Herodotus' Debate and Fake Democracy:

Geoffrey Hamilton

April 17, 2003

Herodotus has a passage where he mentions a debate between seven members of the coup against the Magi Government of Persia around 500 BC. In this debate three forms of government are proposed for the new Persian empire, oligarchy, democracy and monarchy.

Each is taken up for its practical aspects. Democracy means the people have a say in affairs, but elected executives become corrupt and everyone must deal with anarchy and mass stupidity. Monarchy means dealing with whim and cruelty, but state secrecy is possible. With oligarchy secrecy is less of an option and civil war is frequent.

While they consider each as an option they fail to see the possibility that they could be combined together, as well throwing in other types of power, such as that of the aristocracy, or plutocracy, or those currents of anarchy and destruction that need to express themselves on occasion. Machiavelli saw this in republican Rome. I think such a combination exists today in the governments of most 'democracies' in the world, especially of the United States of America. This is a recognition I have made as a farewell to my earnest studies into politics.

While it is interesting that Herodotus would portray a debate on the same issues, in the same fashion, as we would today, what is more interesting is that no one today seems to recognize what kind of governments we do have in the world and, as of today, we don't even examine the real possibilities anymore.

Many so-called intellectuals will debate politics, propose blueprints for the growth of society, and generally get worked up about any hot topic as long as it is conventional. They talk about democracy as though whatever is there in their government is by definition democracy - because that's all there is to it. Even if what is there changes in substance, if not in form, it is still called democracy. Simply because someone labels something as democracy most 'intellectuals' accept it as a fact. And even if the ideas and practices of that same 'democracy' are transposed perfectly to the enemy it is often called a fake democracy.

The idea of the people ruling our 'democratic' countries is as foreign and radical to our system as it is to communism. If intellectuals only looked at what actually happens in the US government, for example, they would see that democracy is only one small aspect of the 'democratic system', and that claim is a stretch.

If the US chief executive can ignore the will of majority of the people in regards to any issue , then the people do not rule. If the executive can do so without fear of contradiction of any sort, it is no different from any dictatorship. A typical dictator knows he can be overthrown by the people, or the oligarchs, anytime, so he will often court the people with policies and statements designed to please the masses and the elites. So-called democratic leaders rarely worry about non-constitutional means of losing power, so they ignore the people so often it is considered normal, or even a positive attribute.

Dictators, even when the vast majority of people approve of them and their policies, are considered undemocratic. This while 'democrats' who have no support for their policies, even those who lied to get elected and who rely on artificial terms of office to do as they please for long periods of time, are considered legitimate. There is nothing about how democracies are run that makes them more democratic than the average dictatorship.

One might argue that there are ways for people to effect government in democracies which shows that the people do rule. Three ways are elections, open dialogue and plebiscites.

Dictators often use real elections to settle issues and decide on who amongst his own party will be chosen for a particular job. This is much like the American two party system where the elites prevent change by standing for both parties.

Open dialogue, like commissions of the sort we see in 'democracies' , does occur with many dictators as well and is more frequently done with them than in monarchies. Plebiscites, also, are the domain of dictators and democrats equally.

The recent use of propositions in the US west is an increase in actual democratic influence, but considering how often they are ignored or ruled illegitimate shows what they mean to the present system.

The so-called democracies use elections for the simple reason that the elite want to avoid a resort to civil war. Elections are the mode or game by which they can sort out amongst themselves who will rule. If there were no elections these same group of oligarchs would be the pool from which the governments would draw their leaders anyway. But pressure from the oligarchs' daily interactions with each other would lead to violence, warfare and a sense of illegitimacy from the viewpoint of the masses.

Also, the oligarchs recognize the power within the poor to disrupt commerce, or to temporarily take over power for themselves. The oligarchs know that the masses are easily led, manipulated and mollified, and elections are one of the methods they use to neutralize the power of these people. Two examples show this.

In Egypt recently the US dictator there allowed his people to organize mass rallies against the US war on Iraq. They knew if they didn't allow protests the people would turn their anger directly towards the US dictator's own seat of power. The rallies succeeded in letting off steam and maintaining the US position there at the same time.

The second example was in Russia ten years ago. Yeltsin, the American candidate, was about to lose his election to the communists when the oligarchs stepped in to offer him the votes he needed in exchange for bribes consisting of ownership of various industries. The deal was made and the oligarchs easily manipulated the people through the media they controlled.

Both types are rampant in the US system directly as well . The CIA began infiltrating media, protest and business organizations 50 years ago. They made their own fifth column, ostensibly in fear of a competing one. They get to tell the people what to think without admitting that they are doing so, as the USSR had to admit in their monopoly system.

The way the US system deals with protests historically shows that it is all about letting off steam, because the only protests that have been noticed or feared, by the various US governments, were the ones that looked to be heading into open rebellion. This current US government has more fear of protests. They are going as far as restricting demonstrators who are against the government to cages (called free speech zones) out of sight of planned events and media coverage, while demonstrators for this government have no restrictions, All this is happening openly even though the restrictions are claimed to be for security reasons. This whole recent development is due to the clumsy use of the government's inherent dictatorial powers and media control. Now they need ham-fisted fall back strategies like this.

What this all comes down to is that this whole world wide mess of political hogwash is not improving and no amount of debate or intellectualizing is going to help it. The Persians in Herodotus' story end up keeping what they have. We now have such a mixed bag of ideas we couldn't separate them again if we tried. I guess all we can do is do like the Persians and the useless intellectuals of today and follow the present.

GRH