From Metapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Democracy (from Greek demos "common people" + kratos "rule, strength") is a form of government.

Different terms and meanings

Some Ancient Greek philosophers viewed democracy as differing from monarchy / tyranny (rule by a single individual) and oligarchy / aristocracy (rule by a few). Democracy could be viewed as one of the good forms of government, contrasted with ochlocracy (mob rule).

The term "democracy" has been applied to many different forms of government. Communist states describe themselves as "democratic" (while outsiders usually view them as oligarchies and autocracies). There are few countries that today do not officially describe themselves as democracies.

One differing characteristic between democratic systems is the degree of direct democracy vs. representative democracy. At least previously, direct democracy, making decisions by direct voting by all the citizens, was only possible in relatively small communities. Electing representatives, who theoretically should transmit the will of the whole population, may create various changes, some possibly positive, such as those elected possibly having higher average IQ than the general population, some possibly negative, such as influences from bribery, "donations", and lobbying.

A "liberal democracy" is a representative democracy, in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and moderated by a constitution or laws that emphasize the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and that places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities. In many cases, when the term "democracy" is used without qualifier, the intended meaning is actually "liberal democracy".

A political system in which the people are sovereign and governed by its elected representatives.

Etymologically, democracy, as it appeared in Athens, was the ‘power of the demes’, administrative units in which only members of the demos (free citizens) were eligible to vote and hold office, unlike the metics (métoikoi, ‘strangers’). Democracy differed from tyranny or oligarchy. It was originally a constitutive part of the European tradition (Hellenic, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic), unlike Oriental political systems based on despotism.

Reappearing with the Eighteenth-century Enlightenment, democracy has since been largely corrupted — not only in the ‘popular democracies’ of Soviet Communism — but no less so in the present Western democracies. Democratism is now a world dogma, but it’s a sham democracy, for it neglects the people’s interests. Western democracies are actually oligarchies that conceal their betrayal of the Hellenic-Germanic tradition of democracy.

What’s wrong with Western, and especially French, democracy? First off, it has been transformed into a plutocracy (‘power of wealth’), in which access to power and its exercise are conditioned by money. Second, it’s dominated by a political class that has been institutionalised as a largely corrupt careerist caste. Third, real power is not exercised by the people’s so-called representatives, but by unelected technocrats (at the national and European level) and by financial and economic decision-makers, pressure groups, and corporate and minority organisations. The people has lost control of its destiny and a disguised totalitarianism has come to control it: in the guise of a false plurality, the parliamentary Left and Right function almost as a single party, dealing with issues only if they are politically correct. That is, only if they serve the interests of the oligarchy and the dominant ideology.

Democratism is becoming all the more virulent given that real democracy has been eliminated by the system. The system, in fact, refuses real democracy since with it the people might express dangerous or morally condemnable opinions. Democratism openly violates real democracy and accuses true democrats of being ‘populist’, which has been given a pejorative connotation. The refusal to hold referendums on the death penalty or immigration; the incessant attacks on the Swiss model of direct cantonal democracy in which naturalisations are submitted to the people’s vote; the demonisation and illegal exclusion of Austria from the European Union after Haider’s FPÖ, a democratically-mandated party, though reputedly one of the ‘far Right’, was let into the government; the system’s presumption that ‘nationalist’ parties, however legally and democratically represented, are illegitimate; state indifference to the mass influx of aliens (everywhere opposed among the population), and contempt for the ‘law and order’ demands of the popular classes — this all suggests that the dominant ideology may be democratist but it’s hardly democratic. Though the principle of democracy is always acknowledged in discourse, it’s not in practice. Democracy, as such, is acceptable only as simulation.

In Western Europe, the best illustration of democracy’s absence is the fact that the established powers objectively favour our replacement by non-European, Islamic colonisers, without ever having consulted native Europeans. The people’s destruction, its ethnocide, is indeed programmed by the present pseudo-democracy. This makes it completely anti-democratic, since it destroys what needs conserving. Besides, it’s always on questions of secondary significance that the people or its representatives are consulted. Important issues are settled elsewhere. France’s Constitutional Council is the very emblem of our anti-democratic institutions: being an assemblage of notables, appointed, not elected, who are empowered to judge the constitutionality of laws voted by the people, doing so in the name of so-called constitutional principles that are, in reality, purely ideological.

Should we be anti-democratic? No, we should instead revive the organic democracy deeply rooted in the European tradition. Such a democracy, as the Ancient Athenian political philosophers held, is possible only among ethnically homogeneous people. The notion of allowing aliens to vote negates the very idea of the nation and democracy. The participation of everyone in the exercise of power, in making political decisions affecting the whole, is possible only within a human ensemble possessing the same values, memories, and culture. A multi-racial, multi-confessional society can in no case be democratic, since it lacks commonly shared references. Such a society would be endemically oppressive and culminate in a caste system.

Organic democracy, in contrast, embraces the principle of aristocracy. That is, ‘the selection of the best to rule’. Organic democracy thus presupposes a meritocracy, not a plutocracy, as we have today. It’s also necessary to understand that the form of government is not all-important. The opposition between a hereditary monarchy and a republic is mainly a matter of semantics. The existence of a hereditary king, a royal family, would contribute to ensuring continuity, tutelary protection, and the spiritual perspective of the people’s will. But this is a question that history alone will decide, for a ‘ruling family’ isn’t always necessary to assure a people’s spiritual and historical continuity.

Organic democracy is not egalitarian. It has need of leaders, ones who serve the people, not themselves. In the Oriental tradition, which has contaminated us today, the governing elites serve their own interests, their own vanity, their own sinecures. In the European tradition, the leader, the king, the emperor, the elites served their people, being part of it, like the brain is part of the body. Hence its ‘organic’ character. Organic democracy, finally, doesn’t consider immediate interests alone, but the people’s historic destiny, taking account of its memory and its future generations, abiding by the imperatives of sovereignty and independence, along with a faith in the longevity of its collective, biological, and cultural identity.

In a word, organic democracy is founded on the following, ostensibly contradictory, but in fact complementary notions: ethnic homogeneity, the primacy of the popular will, aristocratic and meritocratic selection, and historical destiny.

(see aristocracy; born leader; meritocracy; populism)

Criticisms of (liberal) democracy

Criticisms of (liberal) democracy include that certain groups, such as the wealthy and/or the media, have considerable and widely disproportionate undue influence, in effect meaning that the actual system is an oligarchy.

Another criticism is by arguing that voters are highly uninformed about many political issues. They may be influenced by incorrect propaganda and emotional manipulations. A less politically correct aspect is that many voters have low IQ.

Partial democracies

Research has found that partial democracies on some variables may be worse than authoritarian states. One example is research finding that partially democratic regimes have a higher risk of civil war than both highly democratic and highly authoritarian regimes.[1]

Democracy and ethnic heterogeneity

That democracy (or certain forms of democracy) can function well in ethnically heterogeneous countries has been questioned. Singapore's leader Lee Kuan Yew, accused of supporting an authoritarian form of government, stated in a 2005 interview: "Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people's position. In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I'd run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them."[2]

John Stuart Mill: "Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities.” This because when a society is composed of “a people without fellow-feeling . . . the united public opinion necessary to the working of representative government cannot exist."[3]

See also the Political spectrum article, in particular the sections "Ethnic homogeneity/heterogeneity" and "Increasing polarization," on aspects such as increasing political polarization in the United States, argued to be related to the increasing ethnic heterogeneity. Race now outweighs all other demographic divides regarding which party to vote for, with factors such as income not even coming close.

Democracy and average IQ

Another aspect is related to countries and intelligence. The 2009 book Limits to democratization stated that "all nations do not have equal chances to establish and maintain democratic systems. A central conclusion is that it is probably never possible to achieve the same level and quality of democracy in all countries of the world".[4]

Several IQ researchers have expressed very pessimistic views regarding the future of Western civilization and democracy, due to mass immigration of low-IQ groups and other dysgenic trends. See Dysgenics: Pessimism regarding the future of Western civilization .

Democratic peace theory

See the article on the Democratic peace theory.

See also

External links


  1. Hegre, H. (2001, March). Toward a democratic civil peace? Democracy, political change, and civil war, 1816–1992. In American Political Science Association (Vol. 95, No. 01, pp. 33-48). Cambridge University Press.
  2. SPIEGEL Interview with Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew: "It's Stupid to be Afraid"
  3. What We Owe Our People
  4. Tatu Vanhanen. (2009) The Limits of Democratization: Climate, Intelligence, and Resource Distribution. Atlanta, GA: Washington Summit Publishers.
Part of this article consists of modified text from Wikipedia, and the article is therefore licensed under GFDL.