Our sham democracy
What are the right-wing cases against representative democracy, as it is now?
On Thursday, many parts of the United Kingdom go to the polls for local elections. Even though I concur with rightists that we have a sham democracy that degrades our culture and threatens our survival, I shall – unlike many likeminded colleagues – be voting. On the right and in dissenting circles, people understand that democracy is unworkable and a lie. Others react even more strongly.
What are the right-wing cases against representative democracy, as it is now?
First, that democracy is deceitful. It is a veneer used by oligarchs and technocrats to deceive the populace into thinking they have a say in governance of their country. All major political parties are essentially wings of the globalist technocrat movement/mentality. Whoever you “elect” is already signed up to the agenda and worldview of the progressives.
Second, that democracy does not truly exist. True democracy does not exist because no dissenting candidate or party will find itself electorally viable. Even a conservative nationalist party, nothing close to extreme, would not be permitted close to power because the civil service, the mass media and all watchdogs with regulatory power favour the governing elite: the globalist technocrats.
Third, that democracy is unworkable. Even if you elect a candidate who has some of the values you share, they will not a) be able to implement such policies due to obstruction by the elite which dominates the levers of power, or b) they will have a change of heart. This second (apparently inexplicable) change of direction is down to the fact that representatives are not beholden to carry out manifesto pledges and can exercise discretion in tabling parliamentary motions and voting. It is this area of personal discretion where the lobbyist and the briber operates. Politicians suffer no consequences for breaking oaths. Why struggle ineffectively to implement controversial policies for a five-year term in the face of hostility (even hatred or threats) and jeopardise your post-politics career, when you could play it safe and be invited on to the board of a quango or woke firm?
Fourth, that democracy is the tool of oligarchs. Democracy cannot really exist because powerful individuals, lobbies and firms shape public opinion on a grand scale. The mass media, social-media management and government censorship is so powerful that the majority of the population cannot shake itself free to vote independently. Thus, even if there was an actual range of values reflected by legal and viable parties, the range of acceptable opinions would be so shaped by the ultra-powerful that a party with strong values would be painted as extreme.
Fifth, that democracy is unnatural. Democracy – certainly in its mass form – is an unnatural system which lays itself open to abuse and distortion. You can find some on the right who claim that democracy as a principle could be viable if the franchise were restricted and only landowners or taxpayers were permitted a vote – something akin to Athenian democracy. Once the franchise is opened to women, children, foreigners and those of minority religions, this gives influence to parties who do not have the interests of the country at heart. It also permits those of limited knowledge and inconstant judgement a role in governing a country, which is unwise.
Sixth, that democracy is ineffective. Democracy in any form diffuses responsibility and muddies the water. In a democracy, transitory politicians (with no loyalty to state or people) can make errors without consequence and are preoccupied about winning elections, not governing justly or effectively. In an autocracy, a clear chain of power is potentially much more visible than in a democracy. A caste of qualified leaders can act more effectively without recourse to ballots and without the need to pander. The tough decisions that are needed for survival and prosperity can be made promptly. Therefore, democracy is unnecessary (or even deleterious) to the health of the state.
Seventh, that democracy is against God. The most reactionary of rightists contend that democracy is ungodly. It vests authority in the people (i.e., man) not in God, the ultimate authority. Democracy sets up the idolatry of the raising of a false God in proposing the infallibility of mankind, the legitimacy of humanism and overturning perpetual values.
Despite those cases, I shall be voting. I shall go to my local church and take ballot papers and endorse independent candidates or candidates from fringe parties. I know that my vote makes no difference; it will end up tallied in the “Other: <3%” in the results. I will do it to show that I reject mainstream politics, while still participating in a system that allows the imposition of terrible policies.
Yes, it is paradoxical but then some of my views are paradoxical. I believe the state should support some of the arts (to a limited degree) even though the arts it currently funds are artistically worthless tokenism. I believe that the principle of free speech helps us to correct our errors, even if I would prefer my opponents did not speak. I believe in the freedom of religion even though I consider certain religions in our country to imperil the continuation of British traditions I cherish.
The large parties are essentially the same and hold views that I consider destructive, repugnant, shameful and despicable. Whether you consider that one of those views to be the valuing of democracy itself, is for you to decide.
