Democracy is Dead...What Next?

In light of the furor surrounding the democratic vote for Brexit and the even bigger furor over Trumps' Election, it leaves me wondering....is democracy now finished as a form of Government/rule? It seems so. People are rebelling over the democratic process and refuse to accept the results, despite, in the case of Brexit, begging for a referendum they just don't want to abide by the outcome.

A once proud and envied form of Government "for the people by the people" is now hidden behind shadow governments corporate vultures and the elite leaving only an illusion of a democracy for the people who in fact, have little or no say in how their particular country is run and managed and despite the fact that the people we elect to office are allegedly acting on our behalf, in our best interests, we the voters are rarely consulted and now it seems, when we are and we get the right to vote, we kick it in the teeth and demand another outcome.

We live in a neo liberal "Democracy" based solely on capitalism, which clearly isn't working, socialism doesn't work, communism doesn't work, Monarchy doesn't work. Strange however, that the countries where we in the West fought tooth & nail to bring our wonderful democratic capitalism to the people of those poor down trodden masses, were in fact living rather well thank you very much under their dreadful Dictators. Libya was a gem, where Ghadaffi looked after his people who had an amazing standard of living (even if he was portrayed as a nutjob...we'll never know the truth) Saddam Hussein...the same, now Syria et al. It worked for those countries.....then we brought "democracy" and now look at those countries again.

If Democracy worked and if it was operated as intended and the will/wishes of the people respected and accepted, why then the need for fake news, fear mongering and downright lying to pass legislation and Bills? If those in Government truly believed in Democracy these common place underhand measures wouldn't be necessary but clearly those WE elected to power to govern and protect have little faith themselves in the democratic process.

Was not Democracy designed to protect an individuals freedoms and rights? Now, with the introduction next month of the UK's Snooper Bill whereby every citizens' emails texts and web history can be stored and accessed and surveillance cameras on every street corner, this really is the decline of the Western style democracy, so what next in the face of a possible Nationalist Revival as indicated by the Brexit vote?

They've tried the EU Parliament and for the most part we in the UK refuse to be dictated to by a group of good old boys on an expenses scam so global Government seems unlikely, which initially, seemed to be the New World Order's agenda. So, is this latest democratic uproar orchestrated? Welcomed? Or as much a surprise for the NWO elite as the rest of us? Or is the slow destruction of Europe and the ME "working as intended" in which case what possible form of Government could be next? Can Democracy be reinvented and if so should it?

Perfectly said Sir, and sad but true.

S&F Your OP reminded me of an excellent piece by sociologist Frank Furedi that I read a few weeks ago. He discussed 21st century popularism, the failings of technocratic governance and the rise of anti-popularism.

The exhaustion of the postwar political order has led to the displacement of ideology and political principles by expert-led, technocratic governance. Technocratic governance seeks to justify itself on the basis of expertise and process rather than political vision. However, with the exception of the EU, technocratic governance rarely exists in a pure form. And with good reason: on its own, technocratic governance cannot motivate or inspire people.

This is why a technocracy relies, for its credibility, on policies and ideals that are external to itself. So from the tradition of the old right, technocratic governance has adopted market-oriented economics to justify its socioeconomic programme; and from the cultural left, it has taken and internalised the ethos of identity politics. The effect has been noticeable: free-market policies go hand in hand with cultural-identity politics.

This synthesis of market economics and identity politics, under the umbrella of technocratic governance, has provided the model that is followed, to varying degrees, by political classes throughout the West. The viability of technocratic rule rests on two key elements: the de-politicisation of public life and the passivity of citizens.

From the managerial perspective of the political class, the upside of this model is that it limits the effects of the legitimacy crisis by insulating policymakers from public pressure. However, this upside is also a downside, insofar as it reinforces the isolation of the political establishment from the electorate. That is why political elites have found it increasingly hard to influence, let alone inspire, the public.

He says the Brexit vote, the Trump vote and various elections and referenda across Europe show that a growing proportion of the electorate rejects, not only the technocrats' policies, but also their values.

The technocratic elite are anti-demos and running scared in my opinion.

Populism: a defence

PhyllidaDavenport:

...is democracy now finished as a form of Government/rule?

Actually, democracy is not a form of government, it is a voting process. Here in Britain we vote on the policies each party or candidate puts forward for us to choose. We then go to the polls and choose our candidate for whichever party. That in a nutshell, is how the British people have a say in their country. Once the election is over, the winning party get to run the country as a government for the next five years, until the next election comes round. However, the people no longer have a say or get consulted on policies during those five years. The government run the country based on the policies they canvassed during the election campaign, the people themselves are no longer consulted about things. British democracy is a limited form of consultation with the nation.

I would assume it is similar with America, only they extend government consultation with the people through the people's proxy overseers of federal government, and that is the Senate and Congress, who are supposed to act as the check and balance of the federal government on behalf of the American people.

So democracy is not a form of government, it is a process by which to elect a government.

People are rebelling over the democratic process...

No, they are rebelling over the result, not the process. What this highlights is something I have just written about on another thread, and that is 'ideological fragmentation'. This is what is occurring at the moment, not just in America, but it is quite pronounced there, but also in Britain, and to some extent, in Europe, also.

This ideological fragmentation is occurring because politicians and captains of industry are pushing agendas with which the populace do not, and cannot ideologically agree with. Every society functions and is maintained on the basis of an overarching ideology which acts as the bonding glue holding it together. What we are seeing, as a result of policies imposed on us by politicians and industries, is a resistance to those policies in the form of a withdrawl from that overarching ideology which is expressed as fragmentation. It is quite a dangerous road, because if we do not come together under an ideology we can all agree to, we will no longer function together for the common good, i.e., the nation as a whole.

Once we start to see a fragmentation to the over-arching ideology that kept us all working together, i.e, the concept of being a nation to which we all identify, we begin to see effects in society in general, because society begins to fragment, also. All societies collapse from the loss of ideology. It is the first domino to fall.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

This mostly ill diagnosed patient has been revived recently.

"The biggest loser in the referendum is the propaganda and lies of the regime," Grillo said. "The biggest winners are the people who lifted up their heads and turned out en masse to vote."

Among the political parties, the biggest winner is probably 5-Star which campaigned for months against Renzi's proposals to reduce the role of the Senate and claw back powers from regional authorities.

Italy's 5-Star party says ready to govern after Renzi resignation

Welcome to the Future of direct democracy beyond the same old age of representative paternalism, it's alive!

The Republic is being reborn. The NWO cronies on both sides just got a serious smack down with Trump winning.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

I'm sure that I'm not the first to point this out, but presidential election are not democratic in nature. The U.S. government, also, is not a democracy.

To complain about and question if democracy is dead and use those two things as examples shows a very misguided understanding about the U.S. government and our presidential elections.

Democracy in both of those instances doesn't exist--something cannot die if it never existed.

Democracy is designed for mob rule, potentially deafening the voices of 49.9999999999% of the population. That is not something that protects individual freedoms and rights, but potentially negates nearly half of the population's wishes.

My understanding is and always has been Democracy is indeed a form of Government. There are many countries where elections are held but they are not democracies. Democracy is a form of Government whereby eligible citizens have an equal opportunity to be involved. Democracy is hailed as the best form of Government simply because other forms have failed

As Winston Churchill said " Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"

a reply to: elysiumfire

I'm so glad that I'm not the only one that saw the flawed premise of the OP's arguments and questions.

And you sort of got the American government correct--the only correction would be that the Senate is basically the representative of our state's interests, and the representatives in the House of Representatives are the semi-direct link to the individual citizenry. The Senate and the House (of Representatives) combine to make up what is called "Congress."

Good comment, though.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I understand the complexities of the US form of Government which is often cited as being Democratically a Republic ! Whilst not a democratic government in the true sense of the word the US is indeed both Republic and Democratic in Governance ...a Representative Democracy
Americans vote for Presidents Mayors Sheriffs and other leaders by democratic process. If that process is not accepted and the result of the process denied, then democracy is dead

PhyllidaDavenport:

My understanding is and always has been Democracy is indeed a form of Government.

By all means, stick to that understanding you hold, if you wish, but it isn't accurate. Democracy is a 'process' not an institution, it is simply a way of gaining a consensus we can all work to. Government is said to be democratic because it was elected by the democratic process.

I suggest you read the whole of 'On Liberty' by John Stuart Mill.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Some things we need to make clear here:

The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution do not even mention the word "democracy". (Or Mobocracy)

The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as a monarchy.

They understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life.

They knew very well the meaning of the word "democracy", and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to prevent having a democracy.

A Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc. The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between the different branches.

The goal of a Constitutional Republic was to avoid the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy but what exists in America today is a far cry from the Constitutional Republic our forefathers brought forth.

SlapMonkey

I'm so glad that I'm not the only one that saw the flawed premise of the OP's arguments and questions.

Cheers, and thanks for the clarification.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

It can be an ingredient in a government system but it is not a government system. If it were, we'd have to have a democratic voted on every. single. thing. that happens in government, from legislative proposals to budgets to (in America) Supreme Court rulings to how the FBI trains its agents to when we go to war (and innumerable other governmental processes).

In the U.S., for instance, that need for a popular (democratic) vote on everything gets handed to the representatives when we vote them into office. They run on a platform of ways to look out for our individual best interests, and then they go to the government and do everything on our behalf, negating popular votes for everything. That's why America is considered a Representational Republic (or a Constitutional Republic...where said constitution governs that we have representatives for the people and the states). We are absolutely NOT a democracy.

Wow, what a load.

Democracy has been dead a while.

If you just go by the majority:
Most people want prayer/God in school.
Most people want the borders closed.
Most people want abortions illegal.
Most people want ... feel free to use Google and come up with dozens more examples.

But to the liberal the majority rules only applies if it's something they agree with.

a reply to: infolurker

John Adams himself used the phrase representative democracy. James Wilson one of the co founders of your Constitution also stated that that in a democracy the sovereign power is “inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives"

Whatever word you use to describe your form of Government democracy based on capitalism seems to be now failing when the people cannot accept the results of a democratic process and are rioting in the streets.

So what form of Government can and will work to appease the people? Neo Liberalism version 2.0?

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
Americans vote for Presidents Mayors Sheriffs and other leaders by democratic process. If that process is not accepted and the result of the process denied, then democracy is dead

That's where you're blatantly incorrect--Americans DO NOT vote for the president, at least not via popular vote. It's all spelled out in the Constitution (including the amendments) concerning the Electoral College.

When the EC was created, it was a compromise between those who wanted Congress to directly vote for the president and those who wanted the states (not the citizenry) to elect the president. Out of those two camps, the EC is what we got (and modified over time).

Never, ever, was the popular vote a consideration as to how we elected our president.

Furthermore, senators weren't always elected via popular vote, either.

Technically I am in a constitutional monarchy not a democracy but Australia really is run by the CIA as is a great deal of the rest of the world the 2 party system is on the nose and no longer represents its citizens interests,there is one last chance here called the One Nation party but thats about it.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I appreciate that the in the American system the public vote for an "elector" (despite there being only the presidential candidates on the ballot ) and do not those "elected" have to vote the way the public demand......however indirectly is that not still a democratic process? Are the people not having their say and their input?

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

LIberalism--as it exists in current times--is about as far as one can get from protection individual liberties and freedoms for all.

Coservatism isn't much better, either.

Capitalism and Democracy have nothing in common, so equating the two doesn't do a thing. And Capitalism isn't failing, the fact that Crony Capitalism is flourishing is the problem, and it's exactly because of the two ideologies that I noted above that it has flourished over the years.

Type of government isn't necessarily the problem anywhere--career politicians are the problem. Lack of term limits is a problem. Cronyism is a problem. Voter apathy is a problem. But acting like the entirety of "the people" are angry and ready to reform the government is a false comparison--that's not the reality of the average person.