Negative Democracy

While most Westerners believe democracy is the greatest of all political systems, few have read Aristotle who categorized democracy in the negative sense. When a society is ruled by one, it is called, "monarchy," but its negative sense is "tyranny." When a society is ruled by a few, it is called,"aristocracy," but its negative sense is "oligarchy." When a society is ruled by many, it is called, "polity," but its negative sense is "democracy."

The way democracy works: the majority rule, but the majority is guided by an elite class that knows "better" like a child/parent relationship. Guidance entails the fact that the majority is ignorant, and must remain ignorant for the system to work. Democracy breaks down when the majority gains the ability to question the elite class that guide society. The parent/child relationship analogy is a bit misleading. Think of this relationship as a really unintelligent boss that says yes to anything persuasive. Such a boss can be fooled by the simplest magic trick/rhetoric.

The role of the majority or this imaginary boss does not contribute to the political circle, but merely votes "yes" or "no." Yes or no both contribute next to nothing in any conversation, let alone in political life. Complex questions that revolve around the best possible way to produce the "best" society cannot be answered by a yes or no answer. Politics revolves around a conversation between politicians and the majority, and a yes/no conversation can hardly be called a conversation.

What we see in 2017 is the slow breakdown of democracy and the child/parent relationship the elite have with the majority. The child is becoming an adult and is noticing that they have terrible parents. For our imaginary boss, the boss is finally starting to realize they are being cheated, and their business is sinking.

The "ideal" political parent, or guide does not exist. There is nothing in reality that we can observe that can help us understand what the ideal guide ought to look like. Politics does not rest on scientific knowledge, or logical rule. Politics is not much different from religion, epistemically (priest and follower). Both politics and religion are concerned with the actions of human beings, or their will. What one "ought to do" or what society "ought to" be like. Such subjects do not revolve around facts or logic, and such ought-to statements are incapable of being justified by facts or logical rule. Ought-to is not a state of reality. It's what we wish reality to be like. It is a great concern that politics, and ethics has no objective foundation. 

Politics/ethics is like a highly advanced piece of technology to which we have no idea how it works, or what it really is. We might very well be hammering nails with the bottom end of a screwdriver.