Real Democracy
Democracy is often broadly defined and encompasses a complex variety of systems and practices. We define real democracy when, in practice, ultimate political authority resides with the citizens, otherwise known as popular sovereignty. If it doesn’t, then it is not real democracy but will be a form of electoral oligarchy. We believe that Abraham Lincoln, at his Gettysburg address, summed up real democracy the best: government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Since individual sovereignty is the foundation of popular sovereignty, governmental authority is derived from and constrained by individual sovereignty. The state cannot violate an individual’s right to freedom and still claim to be a democracy since the people cannot have sovereign power unless they are free.
Free expression, equality before the law, the assumption of innocence, the prohibition against discrimination by the state, and the right to free association are among the rights that guarantee freedom.
We think that the US Bill of Rights does a excellent job in clearly listing the rights that are presumed to exist in a democracy.
Don’t accept anything less as “democracy.”
Electoral Oligarchy
We use this novel term to characterise what are commonly known as democracies. They all follow the “lead, follow or get out of the way” principle which is inherently undemocratic and fosters extremism.
We use it to describe systems where we elect our rulers rather than our representatives. In this system, voters are reduced to being fuel that drives the political system, integral to the system, but relegated to serving the political system rather than being owners of the system.
It’s a ghastly and grotesque imitation that can and often does lead to dysfunctional, corrupt, and incompetent governments that do not do justice to the voters that elect them and make it difficult to enact change for the better due the latitude inherent in a system that disregards their consent.
Consent of the Governed
In political philosophy, the phrase consent of the governed refers to the idea that a government’s legitimacy and moral right to use state power is justified and lawful only when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised.
We contend that consent lies at the core of a democratic electoral system; it is not an elective addition but a fundamental prerequisite. The presence or absence engenders a fundamental restructuring of the political process and the possible outcomes that stem from it.
Strip away consent, and you’re left with a top-down setup where the governed are relegated to spectators, not participants. Rulers get elected, but the consent is shallow, coerced or absent, so the system serves itself rather than the voters.
The Common Good
In our work, the common good is defined as the state’s set of policies, decisions, and actions that benefit the majority, if not all, of a nation. Maximising the common good is a logical and desirable objective of the political process. However, determining whether the common good has been maximised is complex and subjective.
Here, we diverge from many definitions of maximising the common good. We believe that voters, as the primary stakeholders in a democratic society, ultimately bear the consequences of their choices. As such, they can be considered the final arbiters of the common good.
The Iron Law of Oligarchy
We believe that anyone interested in understanding politics must be aware of this concept. Once you grasp its implications, you understand why the political process is inevitably going to diverge from serving voters into being ultimately self-serving.
The Iron Law of Oligarchy, proposed by sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book Political Parties, states that all organisations—democratic or otherwise—inevitably develop into oligarchies over time. Michels argued that as groups grow larger and more complex, they require leadership and bureaucracy to function efficiently. This concentration of power in a small elite leads to a disconnect between the leaders and the masses they claim to represent. Even in systems designed to be democratic, the practical needs of organisation—specialised knowledge, decision-making speed, and resource control—shift authority to a few hands.
He based his argument on his study of socialist parties, particularly the German Social Democratic Party, where he saw idealistic movements for equality morph into hierarchical structures. The “iron” part comes from its inevitability: no matter the intent, the dynamics of power and human nature (like leaders wanting to hold onto influence) lock it in.
Democracy starts with the people but ends with the few because that’s how groups work, not malice. The circuit breaker for this process is the veto option. It can reset the political process when the controlling elite no longer represent the majority.
The Philosophy of John Locke
We love John Locke’s ideas here. In our opinion, he proposed the best form of governance and it’s just a matter of implementing his philosophy and the maximization of the common good is inevitable.
John Locke’s philosophy, is a cornerstone of modern liberalism. He laid out his key ideas in works: Two Treatises of Government (1689) and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690).
They are summarized below:
Natural Rights: Locke argued that all individuals are born with inherent rights—life, liberty, and property—which exist in a “state of nature” before any government forms. These rights aren’t granted by rulers; they’re intrinsic to being human, grounded in reason and natural law.
Social Contract: He saw government as a voluntary agreement among free individuals to form a society and delegate some power to a state. Locke said this contract’s purpose is to protect those natural rights. If the government fails or oversteps—say, by trampling liberty—it loses legitimacy, and people can resist or replace it.
Consent of the Governed: For Locke, legitimate authority comes from the people’s consent. Governments aren’t divinely ordained; they’re tools created by and for the governed. This ties directly to his view of sovereignty residing with individuals, not elites or kings.
Limited Government: He championed a government with defined boundaries—its job is to secure rights, not meddle beyond that. Checks like separation of powers (he influenced the legislative/executive split) keep it from turning tyrannical.
Property: Locke saw property as a natural extension of labor—mix your effort with nature (like farming land), and it’s yours. Protecting this was a big reason for government, though he didn’t mean just the rich; it was about personal agency for all.
Populism and Elitism
These days, people often confuse populism with demagoguery, giving it a bad reputation. To clarify, democracy is a populist concept, so trying to paint populism in a negative light is ridiculous if you claim to believe in democracy.
There are many definitions of populism; one is “political ideas and activities that are intended to get the support of ordinary people by giving them what they want.”
Well, God forbid we did that. The implication is that voters are like children who need to be guided by the “adults”, the self-appointed elites, as giving them what they want will lead to disaster. In reality, we don’t require an elite to intervene on our behalf. Making wrong decisions is part of the democratic process, and given that voters have the greatest incentive to change course when that happens, interventions are unnecessary.
Subjectivity is the lifeblood of elitism; a select few are given the power to make subjective decisions. For instance, free speech is a populist concept, whereas “hate speech” is an elitist one. “Hate” can only be classified subjectively. This idea gives elites the authority to censor how they see fit, “on our behalf,” in an effort to “save democracy.” The self-serving nature of this pretext is instantly apparent.
It undermines democracy rather than preserving it. Governments today jail people for publishing offensive content online in an effort to “save democracy,” whereas in the past, the elite would carry out religious rites to guarantee that the sun would rise the following day. It is just another wheeze to protect the status quo.
Populism seeks the truth, while elitism prioritises the “consensus of the credentialed.” The scientific method is populist by nature; regardless of the pedigree of the hypothesis, it must be tested in the same manner. Religion is an example of elitism in which a select few are permitted to control the flow of ideas and determine who is permitted to elaborate on them.
Don’t fall for these tricks. Instead, we must embrace open dialogue and encourage diverse perspectives, it is through the clash of ideas that true understanding emerges and democracy can be served.