Democracy is really easy to refute. As a political science, it is clearly the weakest. Nothing ever gets done. A democracy can go from one position one day, the next position we're all recanting of yesterday's mistakes. This is what democracy is all about. And yet no one seems to notice this obvious failing. They insist that the change was due to "progress". Or they insist that the change was due to the convincing peaceful nature of the democratic process. But "all voices were heard!" This leads to the peaceful change in power that those repugnant monarchies cannot boast of.
Really? Isn't it when a result of 51%-49% occurs, you literally have two almost equal-in-power factions that have arisen in your state? And why don't the voices of the 49% in such an event matter. How does such a system ever lead to peace? It doesn't. An oppression of the 49% is no more trivial than an oppression of the 1%. Just because everyone went to the ballot box on election day, doesn't mean everyone's voices mattered. It only means the winners' voices mattered. That's what democracy is.
Democracy, believe it or not, doesn't even lead to peace. When you look at the course of democracy over the years, you look at the Bourgeois in France and their violent toppling of the French monarchy. Their sending of the aristocrats to the head-chopper-offer.* The Bolsheviks murdered the Tsar and his family and then they subdued their people to oppression. They then proceeded to force the Church underground and they stamped it out of existence. The Nazi Party in Germany went berserk with a massive genocide of the Jewish people. The Italian Fascists beat up churches and used coercion to grasp power. Etc. Then here comes the typical response--"Those elections were rigged!"
Yes, those elections were rigged. That is the complaint. That explains why Maduro was re-elected too. That explains why the Chinese Communist Party is still in control. They rigged their elections in order to stay in power. But if you'll notice something, that doesn't actually defend democracy as a political science. In fact, what is being openly admitted is that a democratic result can only be acceptable if it is something that can be agreed upon by the whole of society. If not, then the logical explanation must be that the leaders of the state rigged the elections. But that means that democracy is not falsifiable.
A science must be falsifiable. That is a core element of a science. It can be shown and demonstrated false when and if it is. It can be provided arguments against. The shortcomings of democracy, caked in man's imperfections, is bound to occur over and over again. It is bound to lead to the worst of the worst of human ugliness. Because that is what democracy thrives on. But if it can be stated that it is only acceptable if the results are in your favor, then it is not a science. It is a profession of faith.
Why should the results only be allowed as "unrigged" if it doesn't go in your favor? Where is the evidence that the elections of the Communists, the Nazis, the Fascists, to power in the 20th century were rigged? There is none. It doesn't exist. To insist it was rigged is to refuse to come to grips with the nature of democracy to bite you in the back. It is a system that is bound to lead to failures many and many of the times! But when you can magically throw out the claim that "such and such election was rigged", not only is that too convenient, that also relegates democracy to a mere religious cult. It ceases to be a political science when it is not falsifiable. That leaves it as a mere faith. A religion. And the more one advocates for it, the more the outsider can clearly see how pitifully brainwashed the believer is. Then it becomes a cult. A cult with its icons and its rituals and its state church. Pitiful democracy.
*Yeah, yeah, I know. It's really a head-lopper-offer though the sophisticated try to be fancy and call it a "guillotine".
No comments:
Post a Comment