If we look at the current US decline, it all seems to come down to corruption, that is, in the sense that a definition of corruption is when something meant to do one thing, is affected by another influence.
The system should be simple, with the people of each area voting for, and getting their geographical best interests represented by the individual that obtained most of their votes.

The problem throughout the so-called democratic world is that the above is not what is occurring.
What is occurring is that the parties promote individuals, who are then of course influenced by that party that was the one responsible for them obtaining candidacy, and there is a party expectation that the individual will behave in a manner beneficial to the party.

Note that nowhere in the method of candidate selection is there any real system that would promote only those candidates that the people want, unless those people are active within the local party. And anyone active within the local party is under pressure from the head office of the party to promote the candidacy of individuals who will vote as the party would wish.

Going a step further and looking into what the party might wish, then it becomes like a race car sponsorship. Each party gets funding from sources such as corporations or unions, and so is under pressure financially to do as those corporations or unions would wish. So, taking out all the middleman stuff, it is as if the corporations or others such as trade unions control what the politicians do, say, and vote for in governmental matters. Just follow the money. Again, the voters get left behind.

If we take the party situation right out of things, what do we have? Well, the single party can get it's money from anywhere, and it will then go to the head office to be distributed as the head office wishes. This means that if a union wanted a certain candidate to be promoted, they would be out of luck if they needed a guarantee that the money they donated would have the same level of influence it does now, as the funding would be thinned out. So, there would be less point in corporations and unions trying to influence politics by throwing money around, and this being the case, the funding would probably dry up to some degree. Then funding could be provided from taxes. And the taxes could be provided by the corporations who have more funds available due to not using their profits to influence politics. This in turn might mean that the candidates are selected locally by those people interested enough to attend meetings, so hopefully would be the ones best qualified to represent the local people from the constituency represented.  See the shift? The people get the candidates they want to stand for election, and will get to vote for the candidate that is  most likely to represent the matters that are important to the voters.

There is a snag, of course, and that is how do you get a multiple party system to vote for something that will lessen the power of the honchos within that system, and replace it with a system that is more representative of what the people want.
Oh! I know! It is called revolution. Hmmm, Cuba did that. And they have better percentages of both health care and education than the so-called democratic countries - actually 100% free health care and a 100% education rate among children.

There are no comments to this entry.