September 17, 2015
Chief editor of the Ukrainian information-analytical website “Alternative”. Born in 1971, Lives in Kiev. Worked as an analyst for Ukrainian government. Founder and former chief editor of “Ruskaya Pravda”. Author of a book “The Path of Evil. West: the Matrix of Global Hegemony”, and a series of analytical articles “Decay” and “UKRAINE: From Myth to Disaster”.
Translated by Kristina Rus
People are reasonable. But as soon as they gather into a group, they become a herd, ruled by the most mainstream and therefore most primitive and basic ideas, and the dissidents and the stubborn are simply hunted down. This is the real nature of democracy. The purpose of democracy – the interests of the majority, but this is also its main weakness.
Idealistic idea that a majority vote can arrive at the best decision inevitably breaks on the rocks of harsh reality: a statistical majority are “the housewives”, who cannot be allowed to approach the controls by a cannon shot. And, conversely, the most outstanding members of society, who should be listened to, as a rule are in the minority, and usually planted on a stake.
It’s fine when the board of directors of a huge corporation decides disputed issues by a general vote – the majority vote of reasonable people wins and determines the right strategic move. Or even better to recall the round table of king Arthur with the same principle of decision-making, where the most worthy of the worthy make the best possible decision.
But as soon as you expand this principle to the wide masses and give voice to every able passenger, then the ship immediately goes down. How can a subordinate who is not old enough yet to participate in strategic decision-making, can judge the feasibility of the choice that faces him ahead? What a naive fantasy, that the people are capable of reasonable self-determination? To express an opinion — yes, each one should be able to, but to express a reasonable opinion… do you know many people able to see beyond their nose?
Do you know many people who you would trust to make a decision “for you”? Are you ready to hand over your fate to the opinion of “most” of your acquaintances? If not, there is limit of your faith in democracy. The president must be chosen by the majority, but how you should live your own life, you will somehow decide better yourself, right? Similarly, each of these of your acquaintances wouldn’t trust you to make a decision for them. And where is the faith in democracy? Defense of democracy is only a political lever, and not something that each individual really needs.
Imagine a kindergarten, where the children are asked, how to teach them and what to feed them? It is obvious that the child is not able to see the big picture, and, not understanding that he will ask for more toys, more sweets, and to get rid of the teachers. Or imagine that some corporation will organize a plebiscite among its many employees on the issues of asset management and strategic planning… the next day the competitors will have a big celebration with dancing on the bones of the defeated enemy.
That is, even in a relatively simple and narrow areas we don’t trust and will never entrust the leadership to the majority opinion, but at the state level, where the stakes are much higher we profess democracy. In fact, we proclaim that reaching the legal age achieves a sufficient level of intelligence and awareness to make decisions of national importance [but not to have a drink! – tr.].
Sorry, but this is absurd.
But the crowd chants: we, we, we, we… convinced it knows the truth.