Representation

Representative democracy - now I don't know about you but whenever I hear this compound form of type of government I invariably start laughing inside - the term sounds so absurd, that it would be even more obvious if I were to put it next to another fine streak of human deception: democratic dictatorship; yes, that's how some of the communist countries officially name themselves. It's just plain hilarious.

Let's first consider representation. What are the elected officials representing? The popular interest? Oh really? Can you provide data as to an official voting against his interests just to satisfy people with whom he won't have to deal with for another 4 years (unless you live in a country where the recall function is implemented, which is rather nice)? In effect, everyone is egotistical, and everyone votes in their own self-interest. The difference between the official that is indulging himself in power and the people is that the latter have the counter-balancing of democratic system, i.e. even if everyone votes in their own interest, the most with the common interest win by majority rule. Democracy is simple: winner takes it all.

And that brings me to the second part of my commentary (couldn't really call it an argument now, could I?). It concerns the matter of democracy with a hint of representative system. No election can be representative and democratic at the same time. Sure, democracy exist in all tiers of decision, even in an oligarchy of 10, where 6 decide against 4; to this effect, if you claim the representative aspect, one vote (of the official) cannot equate the diversity of the magnitude in which he was elected (since he represents ALL of the citizens in the respective constituency, not only those that elected him). On the other side, if you argue the democratic aspect, it would totally conflict the representative facet: democracy compels you to always respect the majority rule, regardless of votes wasted. Dictatorship of majority.

And finally I come to the wittgensteinein angle of my argument (yes, now I can call it that). Democracy is a label applied to practical measures and undertakings of any construct (political - regime, social - corporation) to infer it legitimacy in front of those that should actually recognise their value: the populace, and more particularly, the majority. By repeatedly telling the masses they live in a democracy, they give up their undeniable democratic essence to a rather distorted minority that basically governs (or leads) outside the ethic ground they uphold. On that account, 'democracy' and notably 'representative democracy' are make-believe terms in the same scope as you would consider 'democratic dictatorship'. Funny thing is, the roles are reversed, and democracy actually is dictatorial.

Therefore, a small practical example requires to be satisfied: consider a community of 2001 individuals (I'll discuss direct democracy and its implications in the modern world another time, so let's skip the "oh, but..."). Individual no. 1 has to die, doesn't matter why, he just has to. So, as in a true, pure democratic state, the matter is subjected to vote. 999 vote against his death while the others 1001 vote for. That is his death sentence. Now, among the arguments you'd shout against this is that every life is priceless. I agree. You also say that we are all equal. By using simple logic and mathematics, 1001 priceless unique lives are decisively more than 999 (say even 1000, if the guy about to die can vote on the matter). And that's the proof of democracy. If you feel the need to name your system, please don't perjure the name of such a beautiful concept. Democracy is not representative. It's not open for debate. It's absolute, winner takes it all.

Vox populi :)