THERE has been some debate on this site as to the meaning of Democracy, and dictionary definitions have been quoted, etc.

This is a look at the broader picture and the way it has changed over the centuries, especially since the advent of Party politics. Despite all our learning and technical advancements, I do not think we are better off now than two and a half thousand years ago when the system was first proposed by Democritus.

At the time that it was espoused as an ideal system of governance for the small states of Greece, and later Rome, whereby the people ruled themselves. ‘The characterisation of the ‘City-states’ was that all citizens could assemble at regular intervals for legislative and other purposes.’ In Athens this was known as the ‘Ecclesia’, at Sparta as the ‘Apella’ and in Rome as the ‘Comitia Centuriata’ or ‘Concilium Plebis’. In the modern sense of the word, in Ancient Greece there was no similarity.

Today, the theory belies the actuality. It has become a tool in the hands of the power brokers and a meaningless disguise for many nefarious and unsocial activities.

The meaning has been whittled down to such an extent that it is not much more than a right to vote — usually for a chosen scion of some major political party.

These are the people who have clawed their way up the political ladder and into power, not by the people’s choice, but by the back door of party politics, the Caucasus or the Unions being the most popular ways.

Under this system, supporting the Party becomes more important than doing one’s duty to the electorate, which then becomes a mere lip-service. Individual dissent within a party is firmly quashed, and members are expected to toe the party line. Oaths of Allegiance are to the institutions, rather than to the ideals or the populace at large, and thus, the very system they are supposed to represent, is swept under the carpet. Once ordained, the party faithful are presented to the public for election — as their representatives!

This is followed by the all the hype and propaganda that money can buy to distort the truth, discredit opposition and persuade the public along the party path. This generally ensures that either two or three main contestants emerge — usually those with the highest budgets. The voice of the individual, that was supposed to be the central pillar of this system, is no longer even a whisper.

Once elected, leaders are generally of the opinion that that gives them a free ticket to personal power and the right to do as they please. From then onwards, the struggle is to maintain their position and stay in power. That was not the idea of Democritus. Under Democritus, there were no such things as political parties.
Idealism demands of our leaders some sort of personal probity, which unfortunately, appears to be sadly lacking. Democracy does not support cronyism, corruption and the appropriation of the public purse, nor does it allow for the influence of corporate money in affairs of State.

Touch of God

Under the present interpretation, Democracy has deteriorated into being a mere label stuck on anything that a politician sees as a ticket to power. People who mouth the words are mostly using this label, not the meaning. A useful prop to achieve a political objective. They also try to invest the idea with a certain amount of sanctity, which is designed to allay criticism and give an edge to the proponents. A touch of God being on their side. A useful alliance.

But it can be a very dangerous game to amount an attack or criticise those in authority. At the lowest level it can incur censure, and depending how dangerous the challenge is perceived, it works up the scale from threats, imprisonment, torture to even death. The world is full of martyrs for the cause, including some of the greatest names in human history.

However, this has recently taken a new turn, and not only do rulers, religious leaders and politicians use these methods, but the practice has now been adopted by corporate business in defence of their position and assets. Through Corporate Law, (Largely written by corporate lawyers) companies have assumed the right of a person and are using this in legal challenges against real people. The rights of the individual have been so consistently eroded by these legal methods, that in certain parts of the world it has now been deemed necessary to protect them by law. Under a true Democracy, this would be unnecessary. But it’s battle stations. In general, the cards are not stacked in favour of the individual.

Democracy has its weaknesses. When originally mooted, Greece was divided into small states and towns, and here it was more appropriate. As communities grew, it became less and less apposite and more difficult to administer. In the Kibbutz system in Israel, it was found that once membership increased above 200, the system started to break down. In the United Nations and the EEC, experience shows that the larger the membership, the less chance there is of reaching a consensus of opinion, and the whole process stultifies, especially when the representatives are pushing their own country’s agenda ahead of the world’s or the system in which they agreed to participate.

Because Democracy is largely a Western system, there is a current belief that it is superior to many of the Eastern systems, and consequently Western leaders propel this idea into those areas. In so doing, it is often the individuals who suffer in the ensuing power struggles. However, our own track record is not very great, and I’m sure Democritus would turn in his grave if he could realise how his ideas and ideals have been distorted, and the modern interpretation and manner in which they are being used.

But he is not alone in this lament. There are many different systems proposed for the better governance of the world. They range from Communism on the one hand to Capitalism on the other. In theory both are ideal, and are designed to yield great benefits to the people, but in practice, they both have this major inbuilt flaw. They need an ideal society and ideal leaders to succeed.

Civilization still has a very long way to go.

And, while I’m in the pulpit:

‘The only thing I know about money matters is that money matters.’ — Marilyn Monroe.

One of the great advances in civilization was the invention of money. At the time, it replaced barter and the necessity of trundling large quantities of goods around hoping that somebody had something you wanted in exchange for what you had to offer.

Probably the first bit of lateral thinking in the world. Invent a token, and then exchange that for whatever you wanted. That was how it was supposed to operate, but with the advance of civilization, largely due to this great invention, an inversion has taken place, whereby the subject has now become the object. It is now about the money itself, and it is rarely seen as only a method of exchange, and that at the lowest level. In swapping goods for money, it is the accumulation of this object that has become the all important factor.

Money is now a universal yardstick.

Commerce was born. It has since taken on the aura of a God and has large shrines built to it in the form of banks and treasuries and stock exchanges, and now totally dominates our life and way of thinking. Economics have arrived and accountants grow rich in its shadow. Whole nations are thrown into chaos, if not the whole world, by the collapse of a Stock Exchange.

Recently, in law, it has been given a status above that of its own creators, and human actions and discomfort are now considered less important than the power, the size of the stack and the ability to create more of this symbol. Truly, it is an all-powerful God! Devotees are measured by the amount of these tokens that they have managed to accumulate, and status is definitely a reflection of this. Bill Gates is at one end of the spectrum and the billions of starving are at the other. Citizens have no clout at all when faced up against the power of a heap of little green pieces of paper, and woe betide anyone whose actions can be adjudged to be impeding the acquisition of these symbols. They are of far more importance than mere mortals.

Yet they have no conscience. They do not possess morals, you can’t eat them or do anything really practical with them, yet they nevertheless have the power to corrupt. They are not a symbol of intrinsic value or worth, and mostly they are highly destructive in their nature. Virtually all the evils of the world can be traced back to them in some way and the higher the heap, the more influence for evil that it has. It has insinuated itself into the very nature of humanity. Not so much the money itself, but the awe and esteem in which it is held and the ability of some individuals to acquire it. Holy words. A windfall — a big deal — a killing — a big win — a bull market — megabucks — money talks — rags to riches — the economy — millionaires and plutocrats — Bingo!

It can be argued, of course, that it is not the money that is corrupt, but the people who desire it. But I think it is a disease of the mind, fostered by our insidious belief that progress and value can be measured in terms of what we own. It was Oscar Wilde who in a moment of insight, described someone as ‘knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.’

It is an epitaph for the world.

Barnaby Drake: To some, he is really quite a nice guy, but he admits, he has one major fault — he just loves the environment. In the state of the chainsaw, despite denials, he has been unable to hide the fact from his critics that he is a bright green alien. A non-democratic dictator with a little bristling black moustache. He is ignorant because he is not a real ‘home grown Tasmanian’ and does not seek the real truth in the pubs and at Democratic quiz nights. He is a blow-in from the Old Empire, a dangerous subversive, a public enemy out to destroy our beloved and incorruptible statesmen. (Distant howls of werewolves.) He is, in short — dare we say it — a POM!