent their loss of privileges (i.e. their 'way of life') and reinforce conformity and compliance; minorities (including deindividuation resisters and exempts) are seen as enemies; the dominant groups look for a strongman to deal with these perceived enemies; warning voices are dismissed as alarmist and hysteric; authoritarianism is established and eventually collapses; deindividuation resisters and exempts successfully fight for individual and minority rights etc. (Only a few countries providing high material security, low inequality and free education that encourages inquiry and critical thinking, like San Marino and Switzerland, are exempt from this mechanism.)'
* Abstract: 'All children are born with individual identities, but almost all of them undergo social conditioning and are forced to take on collective identities instead. Human progress is driven by people who resist social conditioning (or are not subjected to it in the first place) and retain their individual identities at the cost of being ostracised and pathologised while those who identify collectively provide the network to spread it.'
The first rule of democracy is exclusion. No country in the world would want all its residents to choose its government, and to this day people have been excluded from elections because of their age, race, class, gender, nationality, religion, homelessness, illiteracy, criminal convictions, lack of landownership, mental disorders etc.
In countries whose citizens had no influence on the form of government by having been excluded from the shaping of the constitution (or 'basic law', as in Germany), the general attitude was that a vote for any admitted party denotes approval of the form of government, so that a turnout of over 50% was considered a vote for the political system.
This changed with the constantly dropping numbers of voters for the European Parliament - which is a farce as important strategic decisions are made by the heads of state (the European Council which is not elected), anyway. Since 1999 the turnout for European elections has been under 50%, which, following the logic of the argument, should be considered a vote against the European oligarchy.
The 5% Clause leads to a good part of the electorate not being represented. In the extreme case of some twenty parties having under five per cent each, one single party could get all seats with just 5% of the votes, leaving 95% of the electorate without representation.
In Ireland the 2004 presidential elections were prevented by the main parties who simply agreed on confirming the president for another term; elections, they stated, would have been too expensive. - Well, elections are always expensive, so maybe this cancellation will ring in the end of that farce called democracy altogether.
The most stressed argument against referenda (apart from the silly 'We'd have a referendum each day!') is the immaturity or lack of political insight of the electorate. But if the population lack maturity or political insight, why trust them with electing their masters in the first place?
Some countries, like Australia, even go one step further by punishing non-voters and imposing fines on those who don't feel represented by (or simply don't trust) the admitted parties and candidates. I don't think I have to point out the paradox of forcing people to exercise their rights.
If a plumber doesn't show up on the agreed date, I can terminate the contract; if I hire a cleaning woman who doesn't clean, I can fire her; if I vote for a candidate who claims to introduce free medical care for senior citizens and who doesn't, I'm fucked. An election promise is the only contract in the world that is not binding, and politicians make sure it stays that way.
If nothing else does, this clearly demonstrates that democracy is a puppet play intended to give us the illusion that we have a say in our lives.
Democracy has brought us Hitler and Kennedy, the men responsible for initiating two of the nastiest wars of the last century. Democracy has encouraged and even caused racism, genocide, exploitation, intolerance, inequality and so forth.
I wrote this piece in 2004 mostly out of frustration with undemocratic elements of so-called democracies and the gullibility of most voters. It was only in 2021 when I developed the model of The Neurological Spectrum - Between Individual and Collective Identity (NSM) and subsequently the Deindividuation Resister Hypothesis: How Humans Progress (DRH)* that I figured out the mechanism that causes many (and often the majority of) people to vote against their own interests.
While all people are born with individual identities, the vast majority of them undergo social conditioning and are forced to take on collective identities (such as religion, nationality, culture etc) instead. Most of these place more importance on their groups than on individuals, including themselves, and are therefore more interested in the welfare of their groups than in their own. For example, for those who identify by their nationality, their nation's interest is paramount, and since the success of a nation is usually measured in its gross domestic product (GDP), anything improving the GDP is perceived to strengthen the nation. Thus a worker on minimum wage may be inclined to vote for a conservative party that will cut the minimum wage purporting that it'll help the economy; a personal sacrifice for what they perceive as the 'common good'.