Do majorities of common citizens decide or have only minorities of well-to-do people influence? The masses are seen as a silent majority, powerless people who are often scarcely involved and hardly interested in decisions. Some of them (always a minority) may become active when their personal life is threatened. In normal times their influence is close to zero. Therefore the majority remains silent. A minority of rulers decides. The most powerful are the very rich, the 1%, a tiny minority. Democracy and majorities are not connected to each other.
The basic idea behind the new kind of activism is based on activities of minorities. Temporary, alternating Autonomous Clubs of interested, involved and active citizens who make a fist against a minority of greedy, selfish and often cruel decision-takers.
Majorities never decide. This so-called democratic idea is a cloud that hides that only powerful minorities take decisions that often favour the own minority and disregard the interests of the 99%. The majority of the 99% is not involved, interested or concerned about most subjects and can be manipulated to support the top minority. The top has great financial backing and use the media and advertisement business to create the illusion that the majority agrees. An opposing minority from the 99% lacks this possibility. Without manipulations and a surplus of money decisions could only be taken in a clash between a minority of interested, active and involved citizens and a minority of decision-takers. Now a minority of active citizens is often silenced by the “democratic” argument that the silent majority agrees. That is nonsense, the majority is only silent because they neither agree not oppose but know that their voice is meaningless.
Democracy is about two hundred years ago introduced by the count of Montesquieu to solve conflicts within the elite. Before conflicts were solved by Machiavellian methods based on tricks, deceit and violence. Solutions for problems of masspeople were not included.. The masses were powerless and are still virtually without power. For a New Humane Society the 99% need power which is only possible when democracy is discarded.
The 99% were in the past only seen as dumb foot soldiers in wars between parts of the privileged classes. Defeated knights were invited to the banquet to celebrate the end of a war while at the same time foot soldiers were slaughtered. Without soldiers defeated knights were harmless for the triumphing knights. Towards people of their own kind the nobility was chivalrous, people from lower classes were hardly seen as human. Western colonists considered people in the colonies as inferior. This idea has not disappeared. Soldiers are still seen as inferior people when a war has ended. The differences between the 1% and the 99% exist already a very long time.
De Montesquieu created the Trias Politica, the separation of the judicature, the executive and the legislature that were controlled by the 1% and their lackeys. There was no Fourth People’s Power. Conflicts within the elite are solved on a peaceful way. After two hundred years of democracy Machiavellian methods are still used in conflicts between countries and against the 99%.
Because of the growing number of laws and rules and the cost of juridical procedures the conflict solving method of De Montesquieu can only be used by a minority of people with money. Democracy works within the elite, the masses did not benefit. The influence of citizens is small, their life is determined by decisions of a minority on top of society against which the 99% has hardly any possibility to oppose.
There are many objections against democracy. Most people on high positions are not elected. In July 2002 primaries were held in 18 states in the United States. Turnout averaged about eight per cent of the people who were allowed to vote. In the presidential elections of 1966 51 per cent of the voters came to the ballot boxes. The president got hardly a quarter of the possible votes. Excluded were of course the many millions of immigrants and the millions of (ex)-prisoners. Did anyone say that democracy was based on decisions of majorities?
There must be something better than democracy, an idea that gives everyone the same status and equal possibilities to exert power. It should be possible to get a better world in which all people have the possibility to say more about their own life and their personal freedom.
Towards a world without a 1%
Joost van Steenis