Distorted Version of Democracy: Can I Choose My Opponent From The Lesser Of Two Evils?
Political power, in a democratic society, is in the hands of the people, they can entrust politicians with that power, but they never give up on it. The people have all the right to take any means necessary to stop individuals and groups who reject the sovereignty of the people.
So-called democratic countries from the United States to France pride themselves on their history of practicing this democratic responsibility of the people. These countries cherish their revolutionary past but fail to see the relevance of the old means in the new era. They go on and label as terrorists, insurgents and outside agitators, any conscious citizen in their country who decides to hold the elected officials accountable. The ironic thing is that even when the people use peaceful means, these so-called democratic countries respond with disproportionate violence and repression, failing even more to recognize that the people are still the true holders of political power.
When violence and open repression are not used, self-proclaimed democratic countries like the United States and France engineer sophisticated psychological tactics to make the people forget their power. This intelligent strategy manufactures consent among the people by destroying their political consciousness, hence their ability to actually affect their lives and destinies. For instance, history is told in a way that people think that revolutions were only a thing of the past and are not relevant in the present because of how much democratic progress has been made. The propaganda is backed up by the entertainment sector making sure the people have only one version of historical events. In the long term, people become consenting slaves who do not even understand why some people keep talking about slavery.
One of the most powerful strategies the falsely-proclaimed democratic countries like the US and France have elaborated is a distorted version of electoral politics. These countries claim that elections are the highest expression of democracy and without them, one cannot talk about democracy. These countries present elections that meet their standard as the only way for the regular people to wield political power. While it is not important to argue whether or not putting a piece of paper in a box is a powerful act in itself, one should note that this version of democracy is reductive and simplistic. Democracy is not just saying what one individual wants or only choosing what one individual wants. Democracy is an active process through which the individual constantly balances between their personal goal and the social good. So, it implies that the individual proposes actions and works in their implementation, or at best they monitor or control the appropriate execution of those actions. Put differently, democracy is mostly felt and expressed in the actions that come after the choice or the decision.
In that sense, elections are only the means, but never an end in themselves, because the power really never leaves the people. They are the ones who have to make the change. Through elections, a segment of the people is chosen to channel the will and desire of the majority for some time. It follows that anytime this segment of the people deviates from the goal to preserve the good of the majority, the people have the responsibility, even the right to take them out.
However, the so-called democratic countries like the United States and France want their people to believe that after the elections, the government has to do all the jobs and dissatisfied folks must wait for the next elections. These countries go even further by creating a culture where the worth of an individual and their political consciousness is judged not by their concrete acts, but by who they vote for. They argue that at elections, there are enough options for the people to fully express themselves, but the contradictions arise when those so-called options are nothing but different sides of the same coin.
In the wrongly labeled democratic country of the United States, the two-party system presents itself as the epitome of democracy. The reality is that the two parties are nothing but the different sides of the coin that is Amerikkan exceptionalism and imperialism. One side is directed toward people from other countries, and the other side is directed toward its own people. Ultimately, the coin serves to preserve a country that depends on others to survive. In a sense, the two-party system is indeed the best model for a settler country like the United States that relies on exploitation abroad and at home. However, this system does not represent or channel at all the desire and will of the majority of people in the United States, especially the oppressed class.
What ends up happening is that the people have to narrow down their demands and will to fit whatever either party can offer. This is a distorted version of democracy because instead of the parties reflecting the will of the people, the people have to reflect the will of the parties which can lead to some unthinkable mentalities.
It is important to mention that so-called democratic countries like the United States and France installed additional mechanisms to bypass the will of the majority of the people. In France, for example, the President can casually appoint a Prime Minister that is in no way representative of the majority in the parliament. In other words, even when the people follow the rule of the distorted democracy, there is still room for more distorted schemes. In the United States, the Electoral College simply erases the idea that a president is voted by the majority of the people, but somehow the people are said to have the power to affect their politics. The rest of this essay will explore two types of mentalities developed particularly in the fake democratic country of the United States of Amerikka.
The first unthinkable mentality that people have to develop to maneuver in these distorted democracies is the “lesser of the two-evils mentality”. The premise of this mentality is that the system is bad and terrible, but there is no way to change it. Instead, people can choose the “least painful” path, hoping that they can improve at least one aspect of their lives. Of course, the analysis of the limitations of the system is not always clear. For example, in the fraudulent democracy that is the United States, it is said that the President does not really have any power, so people should not expect them to change anything major. Instead, people could choose a candidate who has a slight possibility of maybe one day making a change. At first, this argument is uneducated about the constitution and the laws of the so-called democratic country, because their president actually has too much power. One instance is that the president could bypass all the government and legal processes to send weapons to an illegal state. So, a wrong analysis of the weakness of the systems normally ends up justifying the illegal and terrorist actions of the so-called democratic countries.
However, even when a thorough and nuanced analysis is done, the question remains as to what is a “lesser evil”. One could ask for example, is there a nicer neighborhood in hell? Or is it nicer to get killed by a fox or by a wolf? No analogy properly answers that question. There are even instances when the seemingly lesser of the evil have done so horrible things that one cannot even imagine how worse it can get. For example, the Biden-Harris administration has funded, covered, supported, protected, and participated in the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, despite the popular opposition in their country. Additionally, that administration has worsened the living conditions of their people, causing a so-called housing shortage when a lot of money is being put into military projects around the world. For some reason, people are still able to make a “lesser of the evil” analysis, raising the question of what really are the limits the Amerikkan people give to their elected officials in terms of the horrors they can perpetuate. It also raises the question of how people think that someone who justifies and perpetuates mass starvation campaigns could provide them with food security. Moreover, the “lesser of the two evils” mentality intensifies the individualistic behavior of the people because everyone has to sacrifice their principles and the good of the larger society (if not humanity) for the possibility of securing some individual benefits or rights. This is the most distorted version of democracy that destroys people’s morality, politics, social relations, and cultures. The paradox is the countries that practice this form of democracy seem to feel entitled to preach and impose it to other countries.
Another interesting mentality these distorted versions of democracy instill in people’s minds is that instead of looking at elections as voting for someone people support, elections can be seen as voting for the best opponent. The logic is that while they cannot get any material gain from the elections, people could still ensure the person in power is easier to protest against. Put differently, the best opponent is the candidate who is quicker to concede losses, make compromises, and offer concessions. This argument, though noble and honest, is however detached from reality because it fails to understand that historically, in fake democratic countries, concessions were made to prevent the people from fighting for more. And once the people are put to sleep, the system reinforces itself and may even take back what was previously conceded. The idea also fails to acknowledge that if one had to choose between an easy opponent and a tough one, the latter is a better option because it strengthens the movement and also eliminates the highest materialization of oppression. This is true because when one focuses on the easy opponent, the tough one keeps getting tougher, making the reality of a total victory less and less probable. At the same time, confronting directly the stronger opponent does not guarantee a victory, but it intensifies the contradictions and mobilizes a larger portion of the people, even the moderate ones. Of course, these types of calculations are only possible because the distorted democratic system has made the people unconscious of their real power to change their circumstances.
True democracy starts from revolution and remains revolutionary, in the sense that it is built by the people, for the people, and reinforced by the people. At any time, the political power and ability to change things remains in the sovereign hands of the people. In a true democracy, the people have the responsibility and right to reinforce the implementation of the will of the majority at any time and by any means necessary. Such democracy is not in any so-called democratic countries like the United States and France nor in any propaganda they sell to other countries. Such democracy is one of the objectives of the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed people of the world who will set an example for others to follow. Until then, exposing, denouncing, and fighting distorted versions of democracy is the responsibility of all conscious people of the world.
