Some Notes on Democracy

on Friday, 01 January 1954. Posted in Politics

The word Democracy derives from two Greek words: demos, the people; kratein, to rule.

The people, that is you and I, and everyone around you and me. Do we rule? Are we the ones who decide what our life will be?

If the decision is taken by somebody else, or by a monopoly, or by a clique, we are not in a democracy.

Of course, in every ordered society, there must be an administration. There must be managers.

In the democratic forms of government, the people elect their managers, their representatives, to administer public affairs.

But, electing the managers is one thing; obtaining from them the desired results is another thing.

∗ ∗ ∗

Democracy has often been defined as government in accordance with the will of the people.

This means that in a genuine Democracy, the people should get the results they want from the management of their affairs. The people themselves should set the policy, although they leave to the government the care of carrying out such policy.

This type of organization would automatically ensure the freedom of the individual, because the freedom of the individual is surely wanted by every single member of the community.

∗ ∗ ∗

There are, then, two conditions indispensable to the successful functioning of a genuine Democracy:

1. The people must be able to state in a definite manner the results they want in common.

2. The people must be able to command results, according to their wishes thus stated, from those who manage their affairs — not only from the government, but from those who operate industry, trade and finance.

This is surely not done today. People are made to serve their institutions, instead of the institutions being made to serve the people.

Systems may have been labelled "democratic". But they have failed dismally to function as outlined above. Outward forms of democracy — elections, parliament,... — may have been successfully established in most of our Western countries; but the people have obtained very few of the results they wanted. And the little they may have obtained has been accompanied by losses to the freedom of the individual.

In the last four decades, in spite of phenomenal development in the sources of energy and in technological processes, we have known insecurity, poverty, want, war, and have seen individual freedom diminishing at an alarming rate.

This is the very contrary of real democracy.

∗ ∗ ∗

No genuine democracy is possible, as long as our lives are governed by a credit monopoly.

The fight for democracy is a fight for the control of credit by the individuals who comprise society.

Social Credit is the opposite to monopolized credit. The fight for Social Credit is a fight for the advent of genuine democracy.

"Every man knows instinctively that he is, somehow, a superior being. If a man enjoys the fruits of his nobility, he is content and accepts that status as his due; lacking honour and dignity for any cause, a man is restless, depressed, even rebellious, because something proper to him, as a man, is withheld or denied."

(A statement by the bishops of U.S.A.)

Leave a comment

You are commenting as guest.