DEMOCRACY

THE MYTH OF DEMOCRACY

By

John Roberts

Democracy! What a wonderful concept! It involves the proposition that all the adult members of a particular community enjoy the right to participate in the government and management of their public affairs. They have the privilege of appointing, by public ballot, their representatives in the Government of the day.

What a glorious myth is that of the notion of democracy? Did it not, indeed, commence in the management of the City States of ancient Greece and, particularly, in Athens? It was a noble concept and, had it been pursued in a truly liberal and equable manner, might have survived internecine wars and produced something noble in later generations. However, from my own, limited understanding, of the Athenian system, the election of political representatives was confined to a particularly narrow section of Society and certainly did not bestow the right to vote upon the extremely poor, nor upon those numerous individuals who were slaves. Nor did this form of government result in an improvement in the living standards of those who lived at the lower end of the social scale. The fact that democratic government was confined to relatively few City States, meant that it was in the nature of a social experiment, rather than a concerted attempt to bring universal suffrage to people on a truly national scale.

In Ancient Rome, the Republic also was hardly democratic: the right of suffrage being confined to "citizens". Once more, superior social status and property rights accompanied the power of voting for one's representative in the Senate. As Rome increased in power, so did the number of her slaves multiply. The Roman system bore some semblance to a democratic State, if only in the idealism generated in the minds of her more liberal and enlightened citizens. Further democratic development was curtailed by the accession to power of the dictator, Julius Caesar. Subsequently, the Roman State was subjugated to the power of the Emperors and ceased to be a democracy in any sense.

With the decline of the Roman power, after 400AD, the Western world reverted to political and social chaos, from which it emerged thirteen hundred years later, with the gradual development of Parliamentary Government in the United Kingdom. Here again, true democracy was never established. Male adult suffrage was not granted to the working classes until the 1870s and to women, after a courageous fight by the suffragette movement, in the 1920's. Even today, it might perhaps be averred that universal democratic suffrage is unattainable, particularly in view of the development of modern organs of mass media.

The destructive revolution in France, which commenced in l789, did little more than air the grievances of the masses, who inflicted a gruesome revenge upon their tormentors. Within a generation or two, France, for all practical purposes, had reverted to the previous degenerate Monarchistic system. The megalomaniac, Napoleon Bonaparte, during a period of 15 or so years, brought both triumph and disaster to France and misery to the rest of Europe.

In Britain, where the condition of the masses was only slightly improved from that of the French working classes, a similar but slightly less bloody revolution might have achieved results in the shape of a social upheaval. However, it did not occur: the ruling class; being forewarned by the events in France; steps were taken in the limited Reform Legislation of 1832 to improve the lot of the working classes. As a result, land tenure remains unchanged and class privilege, based on the principle of aristocratic superiority, still maintains a precarious sway. Fortunately, the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings is on the wane and with it, hopefully, the proposition that wealth and privilege are God-given rights, with which the State must not interfere. --------------

Most of the advanced nations of the Western World would claim, with some justification, that their own political system is the most truly democratic ever devised by Man. Of course, there are the trappings of full adult suffrage. Nobody, in European and United States communities could be said to be deprived of his or her right to vote, for underhand political reasons, although this has only been true in the USA for the last twenty or thirty years. One need not elaborate on the political circumstances of black Americans prior to the agitation of the Sixties years; nor does one doubt that the indigenous people of North America, in the past, have had a rough deal in political and economic terms. However, changes have taken place and, presumably, are continuing to rectify the situation regarding discrimination against indigenous and black populations in the Western World. The question remains, whether such a thing as true democracy exists anywhere in the world today? Are people free to make decisions for themselves, without pressure to influence them one way or another? The simple answer, of course, is: "No!"

When Societies were stable, there was little need for, nor any means of spreading propaganda, or for the additional brain washing of peoples. Our “Holy Mother”, The Church of Christ, took care of all social problems and made appropriate declarations regarding the beliefs, needs and status of individuals.

Before the invention of the Steam Engine and the modern asphalt road, information was a matter of mouth-to-mouth communication. The peasant lived in his village environment, beyond the borders of which there was, for him, no other world. His knowledge was confined to what he was told by his parents and perhaps by the local Priest at Sunday Mass. He was illiterate and had no means of ascertaining the truth or falsity of whatever knowledge he possessed. Many of his ideas consisted of traditional and superstitious beliefs, which had been handed down for generations, as statements of fact. His whole life was spent in this confined area and he died in ignorance of factors which might have affected his view of life and political development. Even those who dwelt a little higher on the social scale, were no better off than the peasant. The village Priest was often semi-literate, or (in Continental Europe) completely so: the local Squire, although able to read and write, often had little greater perception than the farm-labourer. News travelled by the weekly coach or by means of the occasional passer-by, but otherwise, life was closely confined. Such a situation prevailed for centuries and clearly, to our modern view, would have resulted in the stultification of the possibility of social progress. There was nothing that would stimulate interest amongst the poorer classes in a collective attempt to improve their worldly condition.

In fact, it was only when the prospect of mass starvation took hold on the working classes, that they were occasionally impelled to protest against the injustice and inequity of the Feudal system. Such a protest led to the Peasant's Revolt in England in the 15th Century, under Perkin Warbeck, which resulted in a march on London. However, the peasants were easily induced to desist from their rebellious behaviour and dissuaded from further revolt, by the slaughter of their leaders, who had been given an assurance that their grievances would be considered.

The 17th Century revolution in Britain was generated by the insistence of Charles the First on his "Divine Right", whereby he could override the wishes of the people, at will. It is an amazing thing that the participants in the rebellion were not levellers or socialists, as we understand them today, but members of the minor aristocracy and influential merchant classes. What started as a legitimate protest, resulted in a blood bath and universal misery for the Nation. It ended with no redress for the lower classes and the eventual restoration of the Monarchy under the degenerate and lecherous Charles the Second. In the aggregate, the English Revolution is seen as a step forward on the march towards democracy, as we know it today.

The world of communication was changed forever by the invention of the electric telegraph in the mid-19th Century. Once cables were laid across the oceans, messages could be transmitted from one continent to another in minutes. The subsequent development of the telephone system and radio, revolutionised information transfer even more. With the invention of the film and later, Television, the revolution was complete. No part of humanity remains in complete isolation from the rest of mankind.

Access to newspaper information, once the privilege of the more comfortably off, is now available in many forms to everyone, except the most illiterate or penurious of men. So many forms of mass communication are available to us, that the mind boggles at the thought of the thousands of people who are daily employed all over the world in the dissemination of information and ideas. The arrival of the Internet, that miracle of miracles, has made it possible for everyone who can afford to purchase a computer, to record and publish his ideas. Hence this essay. But what about all this information? What is its source? Who is directing the flow of ideas and for what motive? The fact is that it is the wealthy financial magnate: the multi-billionaire, in command of many facets of business activity, who is, as a rule, the owner and director of these vehicles of information. For practical purposes, in the Western World today, it may be truthfully stated that the bulk of the media organizations in the developed world are controlled by perhaps two or three wealthy and, consequently, powerful men. Governments are directly influenced by these people, whose opinions and wishes are reflected in decisions made at Governmental level, affecting countless millions of persons throughout the world. During the past forty or so years, we have observed the continuous consolidation by one or two "media moguls" of their control of the various organs of public information: Television, Radio, Newspapers, Magazines of all descriptions. Every aspect of public life is largely controlled and influenced by these "faceless" men. The ordinary man is powerless to help himself: he is unable to form his own objective, balanced view of any given political or international situation.

An example of modern brainwashing techniques is demonstrated in the mass-hysteria generated in the United States in the late 40's and 50's as a result of "Commo-phobia". As a young man in England at this time, I, in common with many English people, was appalled at the constant barrage of anti-communist (anti-socialist) propaganda which issued from the USA. This propaganda arrived in England in the form of cinema and newspaper news items, setting out the most recent developments in the continued anti-communist witch-hunt, championed by one Joseph McCarthy, a loud-mouthed, ignorant and over-bearing US Senator, who ruthlessly exploited the fear of the average American for the perceived threat of International Socialism.

This anti-communist hysteria culminated in the conviction of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Jews, (husband and wife) who had socialist connections, for high treason, in allegedly passing Nuclear information to the Soviet Union. They were electrocuted on 19 June l953, even though the country was not at war with anyone at the time. The trial was a travesty of justice: the evidence fabricated and incapable of standing-up to an honest and objective assessment of the facts. (See "The Judgment of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg", by John Wexley: Bookville, London, l956).

The myth of the guilt of the Rosenbergs is still being perpetuated by officials within the United States. This mass-hysteria was assiduously cultivated by the media organs in the USA at the time: television, radio, film and the press. It resulted in pressure being placed upon every person with known socialist views or connections and caused the loss of employment and public denunciation of thousands of honest and law-abiding citizens of the United States. The hysteria is still lingering in the continued suspicion within the USA of anyone or anything connected with socialism in any form. What clearly happened in the case of the Communists in the USA, is that the express right of freedom of speech and assembly was denied to socialists and communists on the false premise that they were, necessarily, enemies of the United States. Similar paranoia was evident in the political life of Australia, at this time. That such deliberate concealment and twisting of the truth was possible in America in the 50's, reveals the extent to which media organizations are capable of directing or influencing the minds of millions of people. When we perceive a confluence of governmental policies, with the pressure exerted by editorial opinion, we can well understand how the minds of individuals are influenced, very often, against their better judgement, to adopt an opinion that is contrary to the public interest.

That such influences are present in all our lives, is evident today, when we read newspaper editorials supporting an official viewpoint which we intrinsically feel to be false. We have witnessed the growth of the propaganda machine to the stage where every facet of public information is engineered to suit a particular opinion. People are no longer able to perceive the truth, as falsehood is presented to them, on all sides, as valid and irrefutable verity.

In the United States today, (1999) we observe this process continuing. The foreigner, viewing these events at a distance, is more able, perhaps, to bring a proper perspective to bear on the proceedings. The deliberate manipulation of an international situation to divert internal public opinion, resulting in death to unknown numbers of innocent people, and the systematic destruction of essential services, (Iraq and Serbia) reveals an astonishing degree of depravity and cynicism.

The man in the street, who is generally a person of indifferent morality and little depth of intellect, rarely questions the aberrant conduct of his political superiors. Recent global developments reveal the extent to which the co-operation of governments and media results in the manipulation of nations. Nobody is immune from the infection, which is more insidious than the most elusive virus, but much more deadly.

It is time for the people of the USA to start thinking for themselves and for all of us who live the comfortable life of Western affluence, to assert ourselves to endeavour to off-set these baneful and pernicious influences, which affect our lives and those of later generations. Unless the individual, who has, in the past, stood by and let others do his thinking for him, sits down and seriously ponders the direction in which the modern world is moving, we will reach a point wherein the interests and policies of the wealthy and powerful will totally dominate all public and private activity. We may, indeed, be already at this position in regard to international trade and politics.

The "man in the street" has already lost any power he may have had to influence the course of major events. If your newspaper editor does not like the tone of your letter, he will simply file it and send you a polite acknowledgement. He has no other option. His superiors dictate his response to your submission. As for your voting power: you have none. The candidate is selected by persons unknown to you. You cannot penetrate his mind in order to assess the quality of his ideas. He is a "Party" man, selected for his compliance with the policies of his superiors. He is not going to change the world, one way or the other. He is after fame and fortune, in common with all politicians, and cares not a fig for civil liberties or individual rights. The opposing candidate wears a similar suit (or dress) and has almost identical political opinions. You cannot choose between them. If there are minor independent candidates, they are not in the running and you are merely wasting your vote in casting your lot on their behalf. So what are your options? You choose the least objectionable candidate and he goes off to Government to represent himself, very well. He has the blessing of the local media barons.

So much for "Democracy". Can we say more? Well, we have the "best of all possible worlds", as some wise philosopher once said. All we can do, as individuals, is make our own ideas known: try to spread an honest gospel, so far as it is within our capacity. And, finally, to trust that, in the long run, common sense and human decency will prevail, in spite of mass mis-information and lies, disseminated universally as gospel truth.

One thing is certain: that millions of people throughout the world, who imagine that they have a say in the running of the political machine, are deceiving themselves. We form our "opinions" after reading our daily newspaper, watching the TV broadcasts or listening to the radio news bulletins. All this information is provided by one source, whether we are aware of it or not. The subject matter is carefully vetted and edited to conform to "acceptable" political opinion and, unless you are very wise, you will fall for the bait. There is very little information forthcoming from any other source these days, which is likely to contradict this material. If a contrary opinion is available, it will be described as, "Communist or Enemy propaganda!" The old Socialist newspapers have gone for ever. You are in the position of one who has no access to an alternative viewpoint.

A new century looming ahead, brings promise of a new world. There will certainly be new generations of men and women coming along, when we are all dead and gone. This is part of the greatest blessing to humanity: that age must, inexorably and inevitably, give way to youth. The newcomers are going to have a hard battle to assert themselves: to clear up the mess which the generations of the 19th and 20th Centuries have made of the world. Much of the responsibility for human progress or regression in the next millennium will rest with those who are in charge of communication. If they fail humanity, will there be a 22nd Century? Who knows!?

Finis

John Roberts

11 August 2005

mailto:robertsjno@gmail.com