Can your belief in democracy pose a danger to democracy more
ominous than the military of a rival nation that's adhering to a different
system of governance? The short answer is yes, this can happen.
The moment that you accept the principle that by definition, a
fanatic belief robs you of the freedom to choose, is the moment you'll accept
that a fanatic belief in democracy, robs you of that democracy given that its
claim to fame is that it provides you with the freedom of choice you just
rejected.
This leads to the notion that moderate democracy, which is defined
and applied in many forms around the world, offers a range of possibilities to
those who make it their system of governance. The danger begins when democracy
becomes so badly abused by its adherents, it no longer works the way it was
designed. To maintain the status quo despite the lameness of its democracy, the
abusers demand the constant pledge of adherence to it as if it were a prayer
that must be recited at all time. When this happens, fanatic democracy is
created, and the stage is set for its demise and replacement by something else.
America has reached a point where you could not find one in ten
people that can adequately describe what a democratic system of governance
entails. And yet, everywhere you look and listen, and everywhere you read a
political piece of work, you feel flooded with more expressions of devotion to
democracy than Mother Theresa cared to call on her favorite saints in heaven.
This is bad enough when you look for assurances that the democracy
by which you are governed, is as solid as you want it to be. What is even more
onerous, is the realization that the fake concept of “democracy” is bandied
about not only locally, but also abroad through foreign policy. This says that
the defenders of democracy at home are so insecure, they want the world to get
with them aboard the same sinking ship.
One of the self-appointed defenders of democracy is the New York
Times. Despite signs to the contrary, it continues to pretend defending
democracy at home. In addition, it has developed an obsession for the
imposition of democracy on the rest of the world, the way it believes democracy
should operate. You can see an example of that in the editorial that appeared
on April 1, 2019 under the title: “A New Egyptian Power Play,” and the
subtitle: “By pushing new constitutional changes, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi aims to
become president for life. That seems fine with President Trump”.
Egypt is a nation that is experiencing an accelerated kind of
development in all fields of human endeavor. Its leaders, like those of other
nations going through the same kind of experience, are experimenting with new
modes of governance in search of the one that will work best for their people
today and in the future.
When the Industrial Revolution started to take root in Europe, the
nations of the Continent experimented with various systems. They developed
several of them, a good number of which are in use today; ranging from the
Constitutional Monarchy of Britain to the co-habitation form of Republicanism
used in France to the multi-party system that gives Italy its signature
democracy. When the American colonies got tired of the authoritarian rule imposed
on them by Britain's monarch, they declared independence, and created their own
two-party system.
All of those political systems were developed at a time when the
economy, though industrial, had not yet developed into the size of the mega
corporations or the multi-national ones that wield more power today than most
governments. In addition, the communication revolution that was brought about
by the internet and the social media, has transformed the democracy of
governments into a form of anachronism that's no longer able to deliver good
government.
This being the case, a person that is not fanatically wedded to
old concepts, will welcome the idea of someone experimenting with a new form of
governance. Looking at what runs successfully today, we find them to be the
mega corporations. Thus, a government like that of China or Egypt tailoring
their political system to resemble that of a corporation, is something that
should garner the admiration of observers.
But that's not what the editors of the New York Times are doing.
They instead, lament that by welcoming President Sisi of Egypt, the US
president Donald Trump is “crushing hopes that Egypt could become democratic
any time soon”.
What those editors are incapable of seeing, is that parallel to
creating a corporate kind of political system, a new democracy is being
developed thanks to the democratization of information the internet and the
social media brought about.