The situation of parties and unions is the situation of any strongly centralized structure. Robert Michels wrote, around 1911, a book ("Political Parties") in which he analyzed how any centralized structure turns into a mafia and called this tendency "the iron rule of oligarchy". For their decentralization, it should be specified in the law that allows their operation that any decision must be taken with the approval of the majority of members, their management having only the role of coming up with proposals to solve various problems
In the current situation (oligarchy = decisions are taken by a few without asking the consent of the citizens), when those who are elected do not have the obligation to respect their electoral promises, in fact the elected elect the voters and not the other way around. In other words, you can see from the polls how many citizens will vote for certain ideas and promote them to enter the Parliament. The only concern would be to make the respective ideas known to as many citizens as possible and to give the impression that you are serious and intend to implement them. That's what all parties do. Voting is just a brick in the wall of democracy and even by voting it can be manipulated because in one round of voting you have one result, in two rounds you have another result, and if you give points to each preferred candidate it is a different result. Then it is a gross lack of understanding of the democratic mechanism to accept that once a candidate has been voted, he can do whatever he wants just because he was voted for. Outside the sphere of politics, the world proceeds differently. A company boss, when he has a problem to solve, will consult several specialists and choose one of the proposed solutions. If the chosen solution does not produce satisfactory results, he will change it quickly, because no one is a reader in the stars and only practice can validate the chosen solution, but it is important to be able to immediately change something that does not work. The manipulation works precisely because there is no immediate responsibility of those elected, only in 4 or 5 years, during which they pursue their own interests. If we could at any moment change or block their decisions when we are not satisfied with their actions, then the strategy of the elected would be different, that is, they will try to perform and will no longer be able to choose the easy way, to manipulate. It can be seen from the speech of the elected that they argue to win and not to solve problems. When you argue just to win, you don't take into account the competitors' arguments and try by all means to discredit the other competitors. And the energy put into play will be all the greater the more you have to earn after you get into office.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
The situation of parties and unions is the situation of any strongly centralized structure. Robert Michels wrote, around 1911, a book ("Political Parties") in which he analyzed how any centralized structure turns into a mafia and called this tendency "the iron rule of oligarchy". For their decentralization, it should be specified in the law that allows their operation that any decision must be taken with the approval of the majority of members, their management having only the role of coming up with proposals to solve various problems
Such a forward thinking message Vlad! Great clip!
In the current situation (oligarchy = decisions are taken by a few without asking the consent of the citizens), when those who are elected do not have the obligation to respect their electoral promises, in fact the elected elect the voters and not the other way around. In other words, you can see from the polls how many citizens will vote for certain ideas and promote them to enter the Parliament. The only concern would be to make the respective ideas known to as many citizens as possible and to give the impression that you are serious and intend to implement them. That's what all parties do.
Voting is just a brick in the wall of democracy and even by voting it can be manipulated because in one round of voting you have one result, in two rounds you have another result, and if you give points to each preferred candidate it is a different result.
Then it is a gross lack of understanding of the democratic mechanism to accept that once a candidate has been voted, he can do whatever he wants just because he was voted for.
Outside the sphere of politics, the world proceeds differently. A company boss, when he has a problem to solve, will consult several specialists and choose one of the proposed solutions. If the chosen solution does not produce satisfactory results, he will change it quickly, because no one is a reader in the stars and only practice can validate the chosen solution, but it is important to be able to immediately change something that does not work.
The manipulation works precisely because there is no immediate responsibility of those elected, only in 4 or 5 years, during which they pursue their own interests. If we could at any moment change or block their decisions when we are not satisfied with their actions, then the strategy of the elected would be different, that is, they will try to perform and will no longer be able to choose the easy way, to manipulate.
It can be seen from the speech of the elected that they argue to win and not to solve problems. When you argue just to win, you don't take into account the competitors' arguments and try by all means to discredit the other competitors. And the energy put into play will be all the greater the more you have to earn after you get into office.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.