Can democracy really lead to World Peace?

[Parththakkar12]

The reason I ask this is that democracy is fundamentally based on a majority-wins system, which is a zero-sum game. Can a system that's fundamentally based on zero-sum games lead to World Peace? My claim is it cannot.

You might ask me 'So are you saying we should accept tyranny? Are you saying that dictatorship is better?' You're asking this question because you only see two options - democracy or tyranny. There could be more ways of doing this.

You also might say 'Democracy is necessary for survival. If you don't have democracy, you will devolve into chaos and anarchy.' Here's where it gets interesting - the problem with politics is that it is only about survival. Do you think survivalism can lead to a state of World Peace? Sure, it can help you survive, but going for World Peace is a different ballgame altogether. It's not the same as trying to survive.

The state of Peace comes when we realize that the ego is an illusion, which tells us that survivalism is not the way to get there. This is the case individually. I don't think this will be different on a collective level. The reason I say this is that I see this big illusion on the Left, thinking that 'If we keep trying to maximize our collective survival advantage, one day, we will have Peace, Love, Light and Happiness!!' which I think will never happen. Not saying the Right is any better, you have to be on the Left in order to even start to care about the collective survival advantage.

• How do I think this is going to happen? We're gonna have to get to a point where democracy completely malfunctions first, then we devolve into a state of anarchy, then from that chaos, the possibility of a new, peaceful system will arise.
• Do I think it will collapse in short order? I don't know. What I do think though, is that it will have to collapse before we create a new, peaceful system that will help us reach a state of Peace.
• What's my solution? I don't have one, not yet. I do strongly think though that democracy isn't it. I think that the solution will naturally arise out of the anarchy that ensues once democracy collapses. This is why, I think that anarchism is more conscious than democracy at the moment.

What are your opinions on this?

[Leo Gura]

Not without consciousness and selflessness.

[Preety_India]

IWhy do you want democracy to collapse? 

As long as a democracy is fair for everyone, there is no problem. 

You're looking at democracy with a very myopic lens. 

Democracy is not simply majority wins system as you say it. It is a sum total of all democratic values enshrined in the constitution. 

Under such a constitution, no matter whoever comes to power, your basic fundamental human rights are protected by a democratic law and order. 

You're likening democracy to people's choice. Like a people's choice award. Nope.. Democracy is a functional configured system that has to follow a fixed set of principles ordained by the court and endorsed by the Constitution and all laws need to be abided by in order for anything to occur or take place. 

So in a democracy I cannot pitch my tent on someone's front yard. I cannot sell whatever drugs I want to sell. Someone cannot threaten my life without consequences. 

I won't suffer discrimination at job or shopping or basic needs like electricity, water, food etc. Nobody can tell me to get out of the country or take me as a slave. Nobody can bully me or forcefully take me out of my house. Nobody can hurt my pet. My rights are secured. And If I want to choose a leader who has good policies, I can do that through my right vote. 

Also no matter what religion I follow, even if it's not the national or state religion, even if I'm a minority by race, ethnicity, religion,employment or disability, I still reserve the right to access to all basic services given by the government to all.

If I lived in an undemocratic system, some powerful leader, out of personal reasons can order his officials to demolish my house. If I set up a bakery business, they can demolish my bakery. 

They can even threaten me to not marry a person. Or they can discriminate me in my job and fire me for no reason. 

I can lose my basic rights as an individual, lose my house, livelihood, relationship, safety, security and my right to live. 

You need to understand that people vote for a democracy, not for dictatorship.

And the reason is not because majority wins. Because even if the majority elected a totalitarian, he cannot do anything to an individual in a democratic society or system. The rights of the individual are still preserved since the constitution has been formed on the principles of democracy. 

So democracy is not simple voting by majority, although voting a leader is only 1 aspect of democracy. Democracy as a whole is a body of and values, structures and principles generally regarded as humanitarian and protective of basic human rights. These principles were formed long ago by revolutionary individuals who drafted charters of rights and rules (which came to be known as the constitution) and these rights and rules were configured in such a way that the basic fundamental rights of both an individual and community are preserved and protected. 

If I have to give you an example, it's like this. 

You buy a computer. That computer company is the leader you choose. Whichever computer you choose, the internet is the same. If your computer malfunctions, it does not mean  that the internet is not working. It's only your computer. Whichever computer you buy, the rules and regulations will remain open and fair for everyone. You can complain about the computer and get a new one that performs better but you can't complain about the internet because the internet is already configured to be accessible to everyone. 

Similarly democracy, anywhere in the world, follows the same set of unique principles designed to protect every human, animal and society.

But if you are living in a country where such a principle is violated, then it's a fake democracy or a pseudo democracy or namesake democracy. Now this is not a fault of democracy but the fault of the people who call it a democracy but don't follow the principles within it.. 

[Parththakkar12]

There are a few ways that democracy is eating its own tail.

• What if the majority elects a totalitarian? Is it still democracy, or is it a dictatorship?
• What if people don't uphold democratic values because it serves their own survival agenda to not do so? Is it still the case that they're the bad ones and democracy is the good one? Who is the arbiter of this? Isn't democracy supposed to be by the people, for the people?
• Democracy is all about having the majority beat the minority. What happens when the democracy starts to pass legislations that care about minorities to give them better representation? Does that eat its own tail?
• The education-system advances people who are the best at complying and following the rules, so when they occupy positions of power, they lack the strength of character to really take risks and really lead the people to a better future.

A lot of Stage Green progressive agendas about improving race-relations and gender-relations are not about survival anymore. They are about resolving conflicts between major collectives. Could this agenda to resolve these major conflicts and bring about peace be thwarted by the very structure of democracy itself, which is a survivalistic system? Of course, it was revolutionary to come up with the idea that the people can peacefully elect their leader to run for them when it was coined. What about the situation today though, when we're more focused on resolving suppressed conflicts and making the world more peaceful than maintaining a surface of order? Can a system that's based on maintaining order through brute-force control really pull this off?

Edited November 10, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Preety_India]

@Parththakkar12  I've no idea what you're talking about in the last few lines. 

Authoritarian regimes can never give you the freedom that democracy gives

 

Race relations and gender relations are like black holes. If not resolved they'll suck in the system 

You cannot keep people's free will suppressed for too long unless their free will includes the right to harm someone. I don't know why you think that maintaining race relations and gender relations is not for survival. They are exactly for survival. The only difference is that they may not be collective survival but individual survival. But survival of course. At the end of the day everyone wants to survive, a democracy ensures that.