ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Away with democracy. How to create a peaceful alternative

Updated on September 22, 2015

George Washington

How to create a peaceful alternative to democracy

I always felt that if George Washington were to visit us in this present day, he would probably be appalled to see that we live with the same democratic system that he and his comrades set up two hundred and thirty some years ago.


Democracy, branded as the best system to live in (and it's certainly more pleasant than a bloody dictatorship), presents nonetheless a major and fundamental flaw in our quest for peace and well-being: It's a confrontation; A clash of ideas or values. A vote takes place to see who wins and in the best of cases, a majority wins, which, unfortunately, means that a minority loses. When it's a 51/49 decision, it means a lot of losers. Add politicians to the mix and the concept of majority fiddles away through primaries and nominations, so much diluting the people's choice that most elected heads of state of any existing democracy get a mere 20 percent real support, at best.


So, if it is peace and well being for all that we are aiming for, doesn't it make sense to devise a system where everyone can win instead of just some? Are we not intelligent enough for this? I believe we are and we can surely set the goal of getting a consensus amongst ourselves instead of a measly majority, creating a system of cooperation rather than opposition.


Getting a consensus? To many, this might mean being unrealistic, So, I would like to remind them that reality is precisely what we realize and that we realized democracy, which was unrealistic before we did. Setting an unrealistic goal was in fact what Washington and the lot did when they seceded from England, given the might of the mother country and the armament of the colonists, added to the fact that in case of failure they would be executed


Let's do away with democracy by setting the bar higher to reach unanimity, a nice unrealistic goal that we, and George, can be proud of.


Of course, I'm not advocating an instant transformation, I understand there’s a need to take steps in order to reach this friendly utopia and I’m well aware that not all the answers are here now. But confident that they will come along the way, I do believe that we can take the first fundamental step of declaring our intention: to replace democracy by building a system of cooperation.


Then we can take another step in this direction by eliminating the middleman, in this case, the politicians, by voting directly for the issues using our communication technology. Like Big Brother, but for real. This would eliminate a lot of corruption and surely improve our budget, making it easier to accommodate more of our needs.


To view the forefathers of the American nation as a group of individuals who thought they could write (pretty much overnight) a constitution meant to last forever is taking them for some very arrogant madmen. Surely, in their wisdom, these people hoped that as times change, the principles they laid out would be improved upon by the following generations. So, in seeing that so many years after, in a totally different society, the principles have not evolved and that in fact less than thirty amendments have been made to their original opus, would likely cause them a shock. I can just imagine George shaking his head in disbelief.


There certainly will be glitches at first, but like everything else we'll learn to improve things as we go along and who knows, we might just realize that the good of one is really the good of all...

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Crozier Jean-Yves profile image
      Author

      Crozier Jean-Yves 23 months ago from Guadeloupe

      Yes, that's the type of forward thinking that will get us there.

    • jksouthard profile image

      JK Southard 23 months ago from USA

      I was thinking more of circles in a holacratic model if possible. jk

    • Crozier Jean-Yves profile image
      Author

      Crozier Jean-Yves 23 months ago from Guadeloupe

      True, cooperation is something we have used throughout time. Yet, we accept less than that with our social system, claiming that it's impossible to achieve such a degree of cooperation so that we can all agree. We settle for less, a dubious majority... So, maybe it's time we aim for the impossible. :-)

    • jksouthard profile image

      JK Southard 23 months ago from USA

      For 3 million years we have cooperated ... had to to become the homo sapiens sapiens we are today. That cooperation of strong reciprocity still exists in our genome and it can be seen on the basketball court and small gatherings of people to deal with a generally small, specific needs. The problem is that when we grew out of the small hunter-gatherer social groups into our current metroplexes the dynamics changed. There has to be a way to reinstate the cooperative spirit but one and two or three at a time....put your might to figuring that out. Possibly with the new technologies or the "crowd in the cloud?" Like your thoughts. jk

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 23 months ago from Orange County California

      bye bye

    • Crozier Jean-Yves profile image
      Author

      Crozier Jean-Yves 23 months ago from Guadeloupe

      I suggest you read the article again...

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 23 months ago from Orange County California

      Your proposal doesn't appear to be realistic, and democracy is not the problem in the first place. It is people and human nature. There is no democracy in the Middle East, and it has plenty of problems, and no peace.

    • Crozier Jean-Yves profile image
      Author

      Crozier Jean-Yves 23 months ago from Guadeloupe

      Precisely why I'm proposing a better solution.

      I have lived in Canada, France, the US, England, Japan and Spain,

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 23 months ago from Orange County California

      Is that your only answer, because you are only looking at the United States. Look at the world, and you will see little change in human nature.

      War, dictatorships, people living in poverty because only a few control the wealth, people killing other people and the list goes on and on.

    • Crozier Jean-Yves profile image
      Author

      Crozier Jean-Yves 23 months ago from Guadeloupe

      Human nature has changed also, we don't view slavery today the way they did 300 years ago.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 23 months ago from Orange County California

      Nothing has changed in human nature, what has changed is technology, religion, and government.

    • Crozier Jean-Yves profile image
      Author

      Crozier Jean-Yves 23 months ago from Guadeloupe

      Human nature evolves, that's why we live with different values than our longtime predecessors. So, I think it would just take an evolution of our understanding. Once we grasp that we all are one, it becomes evident that what we do to others, we do also to ourselves. Therefore, it's in our best interest to be nice to others.

      Cooperation would take the place of democracy, working together rather than against each other.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 23 months ago from Orange County California

      To accomplish your idea of peace would take the disposal of human nature, and not democracy.

      What would take the place of democracy in the US? that would lead us to world peace?