Paper on Democracy

Hello everyone, I'm writing a short paper on some thoughts I have about Democracy in general. English is my third language so there probably will be mistakes. I'd like some feedback on both my English but also about the subject. Thank you very much for reading this farm already.

Introduction

The concept and word “Democracy” traces its origins back to ancient Greece and more famously the city of Athene. The word is an english adaptation of the greek words “demos” and “kratos”, meaning people and power, the same way as aristocracy and autocracy traces their roots back to Greek. The concept is as literal as the words forming it: power to the people. During the rule of kings and bourgeois democracy was seen by philosophers and the masses like a way to egalitarian power. The concept however perfect and lovely it seems is actually self-defeating in so many ways. In fact, if one digs deep enough, one will see that democracy is the same as a monarchy except the interval and pool of candidates are bigger and they give the allusion that the people has a doing in choosing its leaders.

First self-defeating point, the absolute complex

Democracy means power to the people. This power is the power to rule, instead of having kings and warlords having the power to rule, a democracy seeks to give this power to the people, so that every single one person of the population has the power to rule. The power to rule is the power to be a ruler, having a ruler systematically means that there must be servants and those who are ruled by this person. That person has an absolute or limited control on the life of those he is in charge of depending on which political system they are in. And here is the self defeating point and why a true democracy cannot exist. If democracy seeks to give everyone the power to rule, then who will be the “ruled”? The answer is no one. And so without anyone to rule upon,the rulers do not exist either. The power to rule, as a principle can only be distributed to a minority or at least not 100% of the population. The same applies in a democracy and the truth is in the democracy today, there is still only a minority of rulers and often the masses are powerless as to those “elected” ruler’s decisions.

The Counter-Argument, power to choose, for ill or for good?

A counter argument offered to this point is that the power given to masses is not the power to rule but rather the power to choose who he will be ruled by. And this argument stands firm and is a valid response. However, I will respond to this by examining why giving the masse the right/duty to choose their leaders may not be the best decision.
Ever since mankind has begun to organize itself in social group, minority always rules over the majority. So far it has worked, and even in the “egalitarian” system called democracy the same pattern occurs. The reason why the majority cannot rule is simple. The masses and the majority of the population are the average, the majority is ordinary, mundane and not fit to rule. Being average does not entitle rulership, a person has to be extremely superior and capable of guiding the majority in order to be worthy to rule.
Democracy judges that the majority, those who are unfit to rule, have the right to choose those who will be ruling over them. And so how can we know that those who aren’t fit to rule can determine and choose the best candidate and vote for him? Assuming that the candidates are vastly superior than the majority that will be voting in terms of skill and aptitude, because after all they are the elite of society. How can know for sure that the voters are not manipulated in anyway? The questions here are: how do we know the majority can make the best choice and how do we make sure that this choice is not influenced?

The illusion of equality

In theory a democracy is a system where everyone should be equal, free and self possessing. A democracy argues that bloodline cannot transfer power because that would be tyrannical. But yet in the United States most presidents are related or descendants of royalty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_relationships_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States ). If the democracy functioning in the States is a true one that follows the principle of democracy then such a thing is incredibly absurd. One can argue that those who are elected are elected simply because of their aptitude and having another being your relative helps you hone this aptitude. But I believe that having a relative being a president grants you more than simple knowledge. The same way a businessman’s son does not only inherit his father’s knowledge but probably a fraction of his fortune. A president leaves behind connections for his sons and relatives to pick up. An outsider with the same talent, aptitude and effort will often find it harder to become successful in politics than someone with all those connections figured out.

Complete meritocracy on a political level?

A meritocracy is a common system employed everywhere in our lives. Its principles are simple: one’s position are determined by one’s merits. The system was first described in the western world by the British sociologist and politician Michael Young. The system is also very present in Asia as it is the key of Confucian and Legalist principles.
Meritocratic situations occurs everyday in our lives. A students with A’s will probably earn a higher salary than another with F’s. A worker that is more time efficient will have a higher pay than another. But the higher we move up to society it seems some people have an unfair advantage like the case of the businessman that was mentioned. In this race where skill and effort are tested, some people get a head start or simply start the race 500m ahead of you.
So can a meritocratic political system where a leader’s worthiness is determined solely by his skill and talent work? Some would argue that than the masses would be simply sheeps and returned to the past states. But wouldn’t popularity among the majority be one of the key skill and talent when evaluating the worthiness of a president? So the majority’s decision still plays a key role here. The advantages that a person may have due to his ancestry should not be taken into account for politics just as they are not taken into account when Universities take into account applications. Because if those advantages are in place than it is very hard to see which candidate is truly the most worthy. And merit should be the only factor for a person’s position in life, why should politics be any different?