Democracy: A Tool of Oppression

There is a spurious quotation commonly attributed to Thomas Jefferson that states something to the effect of

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.

Whatever the source of this sentiment, it merely points to a flaw in the system of democracy as it operates in a near-ideal form. In reality, the problems with democracy run much deeper.

Election Security

The first problem with democracy is the security of the elections. Whatever your feelings about the 2016 and 2020 elections’ results, large segments of society on both sides of the so-called “political aisle” have called into question the legitimacy of these elections. Perhaps even more important, though, is the transparency of this security. Even with a completely secure election, if the process by which this security is ensured is not transparent, there may still be reason to doubt the results. However, this isn’t an easy problem to solve and may approach being an inherent flaw in the system of democracy. Even some more recently proposed solutions, such as using blockchain technology, have their flaws.

Money and Manipulation

Even if this problem can be solved, however, the issues run yet deeper. Assuming the election is secure, how does one win? One must convince the majority of voters that he is a candidate more worthy of their vote than his opponent. Yet, voters don’t vote in isolation. We can easily see the impact of political advertising with the amount of money spent on it, and that’s only considering explicitly political advertising. There is much more which is certainly political in certain respects but which skirts the line. With so much money involved, a candidate could have the best ideas and arguments and still be drowned out by the outspending and half-truths of his opponent. Even when votes aren’t bought outright as in an insecure election, they can almost be purchased, in some proportion to campaign spending on various forms of advertising.

Censorship

Yet, in the information age, with access to the internet, certainly people should be more impervious to this today than ever before, right? We have access to so much information at our fingertips, yet laziness and apathy reign. In some ways, the sheer amount of information we have access to works against us. With so much information, we rarely access it directly but rely on other methods such as search to find the information we may be looking for. So, even if the information is available in theory, if it is not accessible or not easily accessible via the methods most people use to look for information, then it is as though it didn’t exist to most people. If Google, Facebook, and Twitter decide that they don’t like a particular piece of information for whatever reason, then it effectively disappears for most people. The use of decentralized and Free-software alternatives can mitigate this issue somewhat, but adoption is much too low, and it is difficult to see how it could ever be high enough at this point (plus, social media, even in a decentralized free-software form, is bad for you anyway).

Recently, many have spoken about the heavy censorship of conservative and other right-leaning voices on major tech platforms. What is spoken of less so is that it is not happening exclusively to conservatives but to some voices on the left as well (albeit perhaps to a lesser extent). The common thread here is that they offer a viewpoint that is not in accord with the establishment narrative. The major tech platforms have a great interest in pushing a particular narrative, both financially and in terms of control. With so much money behind them and the power to control much of people’s access to information, it is no surprise that these platforms serve to further the interests of the wealthiest among us. If wealthy elites can use such tactics to manipulate most people into voting for something, can we still say that the people (in general) have the power?

Another spurious quotation, often attributed to Winston Churchill, states:

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Barrier to Entry

Why is this? Most people don’t have the time, money, or interest to be deeply invested in politics, and, due to the aforementioned issues, the demands to do so are becoming higher and higher. This leaves them open to manipulation by those with the money and power. Whether they get their information from the tech giants or from legacy media outlets, the interests of wealthy elites who prop up these groups are furthered. Ideas challenging these interests are hidden from their view, either by outright censorship by the tech giants or by softer forms of censorship such as labeling an argument a “conspiracy theory” or by so-called “fact-checkers,” techniques employed by both the tech giants and legacy media.

The problems of money’s involvement in politics for democracy go deeper still. With such a high financial barrier to successful election, politicians must be at the whims of wealthy elites. Even with all of their differences and despite some of their occasional rhetoric, one thing holds true, both Democrats and Republicans always seem to end up benefiting the interests of wealthy elites at the end of the day. This problem is exacerbated through the consolidation of wealth through methods such as “invisible taxation” once the politicians are in office. They push a false dialectic of choice; meanwhile, no matter who is voted in, the interests of the wealthy elite are upheld. This is one reason why voting is a waste of your time overall, even if we can ensure the “security” of elections. One might think that this is not a problem with democracy per se, but rather a problem with voting systems such as “first past the post”, which tend to produce two-party systems. Yet, even with more parties, if the financial barrier to election (due to the other mentioned factors) is sufficiently high, even those politicians will by and large be compromised, at least at any significant scale. Media outlets play into this false dialectic through their inflammatory reporting, causing further division among the general populace, getting them to ignore more significant issues that the wealthy elite don’t want people to notice (that is not to say these other issues aren’t important; they can even be more so if you do decide to vote). This is exacerbated even more so, even perhaps unconsciously, by the further “presuppositional divide” in our country, and around the world more broadly, whereby even when looking at the same “facts” we hear two entirely different stories.

Lack of Accountability

Yet, this divide, this false sense of choice, only serves to reduce the accountability of leaders. When leaders go back on their promises, even in the rare cases when they claim to fight against the interests of the wealthy elite, they can use the other party as a political scapegoat, all the while laughing as they both continue to cash their checks. Even if the king turns into a complete tyrant in a monarchy, the people always know who to hold accountable, and history is replete with examples of this taking place. Yet, in a democracy where, in theory, the people have the power, who is there to hold accountable? We can’t hold a faceless group full of faces, the “people,” accountable. The closest thing we can do is hold our elected representatives responsible (it is a republic, after all). Yet, this, too, is impossible as they will blame their opposing party for their inaction. Even if they don’t, the most significant way to hold them to account is to vote them out of office. But what good does this do? We replace one crooked politician after 4 years with another, equally ready to further the interests of his wealthy sponsors.

So, democracy is merely a tool of oppression. If the wealthy elite ruled openly, without the guise of democracy, then we would have someone to hold accountable. When given democracy, not only do the people not have anyone to hold accountable, they are, in fact, convinced that it was their own doing. When the people think that all the problems are their own choosing, something that they “voted for,” they are less likely to discover their true masters. When the people are so divided and look only to the opposing political party as the source of their problems, they are less likely to discover their true masters. That is why the wealthy elites love “democracy” so much.

The Kingdom is not of this World

Yet, don’t despair. This is not reason to despair but rather to focus on our own personal need for repentance and to place our trust in Christ, the King of Kings. For as the Wisdom of Sirach (10:4) states:

The power of the earth is in the hand of the Lord, and in due time he will set over it one that is profitable. (KJV)

and in another place (16:6):

In the congregation of the ungodly shall a fire be kindled; and in a rebellious nation wrath is set on fire. (KJV)

We get the leaders that we as a people deserve, whether we actually vote them in or only believe that we do. Perhaps we should focus more on our personal need for repentance rather than first sacrificing at the altar of politics.