Tag Archives: Democracy

Democratic Amendments – Reconsideration of Old Laws

Hello and sorry I haven’t posted anything for a month. Let’s just say it’s been a monumentally awesome holiday without much incentive to sit behind a computer screen.

This is the first of several blog posts where I will build upon my ideas of where democracy and/or mixtures of political systems in the postmodern era should be headed. This includes – but is not limited to – systems either developed exclusively with my noggin or derived from something interesting I saw, which will result in my analysing and critiquing the idea in depth, as opposed to explaining it from scratch. I’ll be using mostly the USA government and systems for convenience, since they seem to set the standard for Western politics along with the UK.

It is my understanding that politicians in a parliamentary meeting tend to waste many an hour month arguing about things that don’t matter, or being on holiday or at home. They typically have a 40 hour workweek, or as they say, an 80 hour biweekly schedule, which allows for flexibility. That is a typical 8 hour work day. As far as I’m concerned, a politician in a high position such as Senator or House Representative should be working harder. After all, the results of their efficiency and decisions have a direct impact on their country, and in the USA’s case, the world, and I believe anyone would agree that these politicians do not exactly have a reputation for ruthless efficiency and remarkable progress through their daily routines. The purpose of this somewhat accusatory rant is to ensure that you, the readers, understand that politicians have the time and energy to do more – and to do it more effectively.

In this first post of such a series, I wanted to outline something simple which outrageously doesn’t exist in any system I know. It stems from the very basic idea of keeping laws simple. One way this can be achieved is by revisiting old laws in order to renew, amend or discard them as needed. Perhaps, a law should only be considered valid for a hundred or so years. Before it expires, it must be revisited by Congress and scrutinised. Perhaps a law governing the industrial age or a First World War agenda carries no relevance today, and as such may impede the country in some way. Not only would this serve to ensure an  up-to-date and relevant legal system, but it would serve to clean up and simplify a country’s unnecessarily convoluted laws.

If there’s anything that destroys a country’s ability to encourage capitalism and individualism, it is an archaic legal system that only serves to hinder its people. Not only does it make the average citizen’s life difficult, but it also provides pathways and loopholes for a government to manipulate its populace. As long as there is a high level of obscurity in law, there will always be criminals and governments alike who will take advantage of the average citizen’s ignorance to achieve their own ends. At the same time, convoluted laws make business difficult. If we wish to live in a globalised capitalist economy, we need easy, simple laws. In corrupt governments, departments may complicate their own laws to achieve that very same objective, making everyday business so difficult that progress through the system is impossible without a degree of bribery to government officials. It is the grim reaper of capitalism.

Remember, whether you agree or disagree, I encourage you to comment if you have anything to add.

Leave a comment

Filed under Economics, Political Reform, Politics

Fascism and Democracy (and why neither is out of the fight yet)

I’ve always asked myself if there will ever be a political system which truly benefits humanity. I found that there were two ways to look at it.

On one hand, a political system could be geared towards total efficiency and dedicated to the long-term survival of the human species. With this in mind, one must imagine a world where this is the highest priority in a governing body, superseded by absolutely nothing. In such a world, what place do freedom and individualism have? Not even a back seat, actually. They are not needed. In fact it’s quite the contrary. However, in a world where security means everything, freedom cannot exist, for where there is freedom, there is a little ‘chaos’. Bear in mind that I’m using all these terms very lightly and in a broad sense. With ‘chaos’ comes the ability for someone to destabilise a system, and a governing body with the interest of security would not want that. On the other hand, you have the truly free society, where crazy, weird stuff happens everyday, and the government keeps its nose out your life and just makes sure the potholes are being filled in. In such a world, you could get your face eaten by a madman, be sued for spilling hot chocolate, or tell the government that they suck without much fear of being locked in a cell in Guantanamo Bay, where there’s only one kind of meat-based food.

Let’s get back to topic. To summarise, I believe the two paths a country can go are either towards fascism, or towards total democracy. Whether it will ever reach either one is questionable, if not impossible. I don’t think either can exist for long, anyway.

Let’s move on to fascism first, and see why a country would want to even dip a toe in that pool.

This world would by default have to be totalitarian, ruthless and honestly quite miserable. It’s comparable to that of the world described in the foremost dystopic literature, such 1984, or the film V for Vendetta (I’m not sure whether or not it’s a book adaptation). In these worlds, life is indeed tough. In order to counter the toughness, the people forsake their freedom (which they think will be a temporary situation) and hand their lives over to a fascist/communist group, which gladly cements itself in place. When the hard times are over, the institution remains. People grow accustomed to it and stop struggling. This is the typical process by which any self-respecting fascist group would do it, since just forcing it on the population can only lead to insurrection, as Uncle Sam learned the hard way in Vietnam. In a modern Western society, we are quickly taught the disadvantages of such a system, which I am confident you all know well. Let’s get something straight – I don’t like fascism, because it attempts to implement artificial selection, which I believe is not ideal to a functioning society. I also believe Communism (or any form of far-left socialism for that matter) is pretty much the same thing as fascism. BUT, the advantages it offers are not objectively ignorable, just because we currently live in a relatively ordered and peaceful global era.Here are some interesting characteristics of fascism which might make it attractive to a government or people.

1) A socialist aspect of fascism is required in any war situation, because if you need 10 million bullets, and nobody actually manufactures bullets on a regular basis in the beginning of the war, you have to force those locksmiths and brass handle-makers to start making bullets instead. This is the most widely known and acceptable advantage of such a thing. Indeed, the epitome of freedom and democracy, old Uncle Sam, took control of industry during WW2 and told everyone what to manufacture. So did Britain and every other country fighting a war, ironically using the very same methods they were trying to purge out of the Nazis and other nationalist extremists.

2) Conscription. Yes, yes, this is a thing that is used in many democratic countries, etc. But I consider it a trait of a military state, and thus a trait of fascism. Remember, just because it’s fascist, doesn’t mean it’s not being used by anyone. My own  country of origin has military conscription, because we have a lumbering giant right up north of us that would love to sink its teeth into the second half of our country. I recognise this as a fascist element. I also recognise its necessity.

3) Total security – Fascist states have no moral obligations to respect their own people. Because of this very simple fact, they can and will do whatever is necessary to prevent any threats against the country from become more than a mere nuisance. Typically, this element is represented by secret security councils, spy agencies and souped-up military spending. Back in the days of Apartheid, this concept was taken to the extreme in a place called Vlakplaas. The atrocities that occurred there by the hands of a secret security branch of the government represent how far some fascist governments are prepared to go for information. And we all say it’s in the past, but the thing is, it’s still happening, in ‘democratic’ countries, no less.

Killing Nazis has officially received the Chuck Norris Stamp of Approval.

Killing Nazis has officially received the Chuck Norris Stamp of Approval.

However, fascist principle come in many shapes and forms. The Nazis were obviously not seen for what they really were by many of Germany's citizens.

However, fascist principles come in many shapes and forms. The Nazis were honestly not seen for what they really were by many of Germany’s citizens. Sounds familiar.

The Italian guy who failed to be a Macchiavellian. More like a Macchiafaillian, AmIRight?

The Italian guy who failed to be a Macchiavellian. More like a Macchiafaillian, Am-I-Right?

Damn true, my good man. Today the world is still under threat, perhaps more than ever, as the image of fascism slowly fades from people's minds and they forget what it looks like. At least when they were fighting Germany, the average citizen was passionate enough about freedom to actually critique their government for trying anything too dodgy.

Damn true, my good man, even though you probably meant Russia. Today the world is still under threat, perhaps more than ever, as the image of fascism slowly fades from people’s minds and they forget what it looks like. At least when the democratic people of the world were fighting Germany, the average citizen was passionate enough about freedom to actually critique his government for trying anything too dodgy.

And now, let’s take a look at democracy, what its strengths and weaknesses are, and why it is the dominant system of government in the world today. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms which have been tried from time to time (good old Churchill said that in a speech).

Democracy entails handing power over to the people, more specifically the majority of the people, regardless of their ability to use it to their own benefit, or their intention to be involved in politics at all. Democracy originated several times in several places, but most notably and successfully in ancient Greece, more specifically in Athens, where oligarchy had previously been the system of the day, while the Spartans were living it up in a communist lifestyle and the Thebans were… oiling each other. The main point is that democracy was not originally designed as a group of semi-disinterested people choosing a sovereign leader who would pretty much be expected to solve everything within a few years. Real democracy is referred to as Direct Democracy. This means that every citizen takes an active role in government and debates new proposals for laws and actually elects (the equivalent of) every person in the cabinet/Senate House/Congress/whatever your country uses. Modern democracy is hardly as ‘democratic’ anymore, mostly due to the logistical impossibility of getting several million people to vote for every member of parliament and maintain an up to date knowledge of the goings-on in a parliament which might be situated hundreds of kilometres away. But electing a single president or prime minister is the most reasonable option left, so let’s get right to it.

Democracy has both advantages and disadvantages, as do all political systems. In a world where freedom is supposedly the top priority of any population, democracy is certainly very important and the most desirable system out there. Here’s the reason it isn’t perfectly cemented and is in danger of being replaced by something a little more sinister:

The more democratic a country becomes, the more chaotic and individualist it becomes. This means there is a higher probability of crazy, unpredictable things occurring. This can be exemplified in the internet, which is not a country, but is a realm in which near-total anarchy reigns. By anarchy, I mean absolute democracy! If you comment in a way that is not liked by many people, they can individually contribute to removing your comment by down voting it, etc. Parallel to that, anyone can pretty much do or say anything with little consequence. Of course, the larger crowd will drown it out with their own 2 cents. But that’s the essence of freedom, isn’t it?

Implementing Control Vis-a-vis the Citizens’ Demands – Chaos and unpredictability are any government’s nightmare, and democratic or not, a government will attempt to implement some form of control. That’s understandable. That’s natural. But where is that line meant to be drawn? How important should the citizen’s rights be, as opposed to maintaining order? This is perhaps the most difficult conundrum a governing body has to face, especially if their intentions are good. It is my belief that the citizens themselves must choose for themselves, collectively and decisively, without room for any governing body or media network to decide for them. What do I mean by this? The question: Do I want freedom, or do I want security? Because I cannot have both in disproportion. The more security, the less freedom and so-on. The citizen, the individual must take a side (After careful thought). Upon taking a side, the citizen must act, debate, argue and explain his or her view. This is the responsibility of a democratic citizen. By doing this, a government can be made aware of exactly what the citizens want and change according to their wish, even if it disagrees. That’s the way the cookie crumbles in a democracy.

Implementing Control Behind the Scenes – This is a big one. The USA has been caught totally red-handed recently by traitor/enemy of the state/hero of freedom Edward Snowden. Forget your opinion on him.  He’s not important. What is important is the information he released. I honestly can’t believe the lack of reaction the citizens of the USA have had to the subsequent info that came out from the leaked data. But that’s a whole other blog post. Even the Nazis couldn’t out-fascist the American government on this. The reason I say that is because the Nazis all knew what they were getting into. Their opponents were ready to leave the country in protest and their supporters thought they were being saved from the clutches of their captors. They (some, not all) welcomed the control, the regimented nationalism, the racism and the renewed military might, but the Americans are totally unaware! If you were to ask a random stranger on the street, they would most likely tell you that the USA is the most free and liberated country in the world. Now that is absolutely masterful fascist practice. A democratic government will often attempt to do this, and it is indeed a fascist principle. It’s probably the greatest threat to genuine democracy in the world today.

The Responsibility of the Citizen – The most neglected principle of democracy is a citizen’s total obligation to be politically active. This does not mean turning up once in a while to cast a vote for one random person whose image has been distorted either by his own media projects or his opponent’s. Genuine democratic involvement means scrutiny of your own government: making sure they do what they promised to do. It involves debating and explaining your political views to others, as I mentioned earlier. Most importantly, it involves Not Taking Shit From Your Government, lest they forget who elected them in the first place. Unfortunately, nobody remembers this anymore, nor do they practice it or teach it to youngsters. I grew up unaware of this, all through my high quality private education. I had to figure it out myself, in my own time. That’s wrong. That’s a good example of how distorted democracy is growing, and why it is getting weaker. This explains why governments can actively spy on their people and torture enemies of the state in offshore prisons while still successfully claiming to be  democratic and free.

I think I’ve ranted enough here. I’m all out of breath anyway.

If sufficient debate is generated, and enough interest is shown, I’ll continue the series on this. There’s so much to write about, it’s dizzying. It’s also  quite strenuous to write these things, as it’s hard not to wander off on a tangent. I must have deleted half the volume of this post because I had spontaneously written a whole paragraph on an unrelated topic that could solicit its own post.

I encourage any and all viewers to comment, argue, disagree and quarrel. Debating is a responsibility, not a right!



Filed under Politics

Extract from ‘War of the Element’

This was one of my favourite moments to write. It depicts the first naval battle to ever occur in a hundred years of war. I was inspired by the concept of the ‘risks were too great, and the potential gain too small’, which was mirrored in WW1 when the world’s souped up navies only actually participated in one major naval battle in a five year war. Compared to WW2, where half the damn war took place at sea, and dozens of ships went down at a time and were simply rebuilt.

Well, here’s the piece. It describes Vorith’s newly selected war council, as permitted by the democratic leaders of the Inner System. One of them makes it onto this council for the merit of being a veteran and a politician. The rest are inept at being wartime leaders, and Vorith knows that. Ignis is not really involved in the broader strategic thoughts on the war. However, his task is such that he needs to know what’s going on, and thus receives a seat on the council.


The Quasar fired the first shell of the battle. Over three million fleet personnel thought briefly of their families, their parents, their lovers, or their children. The sound rang through the halls of the Inner System flagship, signalling the beginning of the second most decisive battle in history, while others saw the shell hurtling through space with ballistics detection. Space warfare was counter-intuitive. While thousands of tonnes of explosives were being fired in bizarre proportions and speeds, silence reigned in the void, only disturbed minutes after the battle had truly begun as the first of the missiles penetrated an escort ship’s hull, rending the left side of it and tearing the life from its interior.

The sun shone coldly on the scene. Its weak rays bombarded the frozen bodies suspended in space. Some were punted out of the way by the lumbering ships, travelling at only several hundred kilometres an hour. It was dreadfully slow in the vastness of space. From deep within the confines of The Quasar, Vorith received reports and plotted his next moves. With the help of a hand-selected council, he had successfully maintained a powerful grip on the situation. General Shellet was his new right-hand man. Not only had he proven his worth as an able soldier, but his prowess as a man between the political and military spectrum in the last few months had revealed him to be an asset like no other.

Other members of Vorith’s war council included the first-man of The Quasar (simply because the captain was far too busy commanding his own vessel), the Captain of The Nebulous Spirit (The Inner System’s prototype stealth-ship), as well as Lucas, the only political leader to be invited into Vorith’s war council. Four other generals were included too, though Vorith had a sour gut-feeling when it came to them. They didn’t seem to care much about anything, and had what was commonly called ‘tunnel vision’. However, Vorith couldn’t hope to command the entire military unquestionably unless he had orders coming down from every high-level leader.

Finally, at the end of the table sat Ignis. The heat that radiated from him appeared intense, but really settled into an ambient warmth. Nothing he touched burned.

In a cacophony of silence, the ships played out their roles, zapping warheads in mid-space and firing their own back at the enemy. Ship after ship was destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost in a second, and a million more in another. The fight continued for a week, a week of constant tension, of knowing that one’s life depended on the whims of chance. Slowly, by process of blunt attrition and slow strategic manoeuvres, the Outer System fleet was whittled down. It was comparable to a week-long game of chess, with thousands of pieces on the board, but enough time to ensure that each one was in its most advantageous position. Vorith had never played this kind of game before. It was the largest naval battle in history, but he trusted his instinct and the strategic advice from his council, and it seemed to be working.


Needless to say,


Leave a comment

Filed under Literature, War