Would you rather live in a democracy or a dictatorship?
This might seem like a straightforward and easy question to answer. In the West, politicians and the media promote the idea of democracy as an unquestionable virtue. It is touted as the foundation of Western civilisation and should be the foundation of all civilisations. It is something that every nation should strive to defend.
The word ‘democracy’ originates from the Greek word ‘demokratia’, which means ‘rule by the people’ or ‘power of the people’. I strongly argue that no country in the world is ruled by their own people or that the people of any country have any significant power or even real influence in decision-making. In this post, I discuss various aspects of Western democracy and the direction that it is heading in. I also discuss a few different types of dictatorships.
Elections
Countries typically hold elections every 3 to 5 years. Some countries, like the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, have two-party systems. They typically use first-past-the-post voting systems, with the exception of Australia, which has a preferential voting system (see my post First-Past-The-Post Vs Preferential Voting Systems). Many European countries have more than two main parties. This is facilitated by proportional representation voting systems (see my post UK General Election Results (2024)). Regardless of the number of parties or the voting system, politics is almost universally divided along a one-dimensional political spectrum from left to right.
Political Ideology
The one-dimensional political spectrum is easy to manipulate. It divides the public into two groups, the left and the right. The terminology ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ traditionally had meaning. We can generalise their ideology under social and economic as follows. In terms of social issues, the left-wing leaned more towards social liberalism and the right-wing towards social conservatism. In terms of economic issues, the left-wing leaned more towards Government control over the economy (i.e., production and distribution), whereas the right-wing leaned more towards the market to run the economy.
Left-wing ideology appealed more to working-class people, who are predominately employees, and those with limited capacity to earn income. Right-wing ideology appealed more to entrepreneurs because of economic policy and the elderly, who are more likely to have conservative values.
‘Left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ have lost their meaning. Hence, I just refer to them as left and right. They only vaguely follow traditional ideology. Instead, they follow the politics of the day, which is presented by politicians and strongly propagated and even exaggerated by the media. This is done to promote the ideology of the Establishment (i.e., Government, Big Business, Media, Banks, and Religious Institutions) (see my post The Establishment).
Manipulation of Ideology
The media use their more extreme position in an attempt to radicalise the population towards a particular ideology. This could be of the left or the right. This is done to manipulate the population into encouraging the political party they believe represents them to become more radical. This is to create a powerful dichotomy between the two sides. This is a divide and conquer strategy that pits the population against each other and not the Establishment. This also helps create the illusion of choice, as the two main political ideologies appear so different.
There has been a considerably stronger radicalisation towards the left. There is generally a greater bias in the media towards left ideology. However, the bigger difference relates to the left bias in the education system. This runs all the way from primary school to university. For example, ‘Gender Ideology’ and Islamic teachings have been inserted into primary school syllabi. The majority of US universities have Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programmes.
There is also a strong left bias in Non-Government Organisations (NGOs). They infiltrate populations at the grass roots level. For example, through universities or trade unions. They organise and fund protests supporting the left agenda. This was evident with the organising of the anti-Israel marches across Europe and the US. NGOs are typically funded by left-leaning large global organisations such as the United Nations, foundations such as the Gates Foundation, and even private companies and wealthy individuals. The NGOs amplify many of the messages of these organisations.
Left vs. Right Radicalisation
It is easier and more advantageous to the Establishment to radicalise the left-leaning population. This is because their belief system is compatible with Government control and their desire to challenge the status quo, which they desire to be able to remodel society to progress their agendas.
Many on the left believe Government control and intervention are necessary to redistribute wealth, income, jobs, resources, opportunities, etc. Many also believe the status quo is inherently biased towards the ruling class. To them, the ruling class also includes majority ethnicities, religions, and even sexual orientations. This is a strong deviation from traditional ideas around class struggle, which focused on perceived disproportionate returns to capital or land over labour.
Radicalism of the left, i.e., the far-left, is used to promote strong Government intervention. The Government have geared their radicalisation of the left towards social intervention. This includes censorship, imposed equity of outcomes over meritocracy, application of law to favour minorities, emphasis of minority culture and religion, and reinforced ideology through the education system.
Radicalising the right to help promote Establishment agendas is more problematic.
Many on the right believe in reduced Government control and intervention. They support free markets over centralised planning and economic growth over equality. Despite their desire for economic liberalism, many from the right are socially conservative; therefore, they strongly value tradition. Cultural shifts caused by mass immigration are a huge threat to tradition. This leads to the right strongly leaning towards nationalism as a mechanism of defence.
Radicalism of the right, i.e., the far-right, would lead to fervent opposition to the Government and extreme nationalism and even ethno-nationalism. This could lead to anti-Government riots, terrorism (cyber or physical violence), attacks on immigrants, and attacks on minority races.
The Government or even opposition parties are unable to radicalise this group directly because of the right’s natural progression towards anti-Government sentiments. Far-right radicalisation is a bottom-up phenomenon and not top-down. Radicalisation is most likely to occur in response to the actions of the far-left or violence from those that threaten indigenous culture and tradition. Despite media rhetoric, there is little evidence to suggest any significant rise in far-right extremism.
The Establishment has done a reasonably good job through the media and NGOs of convincing even the moderate left that a far-right threat exists. This has been done through normalising the far-left; therefore, even moderate right views can be perceived as far-right even if they are far from it. However, if the vilification and the threat to the right continue, a far-right response is possible.
From the perspective of the Establishment, the far-right are more useful for creating division than directly advancing their agenda. The focus of the right has been directed towards immigrants. However, the immigrants themselves are not the source of the problem. This strategy further fuels the division between the right and the left and the immigrants.
Destabilisation (e.g., sanctions and wars) of South America, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, which has been caused by both self-proclaimed left and right parties, has led to strong push factors for people to leave their home countries. At the same time, left Governments and NGOs have gone to great lengths to entice people to the Western countries. This has led to people from poorer countries desiring to move to the West through any means made available. Not all of these people are from countries that would qualify them as genuine refugees.
Radicalisation of the right could become an important part of the Establishment. For example, in the US, Donald Trump has used authoritarianism, which has been supported by the moderate right to suppress the far-left. Ultimately, authoritarian precedents will be used to suppress all, which left Governments will also use to justify authoritarian initiatives. The UK Government is trying to implement digital ID using the argument of combating illegal immigration.
Far-Right is Not Fascism
The media often try to confuse far-right and fascist ideology. The outcomes of the two may appear similar, e.g., extreme racism, but the underlying ideology and motivations are completely different. Far-right ideology is bottom-up resistance to authority. Fascism is top-down authoritarianism. Far-right ideology supports extreme nationalism. Fascist ideology supports the ideology of the fascist elite and that of the party (e.g., the party flag replacing the country flag). Far-right ideology is extreme right-wing ideology. Fascist ideology evolved and then deviated from Marxist ideology.
A likely reason that the media want to confuse the public, left-leaning in particular, is that fascism, particularly Nazism, is extremely threatening. Most people are aware of the horrors of World War 2. Another reason they want to equate the two is to create the illusion that their proclaimed far-right surge will transition into fascism or even Nazism. Many Western countries have parties that the media have designated as far-right. These are the Republicans (MAGA) in the US, Reform in the UK, AfD in Germany, National Rally in France, Brothers of Italy, Fidesz in Hungary, Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, Sweden Democrats, Vox in Spain, and the Finns Party in Finland.
In practice, existing self-proclaimed left-wing Governments are considerably closer to fascism. I consider them fascist adjacent, and they are moving towards moving towards Plutocratic Socialism (e.g., control of wealth by the Establishment and the broadly even distribution of the scraps to the rest of society).
Establishment Goals and the Need for Radicalisation
The Establishment wants to increase the size of the Government. When I say size, I am referring to spending and not necessarily employment or Government output. Government spending is predominantly increasing in outsourcing and procurement. Therefore, big Government promotes Big Business, which is a key power player for the Establishment.
Government growth is less about controlling output and more about controlling demand. The Government wants to make decisions on behalf of its population. This gives the Government and the Establishment more power over the people. Greater spending also gives the banks more power, as Governments need to borrow more money to support their spending and their size. This leads to further transfer of wealth to the rich.
The Establishment like to challenge the status quo to advance their agenda. This often involves gaining more power, accumulating and controlling more wealth, and creating and extending division. Advancing the ‘woke’ agenda (i.e., a form of radical left ideology) and creating mass immigration have created the biggest challenges to the status quo.
The ‘woke’ agenda challenges the status quo in many areas. This includes sex/gender identity, freedom of speech and expression, value of human life, climate action, racism and other forms of discrimination, perception of the family and its role, and differentiation and prioritisation of rights of different groups. Mass immigration challenges the status quo regarding culture, religion, politics and overall demographics.
The ‘woke’ agenda serves several purposes. It pits the ‘woke’ indoctrinated, many of the minority groups, and immigrants against the population who feel threatened by the ‘woke’ and whoever they align themselves with. The main purpose is to enable the Government to gain greater control over the population. The ‘woke’ offer them welcomingly pressure for them to censor ‘offensive’ speech and actions. They push the Government to discriminate against the ethnic majority based on the perception of racism. They push the Government towards supporting the climate agenda, which is just another mechanism for growing the size of Government and expanding its control. I discuss the woke agenda in detail in my post Rise of the Woke.
Mass immigration also serves several purposes. Like with ‘woke’ culture, mass immigration creates divide. It pits the immigrants who do not want or are unable to integrate and the ‘woke’ who believe these immigrants are being victimised against the indigenous population who feel threatened by them. In other words, an extension of the divide created using the ‘woke’ agenda.
Most Western democracies are suffering various crises. These include economic, financial, housing, infrastructure, and health crises. These crises greatly increase the tension between these groups. This has led to civil unrest in many of these countries, which could escalate further into civil wars. If this leads to the fall of the Government, there is little impact on the Establishment, as Governments of democracies serve as just the face of the Establishment.
The main purpose of mass immigration is to enable the Government to reshape the culture of the country. Western culture is liberal by nature. The people value freedom, and they value democracy because they believe it supports freedom. The Establishment do not want the people to have freedom. It weakens their grasp on control. Many of the immigrants do not share Western liberal values. They more closely follow values that align with their religion. This is particularly true for immigrants from Muslim nations. The Government can adjust the laws to accommodate the new cultures to keep them happy, thus making them more compliant to the Establishment; many predominantly Muslim countries, such as the UAE, Qatar, Oman, and Saudi Arabia, have some of the lowest crime rates in the world (Numbeo). These adjustments will likely alienate the indigenous populations. The changes made in society will likely lead to emigration of the indigenous population, thus bringing about the culture change even quicker.
Mass immigration could also be used to replace the indigenous citizens. The number of indigenous people in Western democracies is likely to decline, and this decline could be sharp. As the quality of life in these countries deteriorates, many of the indigenous people will flee. Plunging birth rates further add to this problem. There is also the possibility that the indigenous population will drop further if the Western democracies engage directly in war with Russia.
Currently, Ukrainian citizens are being forcibly enlisted and used as cannon fodder against the Russian military. In Ukraine, men are being abducted by conscription squads and forced into the military to fight on the frontlines (BBC). Leaked reports from Ukraine indicate that as of August 2025, as many as 1.7 million Ukrainian soldiers have been killed in the war (Military Watch Magazine). The Ukrainian military have become so desperate for more soldiers that they are enlisting disabled and elderly men (Aljazeera). Ukraine lacks the capacity to adequately train their conscripts (The Washington Post). The combination of lack of weaponry and lack of training renders most conscripts little more than cannon fodder for their enemy.
When Ukraine runs out of people to fight, other European countries could be designated to be used as the next fodder nations. Several journals and politicians have discussed a possible war with Russia by 2027 (Atlantic Council). European countries do not have an abundance of well-trained soldiers. They do not have the capacity to rapidly and adequately train a large number of soldiers (European Council on Foreign Relations). However, Europe has a large combined population; approximately 450 million people live in the European Union. They have plenty of men who could be trained with the minimal skills to become the new cannon fodder. This could extend the war with Russia for decades. Essentially creating a forever war scenario that would be very lucrative to industries such as defence and banking. The vast number of newly arrived immigrants could replace a large portion of those fallen in war. As long as Western countries keep welcoming them, and as long as Africa and the Middle East remain destabilised.
There is also the possibility that Russia could also eventually exhaust itself and the Western Establishment could take control through inserted puppet leaders. I would argue this is an unlikely outcome. Firstly because Russia cannot be easily defeated in their own territory, and secondly because the Western Establishment desires to keep Russia as an external threat (i.e., bogeyman figure) to manipulate their own populations.
Democracy Bottom-Up Initiative
I believe modern democracy was a bottom-up movement rather than a top-down movement. The general population became wealthier and more educated. Therefore, they were less accepting of authoritarian, dictatorial leadership. The structure of leadership needed to change to accommodate changing public sentiments. However, those in power will always refuse to relinquish it. Hence, the creation of the facade democracy that every Western country has.
Modern democracy has evolved over centuries. There are many arguments regarding the main influences on its evolution. I would argue that the most significant factor is liberal Protestantism. We can argue that the work of Martin Luther set the foundations of liberal Protestantism. He helped make the Bible available to the broader public, thus shifting power from religious leaders to the public. The democratisation of the Bible enabled greater access to more thinkers and a more rapid evolution and diversification of thought.
Liberal Protestantism encouraged people to challenge belief through reasoning rather than accepting religious dogma. This also meant a growing number of people in Protestant nations also questioned authority and would become less tolerant of authoritarian leadership. Hence, creating pressure on democratising leadership. The earliest modern democracies were predominantly Protestant. Other Christian faiths followed after (Life Springs Church). The first map below ranks countries based on level of democracy (Western standard), and the second contains the percentage of the population that is Christian.
Maps of Democracy Index and Christianity
Sources: Democracy Index (Axios) and Christianity map (Wikipedia)
Socialism has also played a key role in the evolution of modern democracy. Communists/Socialists/Left-wingers challenged the status quo of authoritarian leadership. One of the core arguments of socialism is bringing power back to the people. Suffrage (i.e., voting rights) movements for working-class men, ethnic minorities, and women were inspired by socialist ideology. Modern democracies would not exist without the success of these movements. Sadly, socialism has also led to the rise of other forms of authoritarian leadership that falsely claim to represent the many.
An alternative belief is that modern democracy was a top-down movement. It was created as a mechanism to replace the existing ruling class with puppet leaders who are controlled by another or even the same ruling class. The puppet leader acts as a shield for the real leaders. They can be replaced at any time without any real changes in leadership. This also creates the illusion that the people have some power and say in who and how a country is run. This is, essentially, where we are now, but I do not see it as the starting point. Instead, I believe it is a strategy to retain control within a new paradigm created by factors I described previously.
This new paradigm requires the ruling class to retreat into a broader leadership framework that I call the Establishment. I would also argue that the Establishment does not have absolute control over the evolution of culture. It would have had even less control several hundred years ago.
I believe the Establishment/s have opportunistically used democracy to gain control over more countries. The ideals of democracy are easy to sell. Western countries can be easily promoted as prosperous and free because that is relatively true compared to countries with dictatorial leadership. The West openly promotes democracy through their mainstream and social media, which can reach most countries.
One of the Establishments greatest weapons to infiltrate countries is NGOs. They normally do so by infiltrating populations at the grassroots level; such NGOs include the National Endowment for Democracy, Open Society, and Freedom House.
The Establishment use them to manipulate the populations to support pro-Western leaders. This is typically through what are known as colour revolutions (i.e., attempts for political change through non-violent action). There have been many colour revolutions that have resulted in changes of leadership and Governments; these include colour revolutions in Slovakia (1998), Serbia (2000), Georgia (2003), Ukraine twice (2004 and 2014), Tunisia (2011), North Macedonia (2016), and Armenia (2018). NGOs have also encouraged coups in countries such as Romania (1996), Venezuela (2019), and Bolivia (2019). I discuss colour revolutions in my post What if we could establish a new system of governance that worked but it is not accepted internationally?.
Most of these countries have not flourished, as their populations would have hoped. Some of these countries have returned to their previous style of authoritarianism, and others have become vassal states to the West. We can strongly argue that Ukraine is a vassal state to Western powers. It is completely dependent on the West for economic and military support. In return, the Ukrainian Government uses its people to fight NATO’s war against Russia.
Most of the long-established European democracies are little more than vassal states. The creation of overarching bodies such as the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) has taken much of the sovereignty away from their member nations. The EU is an additional layer of governance on top of the state governance of member states. The public of the member states do not elect the European Commission. Instead, the heads of Government of the member states appoint them.
Likewise, the leadership of NATO is not democratically elected. The Secretary-General is appointed. In practice, the US Government has disproportionate control over NATO because of the size of the US military, but if an actual war broke out in Europe, the European nations would do most of the fighting.
They are Growing Tired of Democracy
Despite the benefits of democracy to the ruling class, I do not believe it is a system that they want. They are forced to operate behind the scenes. Therefore, they will not receive the recognition or fame of being world leaders. Hence, they prefer culture that accepts direct authoritarian rule.
Governments of countries with majority Muslim populations are authoritarian, and the populations of these countries are generally content with such leadership. This is because Muslims place their religion above all else. Replacing Christianity with Islam would enable the ruling class to take prominence once again. Much of the Middle East is an artificial construct by the West (i.e., two-thirds of present-day Middle Eastern countries were created post-WW1, largely from the break-up of the Ottoman Empire). It is an example of what Western society could become.
There is also a possibility that nation states will no longer be necessary anymore. This is particularly true for Western countries. More power lies in the hands of banks and Big Business than Governments. Banks and Big Business do not necessarily need countries. They need reliable supply chains and low production costs. They need customers for the products they are offering. Neither of these requires countries.
The collapse of European nations facilitates the transition to a stateless Europe. Former countries will become regions within a new United States of Europe (USE). Each region might have a basic Government with limited powers, but the main leadership will likely sit with new bodies run by boards consisting of leaders from the largest corporations in the world. Resistance to this structure could be minimal if the leadership supports the faith and culture of the population, which eventually will be predominantly Islamic. Religion could once again play a huge role in controlling the population of the West.
In my book Sapien Loop, I describe a one-world society with an Establishment like our own. The Government did not consist of political parties but was dominated by the Business Sector (Big Business in our world) and the House of Divine Knowledge (the dominant religious institutions in our world). You can read more about the comparison in my post Sapien Loop and Our Own World – Part Two: The Economy and Power Structures.
Dictatorship
Our Western democracy is a fraud. ‘People power’ is close to non-existent. Therefore, would we be better off in dictatorships? This might depend on the type and nature of the dictatorship. Not all dictatorships are the same.
The Worst of the Worst
Some dictators rule by force and intimidation. They share wealth with a small group of loyal supporters and invest significantly in weapons and militias. At the same time, they keep the majority of the citizens in abject poverty. This is done to keep them absorbed with their own survival and incapable of mounting any resistance. These countries are unable to grow economically or able to have any significance on the world stage. Examples of such countries are Eritrea, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and Equatorial New Guinea.
Many of the ruling elite of wealthier countries perceive it as beneficial for these countries to remain as dictatorships and for their populations to be trapped in poverty. It enables Governments and businesses to gain cheap access to the resources of the dictator’s country. Instead of paying a fair price to the country, they pay bribes to the corrupt leadership (Penn State). The lack of human rights in these countries enables richer countries to use the population as slave labour. This could be within the country, or the population could be trafficked to other countries. For example, Eritrea. Saudi Arabia has used Eritreans as slave/low-paid labour for their construction projects (Wikipedia) and the UAE has used Eritrean men as low-cost troops in the war in Yemen against the Houthis (AP News).
Singapore
Not all dictators rule through complete suppression. I lived in Singapore from 1990 to 2005. Singapore is a dictatorship. The People’s Action Party (PAP) has run Singapore since its inception in 1965. In that time, Singapore has only had four prime ministers; these prime ministers have been determined by the party. Singapore has general elections, but opposition parties have never been allowed to become credible alternatives. Control over the media and defamation laws makes it close to impossible for other parties to challenge the PAP, their ministers, or policies.
Singapore has strict censorship laws. Films and television programmes that have been deemed sensitive, such as those relating to drug use or promoting LGBTQ+ themes, are censored or banned. The Singapore Government removes websites and content it considers to contain false information or ‘extremist’ views. Singapore has the following legal frameworks:
• POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act): Allows ministers to order corrections or removals of online content.
• Sedition Act: Used to prosecute speech that promotes racial or religious hostility.
• Broadcasting Act: Grants the government licensing power over media outlets and streaming services.
• Undesirable Publications Act: Enables banning of books, magazines, or printed material.
Despite strict online laws and regulations, very few people are arrested in Singapore for hate speech.
Despite the lack of political alternative and censorship, Singapore has prospered as a nation. Standard of living, wages, and real GDP per capita are all ranked close to the highest in the world. Singapore has the lowest poverty rate in the world (The Independent). Singapore has consistently had one of the lowest crime rates in the world. It often only trails countries such as Oman, Qatar, and the UAE (Numbeo). These countries could also be considered dictatorships.
Singapore’s political system aligns well with the culture of its citizens. Singaporeans value discipline over freedom. Schools tend to have strict rules that align with the values of parents. After completing school, male Singaporeans are required to perform at least two years of National Service. This is normally served in the military. After completing full-time National Service, males can be called up for up to 40 days a year for another ten years. Lack of freedom is not a problem for most Singaporeans. However, it might be more of a problem for immigrants from Western countries.
Despite being a dictatorship, Singapore has not been pressured by the West to change. Western pressure to democratise normally results in destabilisation. Arguably, because of its geographical location, Singapore is more valuable to Western Establishments as a stable country.
Russia
We can strongly argue that Russia is a dictatorship. Like Singapore, Russia has elections, but these elections are not intended to change the leadership. Russia has not had a credible opposition since the 1990s, before Vladimir Putin’s first term as president. Electoral reforms make it difficult for opposition parties and candidates to run. They have also used lawfare as a deterrent and an obstacle. For example, using vague laws to imprison political opposition.
Elections appear to be used more as a test of public sentiment towards Vladimir Putin and his policies. The most recent elections could be seen as a vote of confidence for Russia’s war with Ukraine. The results of the election align with polls, which have consistently shown that more than 75% of Russians support the actions of the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine (Statista).
Russia has moved away from Western standards of democracy. This divergence appears acceptable to most Russian citizens. Many Russians have considered the collapse of the Soviet Union catastrophic. The Soviet Union was broken into 15 independent states. Most of these states experienced catastrophic economic and social collapse. The people were plunged into poverty, and the countries were decimated by mass emigration. My post Global Collapse – Part 1: Deagel Predictions covers the extent of this collapse. The Russians blamed the West for this collapse. Many perceived it as a humiliating defeat to NATO.
Many Russians perceived President Boris Yeltsin as a puppet for the West. The West supported his policies of rapid privatisation, which led to a great transfer of wealth to investors who became oligarchs. These oligarchs and Western media supported Boris Yeltsin’s re-election, which some Russians perceived as interference. By the time Vladimir Putin became president, the Russian public strongly distrusted the West. NATO expansion and the frequent colour revolutions in former Soviet States added to this distrust.
Vladimir Putin’s Government used state-controlled media to reinforce these fears. Western-style democracy became perceived as a threat to the sovereignty of Russia. Therefore, Vladimir Putin’s authoritarianism was perceived as justified to protect Russia from being infiltrated by the West.
The perceived threat from the West has enabled the Russian Government to justify increased state surveillance and censorship of content. This includes expanded use of facial recognition technology and a new digital ID initiative (My Privacy Blog). Online content is censored and restricted, and virtual private network (VPN) providers are required to follow strict laws to block ‘extremist’ content (The Moscow Times).
Despite authoritarian leadership, sanctions, and the war in Ukraine, Russia has performed relatively well economically with consistent growth in real GDP per capita (Trading Economics) and socially with low crime rates, high literacy rates, and readily available healthcare (Numbeo). Income and wealth inequality is relatively high for a European country (The Global Economy). However, the poverty ratio is relatively low (The Global Economy) compared to most countries.
Conclusion
Source: Grok
Western democracy is a fraud. The people have limited say or impact on decisions made by their leaders. The people used to have free speech and expression, but that is being rapidly eroded by censorship and more aggressive application of hate speech laws. The European Union has taken away much of the sovereignty of its member nations and appears to be seeking more control. Western countries are rapidly collapsing, and the people in these countries are powerless to stop it.
Many people hang on to the belief that they can vote in a populous anti-establishment leader/party who turns the tide. However, these leaders/parties are controlled opposition. Their purpose is to further stoke division or bring in authoritarianism so as to stop the ‘woke’ and ‘mass immigration’ agendas, which will eventually be used against the people.
Despite the disaster that Western democracies have become, it is still far better to live in one than the vast majority of dictatorships. The standard of living in Western countries is still the highest in the world. Ten years from now or sooner, if the decline continues, this will not be the case.
Many other countries, particularly in South America, and many of the former states of the Soviet Union have sacrificed their sovereignty for a Western-type democracy. These countries have been infiltrated by Western media and NGOs, and some have even been forced to accommodate NATO/US military bases. This has rarely worked out well. For many it has led to civil unrest and even war.
Western-style democracies and authoritarian dictatorships are not the only possible forms of governance. Democratic principles are desirable, but the current systems and frameworks do not enable them to work. I discuss this in my posts Raise your hand if you live in a Democracy and The Two-Party Political System – The dictatorship we didn’t know we had and with greater focus on Australia in my Economics and Democracy series (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4). Direct democracy cannot work on a national scale. I discuss this in my post Could democracy succeed if it was given a chance?.
The people should have representation in leadership. This should be done through fair elections. I believe the Condorcet voting system is the best and fairest. It is a preferential voting system, which compares each candidate based on preference. The candidate who wins the most one-on-one comparisons is the winner. I explain this voting system and several others in my post First-Past-The-Post Vs Preferential Voting Systems. Political parties should not exist. They are too easily manipulated, and they draw loyalty away from the people, whom they are supposed to represent, to the party. The primary role of elected representatives should be to represent the needs of those who elected them.
I would also argue that representatives should play a considerably lesser role in addressing these needs. Instead, the relevant experts should propose initiatives to meet these needs. The final selection should be made in a democratic manner by a broader panel of experts. I discuss a possible alternative in my posts Blockchain Government – Part 1: Breaking Down the Existing System and Blockchain Government – Part 2: Leadership from the Blockchain. These ideas need to be fleshed out, but this is just a general direction that would help bring power back to the people as well as be more efficient than a direct democracy system.
The Sapien Loop Series
I am writing a trilogy of books titled Sapien Loop. The first in the series is Sapien Loop: End of an Era and the second is Sapien Loop: Frozen in Time. I published both of these books as ebooks on Amazon, and I have posted completed chapters to my @captainhive account. I anticipate publishing the third book in early 2027. I expect to title this book Sapien Loop: Worlds Collide. In 2025, I plan to write short stories about some of the characters and their adventures. I will post these to my @captainhive over the course of the year.
Brief Summary of Sapien Loop: End of an Era
This story is based on the fictional planet Sapia and its sole country, Sapey. Sapey is portrayed as a form of utopia for all its citizens. No poverty. No war. Almost no crime. Opportunities for all.
This was enough for most citizens, but not all. In one of the small regions, some of the citizens had become discontent. They felt something important was missing in their lives. Their discontent did not go unnoticed. Some of the Sapey elite wanted to weaponise this discontent to gain more power. This created more chaos than they anticipated. This led to further widespread social unrest.
On top of the chaos, ambition and greed provoked another enemy. This enemy was on a mission to settle both new and old scores.
Brief Summary of Sapien Loop: Frozen in Time
This story is based six years after the original story. The Downs Region is still suffering from a serious health crisis caused by the contaminated water. The main characters are desperately trying to find a cure for the illness that has been caused by the water.
One of the main characters has discovered frozen humanoids in hidden chambers. It appears they have been frozen for a long time. These chambers connect to a vast network of tunnels. While exploring the tunnels, one of the frozen humanoids disappears. It appears he has been stolen.
The story takes a step back in time to tell the story of the frozen humanoids. How and why were they frozen? This part of the story also explains the fall of ancient Sapey and the birth of the Sapiens. Can those from the past be able to coexist with those from the present?
Hive: Future of Social Media
Spectrumecons on the Hive Blockchain
I never actually thought I'd read one of your 30 minutes papers but for some reason this one drew me in and hooked me.
In Nigeria, I've started to wonder if we're living in one of the dictatorships that are feigning democracy.
For the last 30 years (from what I have seen) it's only two parties that have a fair struggle on who gets to be the leader.
Some how they could be related to the left and right wing of America because from what I usually read and see online the left wing is favored as good and the right wing to be the corrupt.
I didn't get to see Nigeria as a pure dictatorship during the time of the military and I don't want to see it.
Still I do wonder if this current democracy is the best way to go..
I don't write too many of these super long posts these days. I've been focused on the Sapien Loop content. I felt I needed to write this post because of the current state of the world and the many developments since I wrote my regular posts.
The two-party/two-ideology system appears prevalent in almost all 'democracies'. Ultimately, the people have no real choice. The 'left' and 'right' pretend to be different, and they do things differently, but the long-run goals are almost always the same: transfer of wealth and power to the few. The world is in a very sad state.
Thank you for reading the whole post.
Indeed, in my country they are almost never heard of only until it's time for the elections, both government and presidential.
Every winner seems to always be linked to the two biggest political groups.
It seems like other political parties are just proxies created because of the elections..
This was a really thought-provoking read. I agree that sometimes democracy doesn’t fully represent the people, and even authoritarian systems can achieve progress in their own way. It’s interesting how both can end up serving the same powerful interests.
Thank you.
There is pressure on Governments of 'democracies' to keep the people happy to a certain extent. This is essentially to create the impression the people have power. Obvious authoritarian regimes do not need to play the same games. Some dictatorships still face some pressure from potential coups.
You Are Welcome.
For me actually, every mode of politics have its own pros and cons. But anytime anyday I will pick democracy because of it's flexibility
Countries with 'democracy' are still generally better places to live. This is still true of the West. However, this is changing rapidly. Democracies are heading back to authoritarianism.
I think we need a sapey form of govt! Why cant we just have things as they are in star trek? :P
I just wanted to say thanks for ur support. I really appreciate it!
I would argue dictatorships are the old way and democracy is the new way. However, they are both used to control the people.