Actually, come to think of it, I shouldn't have added the question mark on the title above. It is a fact, proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Democracy, as we have known it in Western countries, far from being the best form of government and a panacea for social ills, it has become a fraudulent vehicle for plutocracy to control the masses with the least resistance. The so-called democratically elected governments are but puppets of plutocracy. It is the plutocrats who finance expensive electoral campaigns, in an effort to influence the decision of gullible voters, and it is the same who control Mass Media and exert pressure on governments to legislate according to their own interests.

The most destructive tenet of Democracy, however, is the fragmentation of Parliament into viciously antagonistic parties. Oh, what a hell do those create by dividing the citizens and making them blind and fanaticized followers! And to fuel such a continuous fight against each other, the parties need to spend a lot of money, much of which is drawn from taxpayers... To me, this is criminal! We pay them in order to break society into fragments! Wouldn't we be right to claim that Democracy is the form of government that derives its power from the practice of "divide and rule"? Or to say that Democracy is the form of government whereby whatever the ruling party is trying to build the opposition party is desperately trying to demolish? Or to say that Democracy is the regime type where each party discovers what exactly should be done in order to solve society's problems only after it loses power and becomes the opposition party? Or to say that Democracy is the form of government where the parties have sworn to disagree even regarding absolute truths, as e.g., that one plus one equals two?

I could go on and on presenting arguments proving that the very structure of our Democracy is shaky and its "philosophy" schizophrenic. Unfortunately, as the Bible confirms, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation", and this is something we already witness happening in our "democratic" societies...

Indeed, real Democracy is a "commodity" not yet experienced by the citizens of Western countries. True that the betrayed public has its own huge responsibilities for this predicament, as it has given up thinking and effectively judging its elected representatives. Many citizens cannot be bothered even to vote, while most of us don't actively oppose the guilty friendly intimacy between big money and our governments. Thus, by our apathy, indifference and forbearance we have willfully become the victims of the ruling wealthy class that is pulling the strings of our political leaders. Abdicating one's responsibilities as a citizen is bound to have negative effects on the individual and the society as a whole.

Unfortunately, what we hear around is always complaints about violations of "human rights", while no one is bringing up the vital issue of human duties and obligations. Thus, we have reduced ourselves to beggars, as if some others - the plutocrats and their puppet governments, of course - were designated by birth to have only responsibilities towards us! Could we not reverse the situation and have the plutocracy and the politicians begging our respect of their "human rights"? Or, are they, peradventure, super-humans who can exploit and abuse the masses unobstructed, and always in accordance with their selfish goals?

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not talking about violent revolutionary acts or terrorism here. Not at all! There are many other peaceful and intelligent ways of demanding respect of our human rights, while, at the same time, actively taking up our responsibilities towards society. But this takes a bit of thinking and action, and it won't leave much time for couch potato lifestyle...

Let us now examine the very philosophy and structure of "Democracy" and see if there aren't any inherent problems that would render it ineffective, even if corruption were not present. What is Democracy? It derives from the Greek words "demos", which means "people", and "kratos", which means "power". In other words, "Democracy" is the form of government where the people have the power, i.e. the people rule. How? They rule by their elected representatives. Fair enough! It sounds good, doesn't it? So, in our democratic western countries, we, the people, rule! The only difference is that we are not conscious of it; we don't feel we are the rulers, and hence we don't act accordingly. On the contrary, we feel and behave as the downtrodden victims of our "democratic" system. Why?

For Plato, the curse of Democracy was ignorance: ignorance as regards the human nature and one's inherent qualities; ignorance as regards the necessity of common rational and moral pursuits of individuals and societies, which alone could secure the harmonious coexistence of people and bring happiness to all. However, from its inception, the Athenian Democracy, 25 centuries ago, appeared to mean the right of the ignorant few to govern the many, also ignorant, in the wrong way. For Plato, the democratic system, apart from its insufficiency and pseudo-equality, was also unjust, because it used to bring to government completely incompetent men while pushing to obscurity the competent ones. Wow! It sounds as if Plato were living amongst us today and witnessing present-day "democracies" and the incompetent politicians brought to power!

The thing that used to annoy Plato the most, as it still annoys every honest person, was the wild spirit of selfishness that characterizes the politicians, who use power in order to fulfill their own selfish desires, regardless of the catastrophic consequences of their actions on the poor and oppressed, as well as on the state itself. The roots of all evils were, and still are, the thirst for power and the love of money. For Plato, however, the characteristic of a good governor should be that he would prefer not to govern. So much he would be conscious of the burden and the responsibilities of such a high post! By the way, does anyone remember any President or Prime Minister who was not smiling like an idiot when he was delivering his first speech after election? I have not! This is indicative of the lightness they undertake the highest post in a democracy... Aren't we lucky that so many prominent people long to "serve" us? Plato, however, describes the politician as a chameleon who makes his "principle" the lack of every principle and proclaims inconsistency as a decree.

In theory, Democracy seems to be a just and right system of government, I would say the ideal one, since it satisfies - or at least it promises to satisfy - the inner desire of man to live, think and speak as one wishes, i.e. freely, without restrictions and coercion, as equal among equals. Moreover, Democracy supports the human need of proudly owning one's property, thereby offering a strong incentive for working and earning money according to one's skills and abilities. But this is exactly where the difficulties of democratic promises for equality start. Obviously, people's talents, skills and abilities are not the same; they vary from person to person, even within the same families.

Plato condemned the two basic principles of Democracy, namely equality and complete freedom, saying that they are not principles but the abolition of principles! Let us see if Plato was right. Is there equality in Nature? If we exclude the factors of political "inheritance" and wealth - which Democracy should have abolished if it were true to its principles - is there equality among people? Are all humans born with the same intelligence, the same talents, the same physical abilities and characteristics? Fortunately not! And I said "fortunately" because, if we were all the same, this would create a major problem in the organization of a functional society. However, true Democracies should make sure that all citizens are equal in front of the Law and they are given equal opportunities and access to free education, health care, social security and employment. Unfortunately, though, democracies have blatantly failed even in this! The rich and powerful members of our societies, including politicians, seem to have greater opportunities in life, while they often violate laws without facing the same severe consequences, if any, as the poor citizens do.

Let us now consider the other far-fetched and demagogical principle of Democracy, that of freedom. Let us see what happens in Nature, inside us and around us. Do we witness absolute freedom there? Surely not! The earth, the moon, the planets, and all the stars, move on predetermined orbits, with steady speed, according to unchanging sovereign laws. The same happens within our bodies. In a healthy human being, every organ is not free to function as it wishes. They all function according to sovereign rules in order for the body to remain in good health. Now, then, society is a composite living organism, and in order for this organism to function properly, each member's freedom must be restricted by rational and just laws. It is simple common sense. You don't need to be genius to understand this principle.

Unfortunately for our societies, the popular slogan of French revolution, "Liberty, equality, fraternity", that has been adopted by the activists who promote democracy, has not been experienced by people living in modern "democratic" countries. It sounds as being the highest ideal, but it just cannot be actualized. As regards fraternity (brotherhood), this is the most difficult part, as it cannot come by external force or legislation. It can only spring from within, and this requires the spiritual regeneration of the individual, so that he/she realizes the unity of all beings. Until then, Democracy will remain a far-fetched dream for the masses, and the tool of exploitation for plutocrats and politicians.

About the Author

Maria Seferou was born in an agricultural family of Dendron, a small village of Peloponnese, Greece. She studied Civil/Structural Engineering at National Technical University of Athens and had a successful 20-year professional career both in Greece and in England. For the last 21 years she has been a writer of non-fiction books and articles on religious, philosophical, political and social issues.