Subjects to subjugation

Democracy, a form of government at the hands of which man has suffered terribly since the last three millenniums as it has its foundations in classical antiquity. It seems like the term Democracy first appeared in the ancient Greek (508 BC) political and philosophical thought in the city-state of Athens, which bespeaks that Power, might and force belong to the people of the state. The point of this article is that how the bourne of democracy has been manipulated, altered and redone over the course of time resulting in the subjugation of commoners throughout history. Being an optimist and studying the sacrosanctity of democracy, theoretically, it proves out to be an august and bizarre form of government which fills the state with glee and peace prevails amongst the public; but, one finds the situation quite contrary looking into the pragmatic and implemented side of it. “The government of the people, by the people and for the people” — -

The statement by Abraham Lincoln has a very tenuous grasp on reality as we behold the failure of democratic governments through sundry angles. Democracy’s doubters tend to condemn it of suffering from at least five design flaws:

· Short-termism: Due to their electoral cycles, democracies struggle to focus on long-term problems and usually remain mired in short-term policy approaches.

· Pain aversion: To the limited extent they do manage to look to the long term, democratic politicians are averse to imposing near-term pain for long-term gain because of their need to keep voters happy for the next election.

· Elite capture: By opening up decision-making power to competition among politicians who are constantly in need of money for elections, democratic systems are prone to become captured by the wealthy.

· Division and conflict: Competitive elections foment or exacerbate destructive societal divisions, generating conflict and undercutting a strong sense of national unity and purpose.

· Voter ignorance: Relying on ordinary citizens to choose leaders and make judgments among them based on policy performance condemns democracies to leadership and policy choices that reflect chronic voter ignorance and irrationality. I would rather call this “Voter’s innocence” because a considerable measure of the public doesn’t bear any idea of what’s good or bad.

The deformities and blotches in the face of democracy amply substantiate the mere idea that the indigent and common people of every solitary democratic state are being deprived of their basic rights despite that they are the focus of democracy. If we go off the book and ask a commoner for the cogency of democracy he’d definitely and delightedly prefer and approve a monarch and a dictator over a ruler of the republic.

People in a large ratio are discontented with the functioning of democracy in their countries for a host of reasons. For example, those who think politicians are corrupt or that the economic situation is botched up are more likely to be dissatisfied with democracy. No doubt people can raise their voice and express their views publically in a democratic state but it always be without any effective result and a practical outcome, and this is the core reason why the lower-class people feel subjugated and subdued. They are pre-occupied and snowed under the bare endeavor and struggle for their survival having no time to turn against and face the atrocities they’re experiencing in a democracy, for they just want to sleep with a little food in their bellies, clueless of what’s going on with them.

Historically, Monarchies are much more stable and a certain form of government for the reason that decisions are often made quicker due to more authoritative leadership. People can thrive under a true monarch’s rule rather than being under the yoke of numerous parasites garbed as public servants. It should be noted that by ‘monarchy’, I mean a constitutional monarchy, a system of government where a monarch shares power with a constitutional entity. We can all agree that absolute monarchs have no redeeming values. I’d present two of the main reasons emphasizing the superiority of monarchy over democracy and see if they hold some water. Firstly, monarchs are impartial, they are not backed by a partial political consort to maintain their office and are not bound to favor one party over the other. It is said that kings and queens are “above politics” because they are not politicians who rely on voters to maintain their position, they focus on supporting legislation that they believe is good for the nation as a whole rather than themselves with a particular party’s political agenda. The second reason is that a monarch cannot be bribed, they own as much money and property as they please and their wealth is inherited. The public doesn’t need to be concerned about their confidential financial motivations.

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not” — -This Jefferson quote appeared in 1986 and depicts democracy as a failure that suppresses the poor and the peasants and doesn’t envisage its repercussions. There are a lot of reasons for which democracies fail to function properly which include:

· People do not get justice.

· Judgment based on region.

· Unnecessary frays go on.

· Representatives take action for their personal and often privy interests.

Not only these, but young democracies are also often weakened by extreme levels of income inequality. Rising income inequality indicates a dysfunctional democratic state in which economic power is concentrated in the hands of the few, rather than one in which economic opportunities are widely shared and diffused.

Moreover, the public representatives when getting to the top, who were themselves once being part of the commoners do not give a shit about them and just look upon them as stupid oafs paving their ways all over to the high-grounds. This hasn’t been changed hitherto and seemingly it wouldn’t as it doesn’t have any feasible solution. Corruption and nepotism will prevail as long as democracy rules. We want the theoretical democracy brought into practice exactly as it is or a monarch is much better and acceptable than all. As it is well said by Benito Mussolini (former Italian prime minister) that “Democracy is beautiful in theory, in practice it’s a fallacy” — -Dictators do not come out of nowhere, they are the yielding of a sick state where people are treated unjustly.

The optimistic vision of democracy is the measure of freedom enjoyed by the people in a republic. Sadly, the people just flatter themselves that they have the sovereign power but these are, in fact, meaningless words. They certainly elected ministers and governors but how are these elections brought about? In every instance of election by the mass of the people — -through the influence of those representatives themselves and by means the most opposite to a free and disinterested choice, the basest corruption and bribery. But once these governors are selected, where is the boasted emancipation of the people? They must submit to their rule and control with the same abandonment of their natural freedom.

BA(Hons) ENGLISH student