Democracies
So many invasions and overthrows of antidemocratic governments were the main international struggle of the US to guarantee democratic regimes in the world as the most important asset of civilization, of humanity, considered and given as a supreme multicultural, intertemporal, international, intergenerational good that is indisputable, non-negotiable, and unquestionable.
That's not quite right.
How old is democracy?
Wrong question.
How many types of democracy are there?
The first democracy was created in the West by Greek culture in the city of Athens, a twin city and rival of the other Greek city Sparta.
When the Greeks created democracy, this organization of governance and governability through democratic institutions was very far removed from the current design of the types of current democracies.
The name democracy in Greek means demo = neighborhood, cracia = government. Democracy is the government of the neighborhood, of the locality, a decentralized, decentralized, local government, a direct government where the decision-makers were the locals themselves, deciding on the streets or squares, in Greek, in the agora, the administrative and political issues in the streets, without chambers, without parliament, without political parties, without deputies and without senators, without governors.
To participate in the democratic assemblies, it was necessary to meet the requirements for inclusion in Greek citizenship, which were: to be Greek, to be male, to have a minimum income, not to be a slave, not to be a foreigner and not to be a woman.
Excluding non-accredited people, we have: 50% of the population was female, gender-based sexual elimination; slaves were 25% of the population; the poor were another 40%.
Total: half of the slaves were women, half of the poor were women, all those excluded from democratic participation would be 80% of the population excluded from democracy.
The first myth about democracy is that the translation of the term democracy is not government by the people; the translation from Greek for democracy is government by the local street; secondly, only 20% of the participants in the decisions of the agora.
What are the formats of current democratic systems?
In Great Britain, the first associations emerged that became the current political parties, such as the clubs of the rich, which were the House of Lords, and the lower house, the commons. They became the current political parties.
During the time of the Roman Empire, there was the Roman Senate with popular and elite representation; the Roman Senate was a republican, much more participatory and representative of the population proportionally than the closed and exclusive Greek elitist democratic system.
None of these systems had elections from Greece to Rome, not in the Vatican, not in feudalism, not in companies. Elections have recently become a way of legitimizing representatives in the face of previous methods in the history of civilizations based on the custom of systems based on wealth and income, and on the heredity of monarchies.
Since the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, the most perverse idea of ideology and religion, indiscriminate and formal literal egalitarianism, has revolutionized the matrix of Western thought and consciousness to such an extent that it has become the most ineffective, anti-utilitarian, unjust and unfair idea that is the real sensation of equality. This egalitarian utopia broke and bankrupted the Stalinist system, which began with only two types of categories of ration cards for goods and services and ended with about 32 types of categories of income and privileges of ration cards.
Not even the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ in the Bible in the book of Acts of the Apostles were treated differently by Jesus. Peter was chosen to be the rock of the church; John the Baptist was the most beloved, the one who baptized Jesus; Judas was in charge of the mission of handing Jesus over to fulfill the prophecy of death on the cross, and for this he betrayed the Master as Jesus prophesied at the Last Supper. The divergent reading of equality above all was a distortion of the teachings of Jesus, of the philosophy of Buddhism, then of pre-socialists from Rousseau to Hegel and led by the compilation by Heinrick Karl Marx who epitomized equality and set the extremes of the maximum dogma of equality as the supreme value of social justice. Even under the euphemism of from each according to his ability and to each according to his need, it only aggravated the stillborn idea of equality at any cost as the absolute happiness of humanity.
Dethroning the central idea of equality from the emotional and civilizing structure becomes an impossible mission in the medium and short term.
When a generation was born in the middle of the Middle Ages where they never heard of social equality, political rights, human rights, political rights, social mobility, and politics, everything was controlled by rules, there was no choice of profession, nor of sexual partner, nor of housing, no school education, everything was decided from birth; no anxiety, no concern for the In the future, everything was predetermined by birth, by the estates: whoever was a serf was born a serf and would die a serf; whoever was a lord was born a lord and would die a lord; whoever was born a vassal would die a vassal; whoever was a nobleman was born a nobleman and would die a nobleman; a stable world like this, this order lasted for 988 years.
Modern democracy has no relation whatsoever to the history of parliaments since the Roman Empire or to Greek democracy.
Sparta was contemporary with Athens; did not follow Athenian democracy, a democracy that was one of the two attempts to escape from the only previous model of State and Government, which were monarchical theocracies and theocratic monarchies, all hereditary and estate-based. So the great novelty of the modern world was the introduction of the idea that ordinary people could and should participate in government as nobles. Then Pareto showed in his theory of the decline of closed elites that heirs do not inherit the characteristics of talents, even so, without any scientific proof, neither genetic, nor biological, that Albert Einstein's four children would succeed the great physicist and great genius. But, even so, we have to watch the embarrassments of attempts to place John Lennon's son, Pelé's son, the son of celebrities. We continue to believe in the heredity of talents and inherited abilities. But, on the other hand, we believe in the sovereign capacity of public opinion as supreme wisdom, mainly represented by the popular vote, the majority in its immanent wisdom. But there is no scientific proof or statistical correlation that prove that the majority always knows what is best.
These are the myths of democracy that teleologically and tautologically summarize everything in the popular vote, the supreme decision and the supreme dictatorship of the majority, even if the minority is wiser, richer, better informed, the social pyramid chooses the best and elitizes the winners in all fields, with little chance of injustice, as a rule the best are Ayrton Senna, Santos Dumont, Luiz Inácio, Paulo Maluf, Oscar Niemeyer, Tom Jobim, Sílvio Santos, Richard Nixon, Albert Einstein, Steve Jobs, Putin, Zelenski none of them left descendants of the same standard, but do we need to believe in opposite things? Heredity and democracy based on public popular opinion?
The US model of democracy is hidden;
1 - the first electoral trap comes through mechanisms that conceal the popular will through traps, the worst of which is the complete negligence regarding the control of people who can vote and how many times a single voter can vote;
2 - then comes the second trap, which is the indirect election, where the electoral college corrects and rectifies the popular preference already distorted by the lack and negligence with the control and supervision over who can vote in the primaries and in the volatile ballot box, without control, so the electoral college steals from the voter through a tacit mandate given to the electoral representative delegates who will be weighted by the majority vote, types of lose or win in the sum of zero;
3 - the third trap is where whoever has the majority turns the opposing votes of the other 49% in their favor.
So the district vote subverts the popular will, this hides the party diversity where among more than 200 political parties only 2 or 3 manage to project politicians nationally, which ends up attracting all the political factions to the two largest parties, dividing the two largest and most important political parties in the USA internally into dozens of tendencies that are not expressed through the official programmatic unity of their fictitious parties that are fractioned and fragmented functionally and formally existing legally and legally, thus the Democrats and Republicans have in their ranks all the political, social and economic tendencies from the extremes to the center in internal sub-legends that fight among themselves, that would not be sheltered in communist, socialist, Nazi, ethnic, liberal parties, they are all dispersed and take away from the Republicans and Democrats their main flags, making them just a customized version of each other with few differences between them through the emulation and falsification of a façade bipartisanship.
Pareto, together with Robert Mitchell, buried once and for all the myth of the renewal of elites. When a group closes itself off to new members from outside the group, whether endogamous or not, it ends up killing the chances of renewal and narrowing the alternatives and the probabilities of competent people emerging from within the closed group.
Closed elites tend to deteriorate over time, hence the term circulation of elites through the renewal of elites with the entry of new members exchanged from outside the elites.
I will reproduce exactly the country that is considered by Protestant fanatics as the island of democracy among countries without democracy, the Middle East, precisely because the blind do not see gam that a very ancient nation created a God who chose them as his only people in all the earth, the most evident proof that they created their own God who chose them concomitantly in return for the reciprocal gratitude of choosing each other creator and creature in a symbiosis between the egg and the chicken about which came first, the creator or the creature of the creator.
Israel has an electoral system based on national proportional representation, and the number of seats that each list of candidates established in ascending order of internal votes in the internal primary elections of each political party receives proportionally from the election of voters in each party to the Knesset is proportional to the number of voters who voted for it. The only limitation is the qualification threshold of 1.5%. In other words, a party must receive at least 1.5% of the vote to be elected. Under this system, voters vote for a closed party list, and not for a specific person on the list. Since the institution of the primary system in some of the parties, these parties indirectly elect their candidates to the Knesset. Some parties elect their candidates through party institutions. In ultra-religious parties, their spiritual leaders nominate candidates. Knesset elections are held once every four years, but the Knesset or the Prime Minister may decide to hold early elections and, under certain circumstances, may serve for more than four years.
As we can see, the democracies of each culture and each country are so diverse that we cannot call every electoral system a democracy because the only similarity between them is the existence of voting, whether direct or indirect.
If we abolish any form of voting in the West, they will panic. They will not know whether democracy exists without elections, since it was precisely the Roman Republic and Greek democracy that were born and created without the damned vote, a stupid, conditioned vote, manipulated by political parties. In the US, it costs no less than ten million dollars to be elected as a deputy. Therefore, all representatives of the people are products bought by their financiers, which eliminates the chance of calling it the voter's vote, since only those who have a financier godfather or those who are under the protection of the owners of the political parties, their patrons, the owners of democracy, will be on the open or closed lists. There are still different democracies in Brazil, Argentina, Germany, England, Canada, Russia, India, China, but by the criteria of the other, some are considered democratic and by these criteria of the others they are not full democracies, some elected leaders are considered dictators, others who were neither and are not with or without elections, it all depends on who classifies it as a democracy or a dictatorship.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário