Democracy is the worst form of government. Power belongs to the crowd, which is incapable of thinking strategically, consisting mostly of simple-minded people making trivial decisions. This is what Aristotle believed in the 2nd century BC. He considered a more effective system of government to be one where power belongs to those who have more authority to possess it, and therefore make more balanced and informed decisions.
Contrary to the thoughts of the Greek philosopher, democracy is currently the prevailing form of government in most countries worldwide. Even where monarchy is preserved, for example in the UK or Spain, the actual leadership of the country is carried out by the cabinet of ministers, and laws are passed by an elected parliament. On paper, it is the people through their representatives who govern all countries in the world, including Cuba, North Korea, and China.
For example, Article 71 of the Ukrainian Constitution states that “elections to state authorities and local self-government bodies are free and are based on universal, equal, and direct suffrage by secret ballot.”
Aristotle opposed this equality, and much later, Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, and many other supporters of elitism argued that people are inherently very unequal, both physically and intellectually. And, more importantly, the weak and foolish outnumber the strong and smart in any society. Thus, by endowing everyone with equal rights and giving a “green light” to decisions made by the simple majority, we inevitably create conditions for the degradation of the entire community. The most rational and strategically balanced decisions will be in the minority along with their authors - simply due to the inherent inequality of human abilities. Roughly speaking, fools will always drown out the smart ones.
To solve the problem, it is logical to either a) eliminate fools altogether, b) deprive them of the right to vote, or c) make them think they have the right to vote, but in fact they do not. The Nazis tried to go the first route, but they were stopped in time. The second path leads to massive revolutions, as in the year 1917. The third path is now being taken by all developed countries, led by the USA - creating an illusion of democracy where every citizen has equal voting rights, but the actual governance of the country is carried out regardless of the majority’s choice.
In other words, modern democracy is a high-quality show staged by the minority for the majority, in order to calm the latter and instill in them confidence in universal equality. Notice again, all of this is done primarily in the interests of the majority.
Perhaps there is a fourth way?
What if equal voting rights were replaced by unequal ones? What if each citizen will not have just one vote, which he “drops” into the ballot box once in a few years, but several, depending on his value to society, contribution to its development, and authority. For example, an economics professor could have 50 votes, while a hair stylist would have only two.
Of course, the first question that immediately arises is: who and how will decide how many votes each person has and why does the professor have more than the hair stylist? To address this, it would be possible to develop a fairly transparent and somewhat objective system for evaluating each citizen’s contribution to the public and economic life of the country. For example, such indicators as could be suitable for calculating the electoral rating:
“Published scientific papers”
Дети и внуки
Convictions and offenses
Age and health status
Subscribers on Instagram (don’t laugh!)
And so on. The list can go on. Each indicator can be easily verified and published in a decentralized data storage system, for example, based on Blockchain. Thus, citizens’ votes will be calibrated depending on their authority on governance issues. It is even possible to assume the possibility of regular qualification testing for each citizen wishing to increase their rating. The higher the expected rating, the more professional and complex the questions will be, especially in the areas of economics, law, or state history. By using decentralized data storage and processing technologies, it is possible to completely eliminate bias in assessment and any corruption.
Such a “calibrated” democracy will solve two problems at once. Firstly, it will bring to power those who rightfully deserve it, and whose opinion we all really should rely on. Secondly, it will explain to everyone else what exactly they lack in order to also become those whose opinion the whole country listens to. This will be done openly, objectively, and fairly, minimizing the eternal conflict between the rich and the poor, the smart and the ignorant, the bottom and the top of any society.
Most likely, this model will not lead to a change of people in power. However, it will make the electoral formula significantly more understandable and honest. These are the qualities that modern democracy lacks.
I am very grateful for the idea to Dmitry Fomenko.
Translated by ChatGPT gpt-3.5-turbo/42 on 2024-04-20 at 14:48
