Why the popular vote treasured by fans of Western democracies is a delusional concept
Patrik K. Meyer holds up the Chinese “capillary democracy” as a stable model, saying a belief that the majority will make great choices on national leadership is just an illusion
In the past, I have refrained from questioning the soundness of the Western democratic system because I felt it was futile to challenge the deep-rooted belief that it was the best mankind could aspire to. Arguing that this system was fundamentally flawed would result in either being ignored or treated with scorn – as I was for an article on “Chinese capillary democracy”, in which I argued that Western democracies should consider changing how their leaders are elected and adopt a more professional, meritocratic and stable government similar to the one the Chinese have.
As expected, the response was predominately sarcastic and demeaning. Attempting to argue with Western-style democracy diehards about the validity of their system was in vain.
Down in the gutters as Trump-Clinton bout turns ugly
Now, with arrival on the global arena of figures such as Donald Trump and Rodrigo “The Punisher” Duterte, and pathetic presidential campaigns, some of the supporters of Western democracy might be shocked by the kind of outcome it can produce.
Hopefully, this shock will crack their rock-solid belief, allow for criticism to flow into their analysis, and make them start questioning the soundness of their treasured system.
The assessment of issues at stake when deciding who are the most capable leaders of our nations – such as how to manage globalisation or global warming in a constructive manner, how to deal with China and Russia, or whether to go to war with Iran – are far beyond the analytical reach of any individual, including those with relevant expertise.