The death of electorial democracy

I've tried to straighten out if a democracy requires voting. I've looked up a couple of different websites, and on most of them it says that a democracy is a form of government in which power is held directly or indirectly by citizens under a free electoral system. I have decided to ignore that, and pick one of the definitions that says a democracy may very well have an electorial system, but that it is not a requirement. The word itself means popular government, so there is not much help in the original meaning of the word either.

When I talk about democracy in this text it will be with the description as below, not as a synonym of liberty, equality or anything else people might interpret into it.

1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

As I write this I've just been browsing wikipedia to find the percentage of voters in different elections over the world in recent time. To my suprise I found almost nothing so I had to find another source to confirm my suspicions. The numbers below are from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. http://www.idea.int/

Number of registered voters that did not vote:

European parliament 2004 - 54,5%
- I realize that this may partially be due to scepticism against the european union, but I do not believe all the non-voters had that reason not to vote.
Norwegian parliamentary election 2005 - 22,6%
French legislative election 2007 - 40%
United States Senate elections 2006 - 52,5%
Canadian federal election 2006 - 35,1%
Argentine general election 2007 - 26,9%
New Zeeland general election 2008 - 27,8%

These have not been picked to prove any point, I only chose them for their geographical and cultural spread.


The voter turnout, after increasing for many decades, has been decreasing in most established democracies since the 1960s.

Enough statistics and facts, here is why I created the post.

Electorial democracy will disappear and be replaced by a sort of democratic elitism, where the government is a group of appointed intellectuals that are experts in their area of knowledge. There are as I see it two major differances between todays democracy and the democracy of the future.

1. Parliment will have no legislative power.
2. The government is employed, not elected.

Government:

They will be employed, not elected. The members of parliment can not be part of the goverment. The employment procedure will work just as any other "bussiness", where one applies for a job and then is employed based purely on merits, not by charisma and rhetorical skill. The government is not in office to steer the country toward a goal or to have visions for the future, but only to solve the problems the country faces.

"They will apply the doctrine of the past and present, not the future." This means they only take into account what has happened when certain decisions has been made in similar situations (historical proof) and what they know of the problem itself (scientific proof). What they think it will lead to in the long term is only secondary since it's a much more unpredictable reason for a decision.

They will not have it in their job description to work toward a certain utopian model or political structure, but will be encouraged to make objective decisions based on scientific fact. Political organization among the government will be discouraged/illegal.

The government would internally agree to every decision, with the head of state and head of government ultimately responsible for the decisions.

My guesses to the former employment of the government:
The head of state and the foreign minister would probably be some sort of diplomat.
Head of government a management expert
Secretary of defence probably a (former)general or maybe a military scientist.
and so on.

Parliment:

The parliment will no longer be the legislative branch of the state but it's only job will be to make sure the government does not break any laws. Legislative powers will be given to the government.

Parliment will be elected by the people just as it is today, but does not neccessarily need to be of a political party or even have an outspoken ideology. Legal experts, lawyers, journalists and scholars are some of the professions that comes to my mind when thinking of whom these non-political people could be.

The parliment will have the overrule decisions and laws created by the government but only if they at the same time vote for a motion of no confidence or if they prove that the government has broken the law, hence parliment has lost it's power to influence specific decisions.

This is a pretty detailed version of what I originally intended to write so please if you find flaws in specific details then ignore them, I only extended it to give you a better understanding of what I mean when I say non-electorial democracy. Parliment is voted for, government is employed. That could in some sense be said about the system of many european democracies already but not to the extent I think it will move toward. If it seems to you that I have just switched words for things (which I understand if it may do) then tell me and I'll try to elaborate it further. This post does not speculate in why voting has decreased, but a guess would be it's due to steadily increasing equality, freedom and economy (in western europe and it's former colonies).

To summarize in one sentance: "Politics" -in the way we know it, with all the games, propaganda, corruption, missinformation and so-much-talk-no-action it contains- will disappear.

The Valkyrier wrote:

When I talk about democracy in this text it will be with the description as below, not as a synonym of liberty, equality or anything else people might interpret into it.

Good plan. Since government is alway not-liberty, at least for the governed; and since democracy especially means not equality (that is how democracy makes decisions, 50 - 50 would need a recount).

Democracy is one way a majority can take power. A majority of who? is a good question. But these days, as the upper class grows in numbers and the middle class grown as a percent of society; it may actually become easier for the upper 'half' of society to stay in power.

Very different from the past where the native and slave class made up the majority of the population, the foreigner or lumpenproletariat class will be very small as a percent of society in the future. The number of oppressed will actually be the minority (49% or less). With improvements in technology, where 1000 slaves or natives were needed to build a canal in 1900, 500 can do it today; and just 100 will be needed to operate the equipment by say 2050...

Republic Nation, Democratic Nation are just two names among many to let people (who live under a system law) believe in some imaginary systems while being driven cleverly to follow the paths that the World Top Decision Makers (WTDM) choose for them in each period of time (for each part of the world).

Naturally, young persons if not in general can't perceive this truth since they usually see the world as they like it to be and not as it is in real. So I understand if what I will say cannot be agreed on... because only a real independent free man can notice what is going on behind the scenes. How? by the same way a scientist discovers things even before what his sensors are able to detect. This is called logical reasonning.

After a general look on what is going on in the world for each period of time, a neutral person can easily see:

All 'top' politicians and judges in the world are actors, chosen and directed by the WTDM group.
So, the end job of these top actors (called kings, presidents, leaders... etc) of all governments is to work together (obviously not in public) to drive their people to play a suitable general role in one or more global plans that are decided on by the WTDM.

A fact: Who are the sole and real victims during a national crisis or a sanction against a country? The people.

Who believes that Santa Claus brings presents to the good kids, believes that BinLaden and what could be called as AlQaida are the real heads who have decided to bring terror against civilians anywhere on earth. The proofs are clear; many presents on Christmas day in the name of Santa Clause and many terrorist attacks in the name of AlQaida.

And as it is done for Santa Claus for the kids, many videos and movies (not forgetting the net) are made for the adults who are proud to believe in what they see and hear only. For these adults, the perfect crime on 9-11 was broadcasted live all over the world as the starting day of the terror against civilians which can help all governments to increase the strength of their control over their people to practically no limit (starting from America).

Examples:
The role of Bush (the elected president) on 9-11 was to freeze any military action to defend the sky of NYC between the two plan hits and also to prepare the general opinion to believe that "America is under attack", just a few minutes after the so-called first surprise. He indeed did it very well in his short speech (if still available) addressing the nation on TV.

The face of Binladen was chosen to play the role of the top terrorist against humanity. And even if he was dead long time ago, the world can always see him on TV for as many anti-US speeches as the world may need (thanks to the hi-tech in audio/video). People having such a scary face were also chosen to support the role of the global system in dividing earth into two camps. One camp will have to send invading heros. The other one will have to support many defending heros. All these heros of the two camps (still in preparation) are actually driven by the same WTDM group via their world actors called PATRIOTIC LEADERS.

Please, in case, one will find out that some facts can prove, in a way or another, that this truth is wrong, I wish I can hear of. Because the list of facts which confirm it, is rather very long.

Kerim