Liberal democracy

[Arthur Gordon Pym]

Liberal democracy is today the prevalent system of governance, especially in Europe and North America. In all the societies of the so-called modern West it is claimed that a "general consensus" has been reached on the conviction that liberal democracy is absolutely the best existing system of government. No discussion is allowed in public to disapprove or to refute this claim. Wars are being started, sanctions imposed in the name of liberal democracy. Anyone who dares to question its main tenets is declared insane, at best, or criminal and extremist, at worst.

But, as it is well known, liberal democracy has its flaws and inherent contradictions.

For example:

1. It is usually claimed that people governs itself in the liberal democracy. That is virtually impossible because, speaking in Aristotelean terms, no thing can be in actu and in potentia at the same time, with respect to the same action, meaning: it is virtually impossible for the people to govern itself and be governed at the same time.

2. Liberal democracy usually rests on the notion of consensus. It is said that certain policy is enacted because there is a "general consensus" on that issue, corroborated by the vote of majority. But any reasoning person will come to the conclusion that such consensus is a pure mental construct, with no base in reality. It is impossible to reach a general consensus, because people tend to opine differently on many questions. And the rule of majority (which allegedly has consensus) easily degenerates into tyranny of majority, which is antithetical to the very concept of democracy. Even that supposed majority can change their opinions from time to time. And elections happen every 4-5 years...

3. Liberal democracy degenerates into partitocracy. What we have today in most European countries is in fact partitocracy. Political parties are no emanation of popular will, but merely interest groups that try to lure poeple into voting for them, in order to come to power and exert their will. And even worse: present day political parties in almost every country tend to become one party. In many cases we formally have several parties competing for power, but in fact there exists only one and the single party, all the existing formal political parties being just factions of this one party (same policies, almost same rhetoric, political system remains unchanged irrespective of which party ascends to power). Thus it is in fact one-party system.

It is my conviction that liberal democracy is a deeply flawed system. Now I don't want to say that democracy in general as such is inherently evil. My criticism is confined to liberal democracy which is, in my view, one of the main (if not the first and the foremost) factors that contributed and still contributes to the European decline of today.

Liberal democracy should be demystified: it is not the only possible system of government, there are other, equally valid systems.

Maybe some sort of direct democracy would be better? (without the mediation of parties) Or monarchy? Or authoritarian rule by a wise elite?