Democracy as a Dog

Benjamin. A. Haydamack

     Democracy can be likened to that of a dog chasing it's tail: Continually running in place, going around in circles of argument and inability to reach a consensus of even the most simplest of issues. As I watch with amusement over this activity, soon the dog will reach two conclusions: It will grow tired of it's playful behaviour and give up, or it will nip the end of it's tail. In the former, a democratic state can not reach a conclusion, due to the pointless arguing and failure at conducting a means of productive action. Or, the latter, where the decision made will result in more pain than satisfaction, having opposing demonstration from forces whom seek the opposite of the decision made. And in the end, it will either be shot down, or have bitter consequences that will put a stain on a governing body and be remembered for time on end. 

     If Democracy is a dog, than authoritarian government would be it's leash. The people are important to any state, for to be hated by the people will result in rebellion and possible overthrow of the governing power. Therefore, one can not have a dog whom is rabid, indecisive and greedy. Such animals of that nature are deemed dangerous in a society, and must be put down to ensure the safety and well being of any diseases and violent behaviour it may cause. A dog whom has proper training from it's master can accomplish feats without disarray, arguments, conflicts and materialistic needs and wants.

     I must put much emphasis on the source that all politics depend on: Economics. Resources, wealth and materials are what all politics thrive on. From the primary source of Economics, Politics are established to allocate these scarce materials to different branches of society, depending on which is more important. Finally, the tertiary element that Democracy drools all of it's assumptions and conflicts over are the Social issues; deciding whom gets resources for whom, what and where. This tertiary element is what divides dog from master. In an ironic twist, democracies waste precious resources, squandering over how those resources should be divided. A Catch-22, if I may say so.

     Therefore, a democracy only exists if there are more resources than a population needs. Since there is no leader to allocate resources to a population, due to an abundant amount, there is room for resources to be carelessly wasted for un-necessary reasons. However, given that our world only possesses a finite number of resources before we have none left, it follows that a democracy will ultimately degrade into an authoritarian state in the end, proving that a democracy can not work in the long-term.

      To the nay-sayers whom deny what I preach, let us bring our argument back to a pack of dogs: If there is more food than needed to sustain the pack, then they shall diverge into their own private consumption and feast upon whatever their greedy wants can hold in their jaws of materialistic desires. The dogs will become self-centered, multiply, and fight amongst the most trivial things (like how one pack has more children than another, therefore they should have more resources to feed their greedy, fattening stomachs.)

     Soon, those resources will become sparsely populated, and conflicts will arise out of whom gets those resources. If democracy were to operate in these conditions, the arguments and legislations put forth will be deemed unfit to a society whom is run with greed and desire. A force, fueled by legitimacy, shall be needed to deal with the great population. Soon, demands will become far greater than supply, and society demands will become diminished, falling back onto the secondary state of Politics. From there on, politics will take the role of social issues and become Authoritarian. Again, this can be seen in the pack of dogs. In an environment with limited resources, an alpha-male will assume control of the pack, determining whom eats first, whom they follow, and maintaining a status quo to ensure the packs survival in a hostile world.

     Therefore, to those whom disagree with an authoritarian state, due to the people "having no freedom" or "minorities being ignored", look to ones city-state and how it operates. For example, recently Lebanon's political structure collapsed, Russia is converting back into a Soviet Union, and the invasion of the United States into Iraq to maintain their state via injecting it with more resources. In a Machiavellian sense, they proclaim themselves under the device of bringing democracy to an authoritarian world, to sway the people into either loving or fearing the United States. To be loved or feared is irrelevant, for both have similar effects and it is better to be feared than loved. However, so long as the people are in favour of the power, and the power can appease the ones whom are more equal in a society than others, then the power may choose where to put those resources in immediately, rather than having to wait months on end for a group to argue on the issue with another.

     If you are thinking that what the above mentioned was in an Authoritarian society, I was referring to recent democratic examples. In our western nations, no one is truly represented except for the majority. The minorities are the mutts of society, compared to the pure-breds of the majority. Once a while, a mutt can accomplish great things, granted. However, people are more willing to side with nobility than paupers, for nobles have greater power, materials and accomplishments than the pauper, whom holds onto only social issues for his people.

     With the majority in command, the minority do not represent a group to have resources diverted to them, for they lack the ends to justify the means, throwing the delicate system of democracy into even more arguments of whether a minority should have diverted funds, or if those funds could be used to further benefit the majority. The authoritarian party does not need to argue this, and immediately diverts the resources to the areas that need it most.

     Finally, there is the argument that the leash may not know what is best for the dog. It is important to remember that humans, in nature, are deceiving, lying, violent, and greedy. Therefore, it is important not to become hated, or else the establishment of authoritarian power will be lost. This, as I said previously, can be done by either establishing fear or love into the people. While it is good to have both, fear is usually easier to maintain than love. They are more forgiving if you are to kill an individual, rather than steal their inherited possessions, spouses or land. If you can find legitimate reason to kill someone, a person is more likely to come to fear you and not rebel. When you take something from their greedy hands, they are more likely to become angered and rebel. In the eyes of a dog, it is better to beat and coerce a member of the pack, then it is to take away their favourite bone, or mate, or territory.

     To conclude, democracy is ultimately along the same lines as communism: It looks good on paper, but it will never work in real life. Perversions to the political theories must be changed in order for either of them to work, and requires a governing power for the state to function. In all certainty, democracy is fated to become an authoritarian power, no matter the outcome. It all boils down to Darwin's survival of the fittest. Will you be the alpha dog, or continue chasing your tail around, again and again?

Additions:

"Morality has no place in Politics" - Niccolò Machiavelli

An example of this would be Scipio. (Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Numantinus) A man of many noble deeds, his main fault was being too leaniant and compassionate at times that called for force and action. He was mutinied by his own people and army as a result.