Democracy?

This morning I reread somewhere Winston Churchill's famous quote: "Democracy is the worst form of government there is, except for all the others."

I also read on Reinaldo Azevedo's blog that the so-called "president" of Brazil commits numerous crimes every day, and that none of this causes the slightest discomfort to the Attorney General of the Republic, Augusto Aras, the only citizen in the world with the legal authority to initiate legal proceedings for such acts.

I remembered a concern that plagued me about 17 years ago, when I was the newly appointed Chief of Staff at the Paraná State Security Secretariat.

A complaint surfaced alleging that the Chief of Police of the State was presenting the institution with fraudulent invoices in order to be "reimbursed" for expenses he had not incurred. This was forwarded to the Inspector General, who had exclusive authority to open an investigation against that official.

New to the field, I discovered that the Inspector General was a position of trust held by the police chief himself, the accused. Chosen and appointed by him, and dismissible by him. ad nutum (summarily, without need for any justification). 

I never found out if the guy was guilty or innocent. Neither I nor anyone else did. The inspector general, who wasn't stupid, obviously shelved the case. 

I'll go back to the beginning. I agree that democracy is the best thing there is. There's just one problem, which is somewhat forgotten. What exactly is this thing called democracy?

Let's start with Churchill himself, its herald, a staunch defender of the most cruel and abject imperial oppression exercised by his country over countless peoples around the world. Democracy? For whom, paleface?

But it doesn't stop there. Let's delve into what is called the largest and most solid democracy in the world, that of the United States of America. Seriously? It is governed today – no less today!! – by a citizen who received fewer votes at the polls than his opponent! Irrelevant? I don't think so. To call a regime democratic when the majority doesn't govern is, to me, an absolute contradiction. But okay, fine. 

Can we agree that one of the elements that forms part of the essence of democracy is diversity? And that, from the point of view of its political exercise, each branch has a worldview and a vision of the country? And that the best way to implement such a vision is by coming to power, and that the best path to this is through a political party? 

Well. In the United States of America, there are only two real political parties. All the others, combined, are so insignificant that nobody even hears of them. Now, is it possible to believe that the overwhelming majority of the billions of people who inhabit a country of that size and complexity have only two points of view about the world and their country? Some people think so. I don't. For me, what determines this is money. Economic power. In a word, those who can command, those who are wise obey. The antithesis of democracy.

There's more. Is it democratic to be the richest country of all time and tolerate the existence, within its territory, of millions of impoverished people deprived of the most basic rights of citizenship? Or to deprive a person of medical assistance because they cannot afford it (and there are millions of them, even beyond the impoverished)? Some people think so. I don't.

Isn't that enough? Fine. Is it democratic for a country to intervene militarily for centuries anywhere in the world where a people or a government is not to its liking, killing millions of people in the process, without distinction of sex or age? I respect those who think so. But I don't.

To me, that's called hypocrisy. Simply hypocrisy. To look, to see, and to pretend you didn't see. Or, worse, to admit you saw but not think it's important.

And Brazil? I won't go into too much detail about a country that, in its 520-year history, has had, in total, less than 50 years in which it has coexisted with some (few) democratic elements. I only want to draw attention to what Reinaldo Azevedo said, focusing on a current and striking fact. How can a system be called democratic when the only person who can bring the head of state to justice is appointed by him? Consider the number of arrangements and backroom deals necessary to achieve such an appointment.

Someone once said – and rightly so! – that, as a project, humankind is the greatest and most spectacular failure in history.

As a species, we are monstrous on an astonishing scale. It is impossible to ignore this in the slightest if one looks at any aspect of our earthly adventure, even with a meager shred of good faith.

How, then, could we create a political system whose assumptions are blatantly the absolute opposite of what constitutes us biologically, mentally, and culturally?

Democracy would imply, among so many other things impossible for humankind, respect for diversity, freedom for all, honesty, solidarity, public spirit, and generosity. Can anyone cite a single society and/or a single moment in human history in which – let's say – at least three of these elements coexisted for a reasonable amount of time?

Letters to the editor.

I can't. And mind you – although an amateur – I'm an insatiable student of history.

So let's stop the hypocrisy. Democracy doesn't exist, and never has existed, anywhere. It's an insurmountable contradiction with human nature itself.

This is a clear and undeniable truth for me.

I decided to write about this today because reading Winston Churchill's quote earlier was the last straw for me.

We live under the dictatorship of "narratives." In the hyper-connected global world, facts or their analysis matter little. What counts is the image that can be instilled in the minds of as many people as possible.

There are countless compelling examples. But the purpose of this text is to focus on one of them, which in my view is one of the most serious.

What those few who wield true global power intend, and who, not coincidentally, are the major capitalists, is to use the countless mass media available today to make humanity accept the lie that democracy is synonymous with capitalism. In other words, that under any other type of economic organization, no society will be truly free.

This is a hoax of gigantic proportions. The existence or non-existence of democracy is independent of the economic system under which the respective society operates.

None of them, capitalist, socialist, or any other, is genuinely democratic. Not even the anarchist one, supposedly the most libertarian of all.

This finding, in my opinion, shifts the focus of the debate in a different direction, one that is more realistic regarding human limitations.

Given that absolutely all regimes in the world are, to some extent and inevitably, authoritarian, what comparative criterion should be adopted between them for a better judgment of their virtues or defects?

Simply put: justice.

Under which economic system are the basic human rights of citizens in general best and most equally guaranteed?

The answer is not easy at all. I have an opinion, but many doubts. I think for the vast majority it's difficult to define what that system is. But, for my part, I am absolutely certain which one it is not. It's precisely capitalism. Just look.