Chancellor of Germany Adolf Hitler was declared insane too late. US President Donald Trump have been declared insane, early or too late. Both came to power democratically. As did the current worst genocidal Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu.
Democracy in its current form should be abolished to end wars caused by lunatics.
***
In the United States, the president is always the one with the most money behind him. When Trump leaves, his incarnation will take over, for the same reason. In Israel, Netanyahu's most likely successor will be as fanatical as he is, or an even more deadly Zionist.
The “Holy Land” is an example of the enormous power of propaganda and money, the lack of democratic alternatives, and national psychopathy. Even the Prime Minister Golda Meir said it: Israel is in control of the Masada complex.
Masada is a mountain where Jews once fled from the Roman siege.
***
The biggest problem with today's democracy is the frequency of elections. Making elections less frequent would be a step towards the better. This is sarcasm, but still: now frequent elections mean that as soon as victory is achieved, preparations for the next election begin on both sides.
In Finland, the current democracy means that the opposition has no other option than to aim for the next election. The government, no matter how lousy, is allowed to sit and answer the opposition's empty questions with empty talk.
In the old days, during a weaker democracy, the president could change the rules. For example, the prime minister was born. Martti Miettunen a state of emergency government, when there were a catastrophic 80,000 unemployed in the country. Now there are four times as many unemployed, but there is no knowledge of the state of emergency.
The country is sinking with the sinking Europe. Here too, we are at the forefront. Finland would need a government of experts to prevent the worst from happening, a total recession. But the current democracy prevents this possibility.
Majoritarian democracy is a travesty of parliamentarism. These two hundred elected officials sit on their jambs, disconnected from reality, knowing full well that their greatest achievement is a good salary with all the benefits. And a pension.
***
The best form of government would be an enlightened dictatorship. The idea is not mine. And it is not ironic that a dictator should be elected for a fixed term.
President Urho Kekkonen was a dictator. He was elected for fixed terms with poor democracy. After the extension terms ended, the country gradually drifted into chaos.
There is no new Kekkonen in sight, which is a bad thing. Or a good thing, if we look at the current candidates. Let's think about the Prime Minister Petteri Orpoa as the ruler he strives to sound and look like.
Emigration would be the only option for citizens. The same applies to the president Alexander Stubbia, a world-traveling charmer, a talker of empty words. That story doesn't end well, for the country. Otherwise, it does.
What about democracy in other parts of the world?
Trump starts new wars so he can end them. He leads the world in starting and ending wars, starting war after war and ending them when he feels like it.
Prime Minister Netanyahu, on the other hand, is doing everything he can to keep the wars going so that he doesn't fall from the throne. He wants to implement the Old Testament Greater Israel, no matter what the cost, like World War III.
The best and worst thing democracy can bring is chaos.
Democratically elected dictators don't have to worry about the fact that they have murdered hundreds of thousands or millions of people. If they were brought to justice, they would be declared insane or mentally ill, and therefore not guilty or not guilty.
Image: Masada Mountain, Israel.© Dima Galin, source Wikimedia Commons, license CC BY-SA 4.0
9 comments on the post “Democratic madness – the new normal"
Reply
You must log in to comment.
There is no such thing as democracy. There are only dictatorships of varying degrees.
Already in the 1800th century, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels knew that so-called bourgeois democracy was only a cover word for the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which meant the ruling power of the capitalist class – not necessarily the authoritarian monopoly of any one person.
Thus, they ended up using the term “dictatorship of the proletariat” for the social power of the working class. An honest term, but poor in propaganda value. Paradoxically, the state power of the first working class-ruled state soon degenerated into the authoritarian rule of one person (Stalin).
At best, democracy is just a dictatorship of the majority, and at worst, the tyranny of an individual or a group. Take the United States for example, where the real power is held by the extremely wealthy class of multimillionaires or billionaires.
In my opinion, Finland during the "Kekkonen era" was not a dictatorship of Kekkonen, but a dictatorship of the working majority of Finland (farmers, farmers and those who were poorer than them). The bourgeoisie certainly had economic power, but they were held in check by the mere fear of the Soviet Union.
The bourgeoisie did not even have a complete monopoly on information like it does today. Each party of working citizens (SKDL, SDP, Maalaisliitto, …) had numerous newspapers of its own. Even YLE was under the dictatorship (i.e. democratic) control of the majority.
The most “class-conscious” people in society were/are not the (fighting) communists, but the capitalists. They are up to date with the situation in an instant and are always ready to use any social shock or catastrophe to their advantage. The same cannot always be said of their political puppets, though. Parliament, government and other bodies of power cannot be chosen solely from among the “mountain councilors”.
Thanks to “Piikki” for the excellent analysis!
From the humor department: A new election law is being drafted. Each party lists three main promises that it is not allowed to abandon during the election period. If it abandons them, it will be out of the government. If the government falls – new elections. Now we have a market for easy-going people where everything is promised and ten pieces of crap for the price of one. There will be no consequences for the government doing the opposite of what the voters voted for.
Then it would be appropriate to hold ministers personally responsible for clear illegalities. Germany is a good example from the corona era where the government crushed expert authorities and forced them to lie. This is known because the meeting notes of the responsible authorities, a huge amount of documentary material, were leaked to the public. Lying must have consequences.
"Finland would need a government of experts to prevent the worst from happening, a total recession."
Who would choose the ministers? Stubb…? During Kekkonen’s time, the owners of Finnish large-scale industry were a group of patriotic “cartridges” who respected him and had some social conscience in managing their companies. It’s different now, in these times of stock market capitalism. I assume that Stubb doesn’t have a “sense” of what the overall national economy is about…
In any case, experts could make unpopular decisions (even a reversal out of hatred of Russia, oh horror!) without partisan political consequences in these strange times, when the people have been misled into false perceptions and harmful attitudes. Among the experts now kept in hiding, there may be those who have retained enough understanding to install such a government.
Who would choose the experts? YLE, or Hesari…
If we were to go for a government of experts, it would mean that behind the scenes the light of reason would have been able to illuminate the chambers of our decision-makers to some extent. In that situation, experts would be elected who would make policies that the actual politicians have long preached against. In other words, behind the scenes, there would have been some turning of the needle in the right direction (perhaps under duress), but we would not yet be ready to fully acknowledge it publicly.
??
Hardly anyone agrees with anyone completely on everything. I refer to Pauli Brattico, who I think has analyzed Finland and geopolitics very well, among other things. Saari writes that money dictates US policy. Brattico agrees and has discussed the subject a lot, among other things, in his Monster videos.
Netanyahu is aiming for Greater Israel. Unfortunately, there are many Christian groups in Western countries, including Trump's supporters, who support that goal due to their incorrect or, should I say, distorted interpretation of the Bible.
A total recession would be really bad, but war would be even worse. Because of the distorted public opinion stirred up by politicians, so-called experts and especially the media, democracy really doesn't work to combat these. The only way might be for a sufficient number of parties to draw up a safe deposit box agreement, according to which they would make the necessary changes after the elections, which could not be talked about to a brainwashed people before the elections without destroying their own electoral success.
This is of course not the case, because the problems, or especially their causes and remedies, are not seen or acknowledged. As for the absurd hatred of Russia, there are two big problems with it (not to mention the possible consequences), even if the light of reason sometimes shines through. First, under its rule, Finland has made and is making military decisions that are difficult to reverse.
Secondly, such a strong feeling – no matter how unfounded – is difficult to extinguish, especially when it has been a state of mass psychosis for a long time. I myself, however, cured myself of my Russophobia simply by noticing how distorted and unfairly the Finnish mainstream media – which I followed at the time – covered the events in Ukraine more than ten years ago.