Liberal Democracy: Functional or Obselescent?

NeantHumain · Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:34 pm Post subject:

Liberal democracy is a long-time tradition in the West—developing over the centuries in England, the United States, and elsewhere—but is its time almost up? Liberal democracy, once the elegant fusion of personal freedom and responsibility balanced by universal suffrage, is now in crisis: Opportunists robe themselves in holy garb to disguise their self-serving politics; government officials can pay off business buddies with juicy war contracts at taxpayers' and Iraqis' expense; and constitutional checks and balances to ensure a limited scope of power are becoming ignored (e.g., the unitary executive judicial theory). Is it time to throw the baby out with the bath water and adopt a whole new system of governance? Is it time to admit who we are and make our laws actually reflect that: plutocracy? Should we fix the current system, or is it even fixable?

Whether a person in the West is young or old, urban or rural, liberal or conservative, business or labor, extraverted or introverted, one thing he or she most likely accepts is the basic framework of liberal democracy. In the United States, political questions that divide Democrats and Republicans as well as other groups are merely questions of degree, yet they inevitably dwell within the liberal democratic system. How much personal autonomy is too much? To what degree should the majority impose its morality on individuals collectively through the law? How actively can an interested person participate in the civic process? Questions of whether political power is a heritable privilege, whether the federal government should have complete control over the economy, and whether radically different sociopolitical systems should be considered are rarely asked in the public dialogue.

Yet the fact remains that liberal democracy is an ideal. When a president's administration hides crucial facts from the public and Congress, it deteriorates how close the system comes to achieving the ideal. When people act on the interest of themselves and their social circle, it again hampers the ideal.

Perhaps an alternative system that more accurately portrays political realities would be better: plutocracy. Why not rewrite the Constitution so that money really is equivalent to political power? Why go through the motions of popular participation when most people can do nothing more than react to a few bland ideas revealed to them by the media?

Society can be divided into two classes: the politicians and other administrators and then the undifferentiated others. The politicking class could not work and accrue their own capital resources, making them dependent on the welfare of the people. At the same time, the unwashed masses could not run for political office or take an administrative post; these are reserved for the politicians. People could associate into whatever groups they'd like but would then have to give financial and material support to find formal leadership. Polities within the system would have to pay to have representation in the government. The more they can pay, the more representation they can have; this, in turn, means they can legislate to support their interests and bring the revenue from the representational payment back to themselves. Other polities, of course, may prefer to be internally sufficient and invest their funds internally instead of buying extra delegates in the assembly. More effective politicians would look for the constituency that offers them the best deal.

The role of money and wealth would be undeniable as well as perfectly ethical in this system. It avoids the symbolic ritual of a democracy and replaces it with pure interest. If this system were implemented, we could have an interesting future on our hands, folks.