FROM IDEA TO REALIZATION – LIES, DECEIT AND MACHINATION

The idea of democracy is very old, started some 700 years BC in ancient Greece. Its essence – the rule of the people – sounds very fair. And perhaps this is a problem with democracy – it does not suite everyone. Who? To those in power. The idea of democracy implies that the government can go down as easily as it is established – by the will of the people. That is why, since the idea emerged, the quest for ways of turning people’s will into the desired result began.
The original democracy implied the participation of all (willing) individuals in discussions and decision-making. With certain restrictions, of course, this does not apply to minors, slaves, and women. And again, one can not deny that it is fair, considering the time. The first upgrade of democracy (in order to reduce the number of disputants and voters) provided the rule of the elected representatives of the mentioned people. One way of choosing these representatives was by lottery (fair, unless the lottery is fixed). The second way was by voting, aiming to raise the quality of the representatives comparing to those drawn by the lottery. So far everything sounds fair, is it not? Well, that’s why the influential individuals improved the system so that the representatives proposed for the vote can only come from the higher class of the society. Clearly to reduce competition. Obviously the appearance of professional politicians can be noticed.
Who, naturally, inter alia, began to seek the ways to come and stay in power. Human nature simply has a built-in aspiration towards the power, and the end justifies the means on the path towards that goal. Lies, deceit, machinations and much worse things have been done – in the name of democracy! For the good of the people!
Modern democracy (about three hundred years ago) brings new ideas. No, not ideas that increase the influence of people in the “people’s government”, but those that introduce better mechanisms for placing “appropriate people” in “appropriate positions”. For this purpose, some genius politician has come up with political parties.
As politicians have established long ago, the task of taking power requires a team that carries out a bunch of jobs that need to be done to present the targeted individual to the broader masses of the people in the best light (in order to be democratically elected and voluntarily entrusted by the same people). This diligent crew must be stimulated in some way to deliver the best results. Stimulation could always be successful with money, but it was found that the combined method provides even better results. The combined method implies, in addition to money, also a share in (potential) power. In other words, a politician promises to the crew who work to get him to power to put them in important positions in the future government. Considering that in the future government there is usually not enough places for every contributors, someone always remains deprived. To avoid the situation of being called “liars” and “manipulators”, politicians invented political parties. So all members of one party struggle to get this party (i.e. its president) to power. If by any chance this is achieved, then everyone has the feeling that they have won power, although the majority of the members remains irrelevant. Not to forget, the internal organization of political parties is also based on democratic principles, which also ensure that “appropriate people” are placed in “appropriate positions”.
So it is only necessary for an individual to provide support of a smaller number of members of influence to become the president of the party (which is even simpler if the individual is the founder of that party and, by clever selection and positioning of members, provide the support for a number of years in advance). Hence, the promise of the power (even in small quantities, and even virtually), can save the politician a lot of money.
On the other hand, money is essential for more important things – marketing that provides a positive opinion of voters. Is it by coincidence that voters in most cases elect the candidate (or party) who invested most in the pre-election campaign?

THE RULE OF THE BEST

After all, democracy became a system in which an incompetent majority elects a corrupt minority. The idea of democracy, as well as the idea of communism, proved to be incompatible with the current evolutionary development of mankind. Of course, this stands for a “moment” of a few hundred thousand years, which usually signify an “evolution moment”. It would be too long to wait for a man to evolve to a better one. In the meantime, we can ask ourselves how to provide the greatest possible prosperity for the present people. For starters, it would be good to ensure the rule of the best. What is rarely achieved by elections in a democratic way.
Is there a better way?
Today, more attention is paid to the selection of the best candidate for a job in serious companies, than to the Prime Minister. In companies, all candidates fill in questionnaires, they do tests. In addition to qualifications their skills and knowledge are thoroughly checked. Isn’t it logical that the candidates for the Prime Minister or the Minister should also be tested? Modern psychology has prepared questionnaires that can rank almost all the traits, from intelligence (all nine types), morality, empathy, specific knowledge and all other qualities that are required for a particular function.
With money saved from pre-election campaigns, it would be easy to fund the testing of all citizens and there would still be a lot left. This would ensure the setting up of the best in power. Respective would be independent from each other, because no one would “bring” a buddy to the particular position, nor could he replace him. However, even such elected officials would not work without control, because even the tests do not give a 100% guarantee that someone is honest and moral. As in corporations, they would be controlled by the Supervisory Board, with the authority to punish or revoke them.
And finally, without the necessity of being member of certain party in power, the need for their existence would cease (more savings).
Where’s the problem?
The problem is the implementation of this system. The main opponents of this governing system are the politicians and parties currently in power. As well as those in opposition, with the hope to seize the power sooner or later (and reimburse their painful struggle). Democracy could bring this change only if a party that does not aim to rule is established and, in the interest of the people, changes the system of election of prime ministers, ministers and deputies. If such a party were democratically elected, it would have the legitimacy to change the overall government system.