Reflection on Power and Democracy

 Power, is not a bug but a fundamental function of human existence, nature, and the universe. It can be observed all around us. In nature, it is the strong that dominates the weak, and it is the violent natural event that changes the structure of nature. Gravity is another example that can be seen as an example of strength. The fact that a bigger mass has the natural effect of attracting a smaller mass is an effect of Power. After all, Power is the capacity to dominate your surroundings and make them move based on one need.

In this conversation, we will explore why the concept of power is currently seen in a negative light in western society, and how it is connected to the type of democracies ruling these nations. The widespread concepts of aggression, micro-aggression, and toxic masculinity are all part of the growing culture in the West. Dictating that Power should be eradicated for the purpose of the common good. For those who hold this view, it makes sense on many levels, as it is an unavoidable feature of the mental structure hold in the mind of people that support what I call "Poor Democracy." This feature is not a bug but an inevitable end of how Democracy evolved in the West. A development that makes us weaker, vulnerable and will bring about the unavoidable collapse of the West and its culture.

Democracy can exist in many forms based on its constitution. It can be divided into the following categories – Democracy operating based on capability, Democracy operating based on wealth, and Democracy operating based on the weak majority. In all the types, the structure is built on the vote of the majority of the voting people. And in all kinds, a constitution exists binding all its citizens to the rule of law. In general, a society that is not operating based on the vote of the majority of the voters' opinions can be considered tyrannical, while a society in which some people can change the law based on their needs can be viewed as a monarchy. To make this topic clear, I will add that a monarchy can be considered tyrannical in some cases, while a tyrannical regime doesn't have to be a monarchy. If you want to learn more about these differences, I recommend reading Aristotle's "Politics."

Before delving into the different types of Democracy, I find it relevant to define a fundamental concept. Democracy, at its core, is created as a system to restrain and create accountability for the most powerful. It is a structure that gives the weaker part of society control and dominance over the powerful by grouping them into a singular part of society. Rich, capable, and powerful do not need to approval of the weak. It will help them create a more pleasant and efficient way to reach their end goal, but in no way is it a requirement they cannot do without. From this point of view, Democracy is created and maintained to support the weaker part of society, never the powerful.

I find it relevant at this point to address the role of Power and the nature of humans as part of the universe. While we evolve to a point in which we dominate the globe - (a development that couldn't happen without the usage of Power), we are still a product of evolution and come from the same nature as any other species on earth. We reach where we are and get what we have, all thanks to a struggle that we won thanks to our superior Power. The most obvious example  - (one that, for some reason, is controversial to some) is the fact that peace is a consequence of war. No peace has ever been achieved without a war to form it in the first place. The notion that peace is a natural state is based more on wishful thinking than historical reality.

Another clear example is that everything we have requires our effort. Effort requires strength, self-control, and endurance. All features of Power. Power is the rule of nature. It is controlling everything around us. It is used in any interaction, day, and social construct. It is a core feature, not a bug.

If true, it is worth asking how we have arrived at a point where a big part of society is convinced differently? To better understand this phenomenon, we will have to delve into the different types of Democracy, their core ideas, and their natural development. By doing so, we will understand where we currently stand, what went wrong, and where we are proudly marching.

Now, let's dive into the different types of Democracy and the role of Power, to get a better understanding of what makes them different from one another. A democracy operating based on capability can be called a meritocracy. In many ways, it can be described as an aristocratic democracy. The term aristocracy is not defined in this case as a group of people that hold Power due to lineage (this is monarchy) but the fact that they hold Power due to their higher capabilities. All the people involved are bound to the rule of law that promises equal treatment in front of the law, making it an egalitarian society in a democratic sense.

Furthermore, in such a society, all its citizens have the right to vote, but the candidates in question are chosen based on their demonstrative capabilities in the relevant field. Power is necessary in such a social structure as capacity is based on competition, which is a power struggle. Moreover, the fundamental value of such a society is productivity and the well-being of society itself. Power is admired in such societies as it is used for good. It is the engine that run social progress. If such a society is based on demonstrative superiority. Mentally and physically power is promoted as a core value wished and admire by all. In such a structure, the combination of capability with a democratic general vote renders the motive of the ruling party with the general good of society aligned, creating a natural positive cooperation for the greater good.

The second type of Democracy operates based on wealth. In many cases, highly concentrated in the art of commerce. This Democracy can be described as an oligarchic democracy. In this structure, money is Power. What makes it a democracy is the fact that the rule of law still stands and that a majority vote exists to define its rulers. There are two different types of oligarchic Democracy. One in which only people with wealth can participate in the democratic process, but the size of the wealthy population is a significant majority of its citizens. And one in which all citizens can participate in voting for election, but the way to be nominated is based on a minimum entry bar valued in wealth. While the first type is hard to find in our current age, the second structure is more common today than what many of us would like to believe. Power in this society is king, and it is bought in wealth. Unlike the Democracy I described previously, this type is built on Power. It is the Power to hold dominance in society that allows the ruling party to govern. Money is Power, as it can buy one way into the relevant position. In this structure, the limitations of the governing party are based on the fact that wealth is distributed to enough people to create a big enough opposition due to personal interests. While it serves to rest of the population in ways of second-order consequences, the structure can still be considered democratic due to its election process and the rule of law governing all citizens equally. In this society, Power is seen as an inspiration for individualistic motives and something to be feared by the rest of the population. On many levels, it can be said that nature is organized in an oligarchic democracy structure. In the sense that it is the balance of the powerful that dictates reality while allowing the weaker part to survive as a secondary consequence of their own motives.

Oligarchic democracy in many cases evolve as a middle stage between free society and one rule by a single ruler. As I will show, this structure is the most vulnerable to tyrannical overtake. Interestingly, in the period of ancient Greece, this type of democracy was practice in many states. Making it a relevant and viable option when discussing democracy.

The third kind of Democracy, which I believe dominates most of the West, is a democracy operating based on a weak majority. This type of Democracy can be described as one in which the weak majority runs the show. As a structure, the rule of law governs all citizens, and everyone has the right to vote or be elected based on a popularity contest regardless of capability or wealth. A consequence of this structure is that the purpose of society and its governing party is to satisfy the weakest part of society. Bringing the goals of society itself to equal the lowest denominator of its participants.

While the other types of Democracy exist to restrain the powerful and allow them to deploy their resource most constructively, this type of Democracy exists to crash Power at its core, as it threatens the weak that control the system. In such a structure, Power is seen as a bug. One that, if eradicated, will eliminate the natural balancing power existing on the weak. Power is seen as something to be afraid of. Something that should be socially detested and ostracized.

Societies that operate in this way are doomed to collapse. Not only due to the lack of Power to hold against neighboring societies that naturally accumulate Power and capacities but also because the general philosophy of such a population is toward mediocrity. One that dictated that we should all be more like the less capable and hide our inner drive for greatness.

The reason I call this kind of democracy - a "Poor Democracy" - is not based on the economic status of its majority – (even if it is unavoidable) but due to its social denominator, its growth potential, and its poor chances of survival. It is a structure in which everyone loses over time. The capable are pushed out of society, productivity will unavoidably decline and innovation will stop. Furthermore, due to its social structure, individuals lacking any worthy role model will have no choice but to individuate themselves based on a new scale of victimhood, as it is the common language of the weak. Victimhood is a poor way to run a society. One that can be described as a race to the bottom.

Furthermore, it is just a matter of time before a natural movement of historical deconstruction will emerge. After all, all existing flourishing societies reached their status due to their victory in a power struggle. One that is based on the fundamental principle of the superiority of Power. As a "Poor Democracy" is preaching values that demonize the concept of Power, it is only a matter of time before they will have no other choice but to try to erase any memory of its existence historically. The fact that this process requires the complete elimination of all aspects of their culture and everything that made them great is an unavoidable side effect. As Power is seen as the main threat to weak society governed by a popularity contest based on victimhood.

Different types of Democracy have their own risk and need to be addressed if we are searching to understand Democracy and its flaws. It is obvious that in all types, when the rule of law does not apply to all its citizens or the voting process does not reflect the majority opinion, the structure loses its democratic characteristics. It turns to be monarchical, tyrannical, or both. Regardless, some types are more prone to some failures than others. One of the most important aspects of a good social constitution is the barriers and checks in place to prevent such unfortunate developments. Another important aspect of the various types of Democracy has to do with their chances of survival in case the tables turn and Democracy is lost. After all, on a long enough scale, the most crucial question concerning society is its survival. As bad as a period of monarchy or dictatorship can be, the survival of its population is the first requirement for the chance to reestablish a democracy over time.

The easiest and most obvious type of Democracy to analyze is the Oligarchic Democracy. The fact that the structure is based on wealth and domination in such a straightforward manner makes it vulnerable to tyranny. All it requires is that wealth will, for some reason, suddenly be concentrated into the hands of a small group for this change to occur. To avoid such a development, it is highly important that laws restrict such development and that the balance of wealth is kept. As such, balance and the capacity of the law to hold are not obvious; Oligarchic Democracy is vulnerable and doesn't seem to be a viable option for an extended period of time.

 A Democracy based on meritocracy has its own risk. The most obvious one is the creation of an elite layer in society that will alienate themselves over time from the rest of the population. In this case, it is highly likely that a kind of monarchy will form or alternatively, that Democracy will move from this form to an Oligarchic one. While it is not recommended in any way, the risks of such a society are associated with the loss of its values over time and not the capacity of a ruling party to overtake the system. In both cases, the nation will not cease to exist. It is only the governing system that is at risk.

Not like the two previous cases, A democracy ruled by its weakest part not only has the risk of tyranny due to its weakening population or backlash from its extreme movements, but its more significant risk is its decomposition and collapse. As I explain above, decomposition is a feature of this social structure on many levels. The self-inflicting destruction of its own culture and the standard of victimhood leave the population weak and divided. A state that will inevitably bring to one of the three following scenarios – The first is the takeover of the nation by a neighboring state that operates on values of Power and survival. On any geopolitical level, it will be a natural consequence that will occur at a certain point in time. While this will require a prolonged period of deterioration or a sudden, unproportionally fast rise of Power by a neighboring country, this outcome is unavoidable if society is left alone to deteriorate for long enough. The second option that could emerge sooner is the collapse of the social structure of society from within, bringing about a civil war. This scenario will unavoidably bring to the rise of some form of tyranny and the potential takeover of a neighboring country if a clear win is not obtained quickly. In any case, the foundation of Democracy will collapse on the eve of a civil war, and society will stop functioning in the way it did previously. As a matter of fact, the act of the civil war will mean that the experiment of eradicating the notion of Power has failed. As the act itself is an admission that the only solution to restore order is violence, which is the ultimate and most crude manifestation of the usage of Power. Interestingly, the third option is the rise of socialism in its many forms.

In many ways, socialism is at its core based on the Power of the many weak over the capable minority. Equal outcomes, equal pay and equal distribution regardless of contribution or capacity benefits only the weakest part of society. Ironically, socialism is based on regulated and concentrated control in the hands of the few. Making it, at its core, vulnerable to tyranny. Historically, all forms of socialism have led to tyranny, poverty, and an unavoidable collapse. In this third scenario, socialism is just a road taken to tyranny, civil war, and the inevitable return to the most crude way of Power. In case of tyranny, the nation as a whole still has a chance to survive and remain in existence under a tyrant or alternatively vanish and get conquered by a neighboring country. 

The West has lost its way as it lost its philosophy promoting meritocracy and its relationship with Power. It is Power that allowed the West to achieve all its greatness and be what it is. It is by aggressively demanding capacity and casting aside the ones who are not willing to play that the west reach it amazing standard of living and prolong period of peace. Life is hard and uncomfortable. It is not by downgrading ourselves to the lowest denominator that we will thrive, nor by explaining ourselves we evolve to be a better existence than what brought us here.

Peace requires war. Achievements require effort. It is easy to destroy and hard to build. Hiding behind utopian rightfulness is not only not promoting a better future, but it also promises a worse one. If we are to walk straight into our own destruction, let us at least be honest about it and not explain to ourselves we are superior. Somebody said, "Good periods create weak men, which in turn create bad periods that create strong men." I don't think good periods create weak men. I believe that in good periods, strong men are not needed and are cast aside. While in hard periods, the weak disappear as they hide behind the strong man. If we are to save the West, I believe the first and most important step is changing our relationship to Power. It is an essential step if we are to maintain the current democratic experiment. As only democracy can promote the betterment of society and individuals all together. It is essential if we are to follow the significant steps that our ancestors did for our current prosperity. It is Power that allows us to be free, and our capacity to hold it prevents our enemies from taking the greatness that we have created.