DEMOCRACY WORKS BEST WITHOUT A DIRECTOR

Whenever it is the election season, we always get the same message: " Vote for the right candidate. "

At first glance, this seems logical. After all, people don't want corrupt people, weak leadership or policies that make life difficult for the common folk. Everyone wants progress.

The issue is, what does the term "the right candidate" refer to?

For one person a visionary leader, another person a disaster waiting to happen.

The term progress, which one group may view as a positive development, could be a concern to another group regarding the values or interests of that group.

That is why I think democracy becomes dangerous when one ceases to encourage the citizens to think for themselves, and begins to tell them who they should vote for.

I understand the desire to do so but sometimes a candidate comes across as so clearly out of his league that it's maddening to see people vote for him. During those times it might be simpler to just announce whom you believe to be the "right" person.

However if we take this route we are in danger of undermining the very pillars of democracy.

The power of democracy is not abput everyone agreeing on a decision.

It's good in the sense that people can choose their own decisions.

When a society starts to establish that some of its citizens are supposed to think for the rest of the population, democracy begins to evolve into something else.

History has proven that boundaries are no boundaries at all to power. The same power that dictates to today's people who they are permitted to vote for will determine tomorrow what opinions are acceptable, what information they can have, and what beliefs they can put forward.

It's a risky path to take.

My own opinion is that it would be better not to say who to vote for, but to facilitate people to make better choices.

We need to ask questions... not just "vote for this guy".

What have been this candidate's achievements in the past?

Is what they say what they do?

Are their processes of discussion and decision making clear?

How do they respond to critiques?

What plans do they have to make and what will this have a direct impact on regular people?

The more voters know to ask these questions the more difficult it is to manipulate them.

A critical thinking population is a powerful population, indeed, rather than simply following instructions.

This is not to say that there won't be every election that results in perfect elections.

Truthfully democracy ensures that sometimes people will make decisions that will be seen as wrong but the difference between making your own mistake and having someone else make decisions on your behalf is crucial.

One is for learning, one, for accountability.

The other makes people rely on him.

I believe social media has complicated this situation as well.

These days so many people are eating political food that it reinforces their beliefs. People tend to attack people that disagree with them rather than the ideas.

Consequently, the process of electing a good leader is sometimes more assumed to be a struggle between two tribes.

The need to persuade people of whom they should vote is even greater in that setting.

But, I feel, the best is democracy where the citizens are informed, not controlled.

Leaders should gain votes because they demonstrated competence, character and performance NOT told.

In fact, it's not the question of "the right candidate," since there's never a single candidate who is definitely "right" but It is a matter of safeguarding a person's right to make that choice for him or herself.

Will men remain faithful?Will men always act wisely?

Probably not.

Nevertheless, even imperfect freedom of choice, seems better than having choices made for us.

The day when democracy becomes a script is the day when citizens lose their role as actors and become spectators to their own destiny.

_{Image Generated with Chatgpt}