‘From humanitarianism, through nationalism, to bestiality’ - Franz Grillparzer's description of modern political problems dates back to 1849. Unfortunately the saying "the only way to avoid control is to control", dates back to the origins of man. It is about time to acknowledge that all known forms government have failed - be they communist, fascist or democratic, or built on utilitarian grounds or egalitarian. Why? Because they involve sacrificing individuals to some other purpose - either other individuals in the case of egalitarianism or to the aggregate state/community in the case of utilitarianism. Today's societies are bankrupt, coined by a millennium of slavery and oppression, and junkies to authority. Today's governments don't cause the problem, they are the problem.

Feudalism, Communism, Fascism, or Democracy - obviously there is a practical difference, but is there a real fundamental difference? I think not. A slave to one, or a slave to many? You're still a slave. Some of you might now ask themselves as to why I place "democracy" among the ranks of fascism and communism. The answer partially lays in the above sentiment but also in the fact that democracy as a whole is just as inefficient in solving the world's problems as fascism, feudalism or communism. In fact, I consider a democracy on its own to be just as dangerous to liberty and human rights as a dictatorship, despite the general notion that a democracy stands for "the people". A democracy automatically places power into the hands of the most ignorant classes, those who have proven to care least about politics in the past [1].

At this stage I'll cite Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn when saying that "[A democracy’s] nature ordains that its next change shall be into a military despotism - of all known governments perhaps, the most prone to shift its head, and the slowest to mend its vices" - Regimes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Slobodan Milosevic and Adolf Hitler, are perfect examples of how a democracy can "go wrong". The reason as to why European countries have not returned to some form of despotism isn’t because its states are ruled through Democratic systems, but because our society has a whole is a liberal one. However that this trend of personal freedom cannot last is obvious - look at the USA; a democracy that is afraid is just like a man who is afraid - irrational, biased and unpredictable (consider its foreign policy and constitutional changes since 2001 when reflecting on this statement. Consider George Bush’s disdain for the recognition of Human Rights (see the CIA Secret Prison Camps), protection of corporate power (see Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights) and obsession with national security). Hugo Chavez's and George W. Bush's regimes act as proof that even within a democracy; it is easy to prioritize the interests of a small elite over those of the people. Our current political stance does not pose a permanent solution to the world's problems of poverty, freedom and justice.

A democracy is based on utilitarian grounds *, yet uses an approach even rejected by Bentham himself i.e. promoting the greatest amount of "satisfaction" of the greatest numbers. Leaving alone my understanding of satisfactions a mental state rather than an objective quantity by which the success of governments can be measured, a democracy is doomed to fail in the long run:  By promoting the greatest amount of "satisfaction" of the greatest numbers (i.e. the majority), we automatically fail to promote an aggregate of "maximum satisfaction". In fact, we systematically decrease "total satisfaction". Let me use a rather drastic example to illustrate this sentiment: If just under half the population were turned into slaves for the remaining majority, this majority would have its happiness maximised. However the aggregate happiness would decrease if, as seems likely, the misery of the slaves outweighed the increase of happiness for its masters.

On a theoretical basis, one may be able to increase the total amount of utility while lowering the average level of that utility by increasing population. Similarly, we may be able to raise the average level of utility and lower the total utility by decreasing the size of the population [10]. Both approaches adjust utility, without ever addressing actual problems that might affect change in actual utility for the voter.

I believe every human would reject the exposure of his/her life to the control of others on no rational grounds, but simply due to the fact that the ratio is a 2:1. If you reject the idea of democracy on ethical grounds, why accept it is a political philosophy?

Having painted democracies, or in fact, all exertion of control, in a rather bleak shade, what alternatives do we have? Anarchy? On purely philosophical grounds, maybe. Realistically? No. Whenever set on neutral grounds, without constraints, elites will form and take control. It is part of human nature. Failure to constrain these elites will inevitably lead to exploitation, and probably, suffering. The Democratic Republic of Congo provides us a vivid illustration of such failure to constraint. For many, the Congo stands as a totem for the failed continent of Africa [3]

The Congo has more potential than any other African nation, more diamonds, more gold, more navigable rivers, more fellable timber, more rich agricultural land [4]. However with the rise of Mobutu, the Congo plunged into decay. From 1965 to 1997 Mobutu ruled the Congo as an African Emperor, plundering the country's mining resources and surrounding himself with "Les Grosse Legumes" [5].

To date, Economists have no meaningful data with which to chart the country's decline. Much of its territory has long been abandoned to a feral state of lawlessness and brutality [6].

Focusing on a purely economic perspective; under anarchistic systems, market failure occurs.  Externalities would remain unaccounted for. Public goods will be almost non-existent. While there is room for improvement, democracies and open markets do indeed provide a solid basis for well-being - it is not without reason that democracies have never gone to war against other democracies. Never has there been a famine within a democratic society.

Having analyzed both perspectives, I reflect upon Winston Churchill:  ‘Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.’

It is not the system that is the problem; the problem is us. This conclusion is deduced from the fact that, no matter what system there was in the past, people have needlessly suffered. There have been wars, and people have been exploited. For those defending the perfection of the modern world, consider the following:

If only 14% of the industry producing arms for the suppression of the world’s break for freedom were turned to producing industry for the impoverished world, the entire world could be developed to a sustainable level and poverty largely eliminated in only 45 years. And Capital destroying Capital in trade wars wastes even more capital than that wasted on wars. (Chapters 18, & 23.) [2] Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen [7].

In the United States, 1.3 women are raped every minute. That results in 78 rapes each hour, 1872 rapes each day, 56160 rapes each month and 683,280 rapes each year [8].

We cannot blame a system for what we do. A system can influence our actions. But we cannot blame it. After all, it is we, who establish and maintain systems. Our thoughts, our emotions, our actions, are ours. And ours alone. Just as all human beings have the same kind of body, all human beings have the same kind of needs, wants, and emotions.

At this stage, it would be logical to conclude that, in order to solve the world's problems, we need to think beyond traditional forms of governments. A popular thought is that of a minimal, separatist state. Using Robert Nozick's political philosophy and the contracting idea as a background, the state would need to be reduced; it's only tasks remaining to be the upholding of the law, the defence of its citizens and the provision of a minimal state insurance. Taxation would be adjusted to maximize these three responsibilities only. This form of laissez-faire capitalism would minimize the power of any form of government. Under such a system, we may finally wake up to the world's problems as it is now up to each individual to account for his own well-being, providing he or she is capable of doing so, without infringing on the rights of others. History has proven that the more freedom we have, the better off we are. In order to solve our problems, we need mutual cooperation between individuals, trading value for value. Not by being forced into sacrificing themselves to satisfy the needs of others. Ayn Rand [9] said this better than I can off-hand:

‘Man - every man - is an end in himself, not an end to the means of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest...is the highest moral purpose of his life’

* Some may argue that democracies are egalitarian. Yet, in order for politicians to be elected, they need to satisfy the majority. A politician, who does not meet the needs and wants of his /her voters, will not get elected. Hence it is logical to assume a democracy originated on utilitarian grounds with Bentham's classical approach, which interprets utility hedonistically, as a main school of thought

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Dr. Stuart Bain for his correspondence, support, tips and emails. Inspired by his arguments, this article would not exist without him. Thanks to Dr. Stuart E. Bain, Dr. Tomas Eric Nordlander,  Alicia Merve Dilmaç and Luisa Teresa Salazar de Nordlander for comments and feedback.

References

1.    Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (1993),  "Liberty or Equality" . Christendom Press

2.   Alan Brown (1992) “Modern Political Philosophy - Theories of a Just Society”

3 .  Tim Butcher (2008),  “Blood River”, Vintage Books Chpt. "Africa's Broken Heart"

4 .  Tim Butcher (2008),  “Blood River”, Vintage Books Chpt. "Africa's Broken Heart"

5 .  Tim Butcher (2008),  “Blood River”, Vintage Books Chpt. "Africa's Broken Heart"

6 .  Tim Butcher (2008),  “Blood River”, Vintage Books Chpt. "Africa's Broken Heart"

7.    State of the World, Issue 287 - Feb 1997, New Internationalist

8.    http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~ad361896/anne/cease/rapestatisticspage.html, (Accessed on 9^th June  2008)

9.    Ayn Rand (1996), “Anthem”,  Signet; Expanded 50th Anniversary Edition

10.  J.W. Smith  (2005) Economic Democracy: The Political Struggle Of The 21st Century. M.E. Sharpe