VivaMalta - The Free Speech Forum - Democracy; Is It That Democratic After All?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 20, 2017, 02:58:42 AM

Home Help Search Login Register
+  VivaMalta - The Free Speech Forum
|-+  Politics
| |-+  Political Theory
| | |-+  Democracy; Is It That Democratic After All?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Democracy; Is It That Democratic After All?  (Read 995 times)
Maltarian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 226

« on: March 25, 2005, 01:19:39 PM »

Democracy...is it Democratic after all??

   
   
   Who is responsible for our Patria?
 
 The parliament passes some acts or decree which may have the most devastating consequences, yet nobody bears the responsibility for it. Nobody can be called to account. For surely one cannot say that a Cabinet discharges its responsibility when it retires after having brought about a catastrophe. Or can we say that the responsibility is fully discharged when a new coalition is formed or parliament dissolved? Can the principle of responsibility mean anything else than the responsibility of a definite person?
 
 Is it at all actually possible to call to account the leaders of a parliamentary government for any kind of action which originated in the wishes of the whole multitude of deputies and was carried out under their orders or sanction? Instead of developing constructive ideas and plans, does the business of a statesman consist in the art of making a whole pack of blockheads understand his projects? Is it his business to entreat and coach them so that they will grant him their generous consent?
 
 Is it an indispensable quality in a statesman that he should possess a gift of persuasion commensurate with the statesman's ability to conceive great political measures and carry them through into practice?
 
 Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail to win over a majority of votes to support his policy in an assembly which has been called together as the chance result of an electoral system that is not always honestly administered?
 
 Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has worthily appraised a great political concept before that concept was put into practice and its greatness openly demonstrated through its success?
 
 In this Patria, is not the creative act of the genius always a protest against the inertia of the mass?
 
 What shall the statesman do if he does not succeed in coaxing the Parliamentary multitude to give its consent to his policy? Shall he purchase that consent for some sort of consideration?
 
 Or, when confronted with the obstinate stupidity of his fellow citizens, should he then refrain from pushing forward the measures which he deems to be of vital necessity to the life of the Patria? Should he retire or remain in power?
 
 In such circumstances does not a man of character find himself face to face with an insoluble contradiction between his own political insight on the one hand and, on the other, his moral integrity, or, better still, his sense of honesty?
 
 Where can we draw the line between public duty and personal honour?
 
 Must not every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself to the level of a political jobber?
 
 And, on the other hand, does not every jobber feel the itch to ?play politics?, seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him personally but with an anonymous mass which can never be called to account for their deeds?
 
 Must not our parliamentary principle of government by numerical majority necessarily lead to the destruction of the principle of leadership?
 
 Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality?
 
 Or may it be presumed that for the future human civilization will be able to dispense with this as a condition of its existence?
 
 This institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in political life; because under these circumstances the situation does not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will attract them accordingly.
 
 This democracy is very closely connected with a peculiar phenomenon which has recently spread to a pernicious extent, namely the cowardice of a large section of our so-called political leaders. Whenever important decisions have to be made they always find themselves fortunate in being able to hide behind the backs of what they call the majority.
 
 One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude.
 
 The whole spectacle of parliamentary life becomes more and more desolate the more one penetrates into its intimate structure and studies the persons and principles of the system in a spirit of ruthless objectivity. Indeed, it is very necessary to be strictly objective in the study of the institution whose sponsors talk of ?objectivity? in every other sentence as the only fair basis of examination and judgment. If one studied these gentlemen and the laws of their strenuous existence the results were surprising.
 
 There is no other principle which turns out to be quite so ill-conceived as the parliamentary principle, if we examine it objectively.
 
 In our examination of it we may pass over the methods according to which the election of the representatives takes place, as well as the ways which bring them into office and bestow new titles on them.
 
 It is quite evident that only to a tiny degree are public wishes or public necessities satisfied by the manner in which an election takes place; for everybody who properly estimates the political intelligence of the masses can easily see that this is not sufficiently developed to enable them to form general political judgments on their own account, or to select the men who might be competent to carry out their ideas in practice.
 
 Whatever definition we may give of the term ?public opinion?, only a very small part of it originates from personal experience or individual insight. The greater portion of it results from the manner in which public matters have been presented to the people through an overwhelmingly impressive and persistent system of ?information?.
 
 By far the most effective branch of political education, which in this connection is best expressed by the word ?propaganda?, is carried on by the Press. The Press is the chief means employed in the process of political ?enlightenment?. It represents a kind of school for adults. This educational activity, however, is not in the hands of the State but in the clutches of powers which are partly of a very inferior character.
 

  You will be quite surprised when you realize how little time was necessary for this dangerous Great Power [Media] within the State to produce a certain belief among the public; and in doing so the genuine will and convictions of the public were often completely misconstrued. It takes the Press only a few days to transform some ridiculously trivial matter into an issue of national importance, while vital problems such as illegal immigration are completely ignored or filched and hidden away from public attention.
 
 Journalists poke their noses into the most intimate family affairs and would not rest until they had sniffed out some petty item which could be used to destroy the reputation of their victim. But if the result of all this sniffing should be that nothing derogatory was discovered in the private or public life of the victim, they continued to hurl abuse at him, in the belief that some of their animadversions would stick even though refuted a thousand times.
 
 In most cases it finally turned out impossible for the victim to continue his defence, because the accuser worked together with so many accomplices that his slanders were re-echoed interminably. But these slanderers would never own that they were acting from motives which influence the common run of humanity or are understood by them.
 
 Oh, no. The scoundrel who defamed his contemporaries in this villainous way would crown himself with a halo of heroic probity fashioned of unctuous phraseology and twaddle about his ?duties as a journalist? and other mouldy nonsense of that kind.
 
 When these cuttle-fishes gathered together in large shoals at meetings and congresses they would give out a lot of slimy talk about a special kind of honour which they called the professional honour of the journalist. Then the assembled species would bow their respects to one another.
 
 These are the kind of beings that fabricate more than two-thirds of what is called public opinion, from the foam of which the parliamentary Aphrodite eventually arises.
 
 The remarkable characteristic of the parliamentary form of democracy is the fact that a number of persons, let us say five hundred - including, in recent time, women also - are elected to parliament and invested with authority to give final judgment on anything and everything. In practice they alone are the governing body; for although they may appoint a Cabinet, which seems outwardly to direct the affairs of state, this Cabinet has not a real existence of its own. In reality the so-called Government cannot do anything against the will of the assembly. It can never be called to account for anything, since the right of decision is not vested in the Cabinet but in the parliamentary majority.
 
 The Cabinet always functions only as the executor of the will of the majority. Its political ability can be judged only according to how far it succeeds in adjusting itself to the will of the majority or in persuading the majority to agree to its proposals. But this means that it must descend from the level of a real governing power to that of a mendicant who has to beg the approval of a majority that may be got together for the time being. Indeed, the chief preoccupation of the Cabinet must be to secure for itself, in the case of? each individual measure, the favour of the majority then in power or, failing that, to form a new majority that will be more favourably disposed. If it should succeed in either of these efforts it may go on ?governing? for a little while. If it should fail to win or form a majority it must retire. The question whether its policy as such has been right or wrong does not matter at all.
 
 Thereby all responsibility is abolished in practice. To what consequences such a state of affairs can lead may easily be understood from the following simple considerations:
 
 Those five hundred deputies who have been elected by the people come from various dissimilar callings in life and show very varying degrees of political capacity, with the result that the whole combination is disjointed and sometimes presents quite a sorry picture. Surely nobody believes that these chosen representatives of the nation are the choice spirits or first-class intellects. Nobody, I hope, is foolish enough to pretend that hundreds of statesmen can emerge from papers placed in the ballot box by electors who are anything else but averagely intelligent. The absurd notion that men of genius are born out of universal suffrage cannot be too strongly repudiated. In the first place, those times may be really called blessed when one genuine statesman makes his appearance among a people. Such statesmen do not appear all at once in hundreds or more. Secondly, among the broad masses there is instinctively a definite antipathy towards every outstanding genius. There is a better chance of seeing a camel pass through the eye of a needle than of seeing a really great man ?discovered? through an election.
 
 Whatever has happened in history above the level of the average of the broad public has mostly been due to the driving force of an individual personality.
 
 But here five hundred persons of less than modest intellectual qualities pass judgment on the most important problems affecting the nation. They form governments which in turn learn to win the approval of the illustrious assembly for every legislative step that may be taken, which means that the policy to be carried out is actually the policy of the five hundred.
 
 And indeed, generally speaking, the policy bears the stamp of its origin.
 
 But let us pass over the intellectual qualities of these representatives and ask what is the nature of the task set before them. If we consider the fact that the problems which have to be discussed and solved belong to the most varied and diverse fields we can very well realize how inefficient a governing system must be which entrusts the right of decision to a mass assembly in which only very few possess the knowledge and experience such as would qualify them to deal with the matters that have to be settled. The most important economic measures are submitted to a tribunal in which not more than one-tenth of the members have studied the elements of economics. This means that final authority is vested in men who are utterly devoid of any preparatory training which might make them competent to decide on the questions at issue.
 
 The same holds true of every other problem. It is always a majority of ignorant and incompetent people who decide on each measure; for the composition of the institution does not vary, while the problems to be dealt with come from the most varied spheres of public life. An intelligent judgment would be possible only if different deputies had the authority to deal with different issues. It is out of the question to think that the same people are fitted to decide on transport questions as well as, let us say, on questions of foreign policy, unless each of them be a universal genius. But scarcely more than one genius appears in a century. Here we are scarcely ever dealing with real brains, but only with dilettanti who are as narrow-minded as they are conceited and arrogant, intellectual demi-mondes of the worst kind. This is why these honourable gentlemen show such astonishing levity in discussing and deciding on matters that would demand the most painstaking consideration even from great minds. Measures of momentous importance for the future existence of the State are framed and discussed in an atmosphere more suited to the card-table. Indeed the latter suggests a much more fitting occupation for these gentlemen than that of deciding the destinies of a people.
 
 What am I arriving to, you may ask?


  The doom of a nation can be averted only by a storm of glowing passion; but only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others. It is only through the capacity for passionate feeling that chosen leaders can wield the power of the word which, like hammer blows, will open the door to the hearts of the people.
 
 He who is not capable of passionate feeling and speech was never chosen by Providence to be the herald of its will. Therefore a writer should stick to his ink-bottle and busy himself with theoretical questions if he has the requisite ability and knowledge. He has not been born or chosen to be a leader.
 
 A movement which has great ends to achieve must carefully guard against the danger of losing contact with the masses of the people. Every problem encountered must be examined from this viewpoint first of all and the decision to be made must always be in harmony with this principle.
 
 The movement must avoid everything which might lessen or weaken its power of influencing the masses; not from demagogical motives but because of the simple fact that no great idea, no matter how sublime and exalted it may appear, can be realized in practice without the effective power which resides in the popular masses. Stern reality alone must mark the way to the goal.
 
 To be unwilling to walk the road of hardship means, only too often in this world, the total renunciation of our aims and purposes, whether that renunciation be consciously willed or not.
 
 What is needed at this moment in time?
 
 Mass meetings in public have become more and more rare, though these are the only means of exercising a really effective influence on the people; because here the influence comes from direct personal contact and in this way the support of large sections of the people can be obtained.
 
 When the podiums on which speakers normally stand in the great piazzez and steets, addressing an assembly of thousands, are deserted for the parliamentary tribune and the speeches are no longer addressed to the people directly but to the so-called ?chosen? representatives, any Movement loses its popular character and in a little while degenerates to the level of a more or less serious club where problems of the day are discussed academically.
 
 The wrong impression created by the Press is then no longer corrected by personal contact with the people through public meetings, whereby the individual representatives might have given a true account of their activities.
 
 The final result of this neglect was that the word ?Nazzjonalista ta' veru' comes to have an unpleasant sound in the ears of the masses.
 
 The knights of the pen and the literary snobs of to-day should be made to realize that the great transformations which have taken place in this world were never conducted by a goosequill.
 
 No.
 
 The task of the pen must always be that of presenting the theoretical concepts which motivate such changes. The force which has ever and always set in motion great historical avalanches of religious and political movements is the magic power of the spoken word.
 
 The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people.
 
 In no case have great movements been set afoot by the syrupy effusions of ?sthetic litt?rateurs and drawing-room heroes.                    
Report to moderator   Logged
"The single best augury is to fight for one\'s country." - Homer
Eman Cross1
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2017, 04:07:28 PM »

Report to moderator   Logged
"Eternity must be ours,
i am a bearer of a sacred fire,
i must keep the torch aflame,
i am last in a line,
IF I FAIL THEN ALL ELSE WOULD HAVE FAILED BEFORE ME!" -Norman Lowell
IMPERIUM
Norman Lowell
Global Moderator
Senior Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15295


« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2017, 05:17:42 PM »

https://youtu.be/XS_bVyvasZo


The Hero explained what Democracy really is about.
Democracy is ideal for the Jews, as they can play the opposing parties, manipulate them.
Democracy is a sham, where the lowest scum, society's detritus float on the surface, get elected.



00511
The Golden Dawn
Imperium




Report to moderator   Logged
Boycott The Times and The Sunday Times.
Do not post there, do not buy a copy of either, do not advertise.
Hurt Them in the only way they understand.

BOYCOTT THE TIMES
 Imperium 1107

Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
 
SMF 2.0.12 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
TinyPortal © 2005-2012

VivaMalta - The Free Speech Forum, Democracy; Is It That Democratic After All? - Theme by Mustang Forums