#135

#135

CORPORATIONS SEEPING DEMOCRACY AWAY IN EXCHANGE FOR CAPITAL

by PETER THOMAS BUSCH

D

emocracy has become the ultimate peacekeeper that prevents the fragmentation of politically formed nation states – at least internally.

People remain vulnerable, though, even after choosing peace over war, and choosing relative prosperity over a tour of duty.

Oligarchs control gigantic global companies that impact national economies, while billionaire CEOs influence government operations in the homeland states, particularly in capitalist democracies where economic growth has become the quick and easy solution to life in between elections.

Capitalist success by corporations is often the primary objective of elected officials in a system that accepts that dislocation and marginalization is inevitable, from time to time.

Politicians work to minimize the hardships in a system reliant on individual will, while offering up life within a democracy as the better alternative.

Industries may not be plundered in war and piracy, but periodic economic restructuring will reshape many lives, and any intervention to prevent those outcomes will only delay the inevitable.

The world’s capitalist billionaires are part of a mobile global aristocracy influencing state leaders on an elite level. Like money, power must be checked when it comes from the top, down position.

In the e-universe, the corporate aristocracy has been allowed to determine the shape of future economies of scale and the integrity of the workforce. This reckless reach of the oligarchs is often legislated by governments.

And the effectiveness of democracy has become muddied by an unreliable narration of the real world through social media, which jeopardizes even those few efforts made in direct democracy.

The best choices may be limited by misinformation, even when the tremendous workload required to maintain the functionality of the state has been delegated to representatives of the people.

Certain democracies mix direct involvement in government with representative democracy by putting policy questions to the people at the same time the people are voting for representatives.

Voting for policy, though, still requires access to information to accurately identify what is so important that requires a direct vote. Certain policies may require long term commitments because once underway the outcomes are irrevocable. Only genuinely authentic information will allow the people to find the correct path forward on a few crucial issues.

Policy questions must be answered with accurate information. And so, democracy relies on internal controls such as a free press and an independent judiciary to sort out the truth from the lies.

Democracy is not limited to the voting booth. People who desire true equality need representation in the institutions of democracy other than policial electoral seats.

The fundamental principals of democracy have been around since the Greeks – a system of governance later taken up by the Romans in a mixed system of empire and equality that may not resemble common notions of those concepts still relevant.

The subsystem of beliefs within a democracy, such as equality and freedom, have been developing, and transforming into various nuances ever since the Romans spread the ideals of empire throughout Europe.

Russia may be considered a democracy based on the presence of the fundamentals such as giving citizens the right to vote at a designated polling station, but other equally crucial fundamentals may be absent, such as political and economic equality, liberty, and individual freedoms – and an effective opposition from which the electorate may or may not choose alternatives.

France regularly entertains street protests because democracy in the Republic includes a basket of individual rights, such as freedom of speech, and the right to be left unshackled from state intrusions. Protesters find brotherhood in the protest, with these core ideals in mind.

The street protests also serve a government purpose by clearly signalling the veracity of discontent among the population.

Democracy as a label may be a linguistic misnomer at times with which the dictator controls the outcome of elections by limiting choices.

The intervention of social media further raises the risk of a democratic shell game, with foreign agents influencing electors through social media accounts, and just bad actors with access to an impressionable audience.

Democracy was invented as a system of governance before the Birth of Christ, but individual liberty from state actions was more clearly defined as for all people several centuries later, notably with the Magna Carta being proclaimed in England on June 15, 1215.  

Separating the land barons from the autocratic decrees of a negligent king was just one of the first steps toward individual freedom. The barons established a separation of powers from the king, but many individuals still worked in servitude on the land under the power of the landlords.

Unfortunately, the truce mustered from the King never held, and the influencers plunged the people into another era of continual warfare, that lasted for several centuries.

Before this state centered system, people occupied the land, with the wealthy barons taking up stewardship of a given area around a fortified castle. Of course, the forests offered plenty, and the owner of the keep regulated traffic through his section of the woods, sort of speaking.

People still struggled and often retreated to a more civilized living inside fortified cities, once these places were developed. Paris once was a fortified city with a wall and a gate to regulate citizenship.

The fortification on the Ile de la Cite was positioned there to regulate trade along the Seine River.  The city has been transformed several times by the kings who were in charge of the economy until the Revolution of 1789.

On a micromanagement level, people have varying degrees of freedom and choice, away from the state, within a patriarchal structure, or even subtly different freedoms and choices within an estate family managed by a matriarch.

One thing remains the same though, not everyone is happy with the results in a democracy, especially the losers. The alternative though is much worse.