Enough of Demon(s)cracy!

Author: Jana Buchmann
Translation: Laura Killian

This article aims to introduce a fundamental critique of the current political system, which we propose to be better described as a “demon(s)cracy” instead of “democracy”. After giving arguments for this new critique of system we finally provide several first definitions of demon(s)cracy.

The reason why we don’t actually have a democracy, but a “demon(s)cracy” can be substantiated by at least 4 cornerstones:

1. Our current political system – in terms of decision-making by quality-unspecific majority voting – is primarily based on ideology and psychological mechanisms of mass manipulation, similar to psychological experiments of conformity and authoritarianism by Asch (1951) and Milgram (1961). Thereby, instead of measuring the voter’s (free) will, representatives’ performance and common welfare, what is measured is the success of external manipulation.
2. There is an inherent homunculus (pseudo-explanation) within the current theory and practice of direct and representative democracy, when it comes to explaining psychologically how conscientious and value-oriented decisions and free will are concretely formed in best practice without reverting back to a god, demon or homunculus. We have a pseudo-democracy in the sense of an ideology because no scientifically based structures exist to measure will, performance or level of qualification of delegates, nor to prove claims of politicians working in the interest of welfare, representativeness or sovereignty.
3. There is insufficient separation of state and church. In spite of scientific progress, the staged vowing under God (e.g. by members of the government) still replaces the measuring of reason and common welfare (i.e. a systematic, transparent reality check combined with real-time control and protection of basic rights). Thereby, mental corruption, deterioration of values, alienation and external or top-down control are the rule rather than the exception.
4. (Reference to La Place’s Demon, which, in physics and mathematics, marks the transition of the world view/paradigm of a mechanical clockwork-universe controlled by a personified god towards the Theory of non-linear, complex systems)

The cornerstones of demonscracy explained as a fundamental critique of the ruling political system:

Regarding 1.: Discussions and decisions made by majority voting without F!xMyRepublic suffer from an ideological shortcoming and a lack of transparency concerning processes and criteria of conscientious will-formation and therefore are subject to a bunch of psychological mechanisms of external control and manipulation. Quality-unspecific majority voting doesn’t measure the voters will, as it is claimed, but how well mass manipulation has worked.

1.1 A real scientific theory and practice of democracy is based on concrete definition, measurement and examination of its central constructs like the voters will, conscience/reason, public welfare, leisure, suitability and representativeness of political ideas and actions. The current critique of system thereby postulates that the entirety of theories of democracy are less theories in a narrow sense of the word but rather ideologies with a lack of sound empirical practice concerning the central issues of democracy, exposing people and our values to ongoing speculation and manipulation with a huge risk of decay. The following thought experiment shall further explain this: The design of quality-unspecific majority voting is comparable to a photocamera which only takes white or black one-pixel-pictures (analogous to individual majority votes) of a richly colourful part of nature e.g. the Tree of (Self-) Knowledge. The individual pictures taken of the Tree of Knowledge turn out either absolutely white or absolutely black as a result of the angle of the light (analogous to propaganda or marketing strategies), and are then layered over each other or summed up to an aggregate. Each individual picture is thereby not a reality- or reason-oriented representation of the Tree of Knowledge, but represents a rough distortion of reality, of reason, or the effect of manipulation, caused by external manipulation and the camera-technical design error. In the end, the aggregate of the black and white pictures, as the sum of every single deviation from reality, does not represent the voter’s will nor a reality-oriented reflection of the Tree of Knowledge. Instead, the results of quality-unspecific majority voting show how well the mass manipulation has worked in one direction or the other.

1.2 Majority voting that uses preliminary polls creates conformity pressure. Already in 1951, Asch, a psychologist, showed that large numbers of people adopt the opinion of the majority, even when this opinion is obviously false. Not just voters, but also politicians tend to do this. Majority voting is comparable to Asch’s conformity experiments: in a large number of cases it relies on the mechanism in which people, independently of reality, conformationally vote for the option which has a majority. In the time before elections, it is common practice to publish results of relevant polls in the media. The revelations of the Asch conformity experiments indicate that this practice promotes and strengthens mass manipulation before elections. We also know from experience, that it is the party with the largest budget for elections which also has the biggest success due to manipulation. Electoral results are from this view mainly determined by manipulative marketing strategies, size of the election budgets and repeated, preliminary announcements of majority results, which seem to work similarly to Asch’s conformity experiments of 1951. Additionally, politicians are more subject to conformity- and social pressures, e.g. by a faction or a reward system from lobbyists and companies. The stronger the hierarchies and privileges and the pressure to conform among members of a political or economical elite the sooner they find themselves in a situation in which the daily political decision-making seems to require or even demand the undermining of rule of law, decisions to trade arms to totalitarian regimes, or the rough overturning of basic and civil rights including unprecedented violence such as against protesters. Milgram could show already in 1961, that in an experiment simulating such conditions, up to 60% of the participants would give others fatal electrical shocks. The most well-known example for associated phenomenons of mass manipulation that resulted in fascistic majority votings is Hitler’s famous question: “Do you want total war?” – “YES”.

1.3 Due to the either-or logic and inherent false dilemmas, the inherent contrast effect and polarising processes, majority voting artificially creates illusions of dissent and consensus (see also TDC). These lead people into developing opposing camps and classes and escalating into enemies, and as a consequence of the decision, winners and losers (due to the inherent win-lose game, or predator-prey scenario). It appears almost as normal that the success of one side is tied to disadvantaging/violation of the needs and human rights of the other side (divide-and-conquer effect). Empirical evidence of a latent state of war in our heads can also be found in the semantics of words and phrases used to describe these pseudo-democratic processes, which we often don’t even notice any more. Terms like “election fight”, “election victory”, “election defeat”, “election duel”, etc. and often typical monotonous, polemic tirades, the recurring scapegoat and fight rhetoric (e.g. thought-terminating clichés, killer phrases, manslaughter arguments) indicate (a) war-like logic, decision structures, and mental processes. The emergence of opposing political camps and latently to openly violent behaviour (Functional Fascism) can also be explained by the either-or logic of quality-unspecific majority voting which affects the quality of attitudes concerning ideas and the proposed solutions, as well as social perception and interaction between groups and individuals.

Regarding 2. + 3.: In our current political system, the development of will or common goals is explained through hierarchies or authorities, which are themselves supposed to be controlled by higher authorities, technocrats and finally God, but lacking any transparent structures for conscientious decision making (i.e. a reliable and valid measurement of what the party/organisation base thinks is important, fitting & progressive).

2.1 After elections, the submission of our vote in the form of quality-unspecific majority voting, a priori-representatives, authorities and technocrats in hierarchical structures further decide what is important to us, what we need, want, should or shouldn’t do. However, a formal measurement and real-time control of public welfare and interest, and how much the decisions of these “representatives” are coherent with the people’s will, values and human rights, is completely absent. In the course of this lack of transparency and real-time control over the quality of political achievements regarding the common good and human rights (via real Liquid Feedback), God (as the highest of authorities) still has to serve as guarantee for conscientious decisions in oaths and the constitution. Without any feedback of coherence with human rights and global goals, politicians and representatives don’t learn what is, in best practice, protection of public welfare and human rights. Instead, they learn to perfect their acting skills and feign the achievement of excellent, conscientious political services to the people. Due to the lack of measurements of public will and welfare, reason and suitability, one does not learn politics that are coherent with human rights but rather, either learned helplessness or sociopathy.

2.2 In philosophy and psychology, theories of volition, in which the formation of the will is explained by authorities, a homunculus or a little man in the head instead of through transparent structures and criteria for conscientious decision making or public welfare, are called pseudo-explanations. In this case, one speaks of a pseudo-explanation of the will formation containing a “homunculus”, so God, any old authority or a little man in the head, who/which whispers to you what you want or not. These kinds of pseudo-explanations for individual and collective will formation, just as the pseudo-democracy based on it, must be overcome! The modern psychology of volition (will) fortunately has already overcome this pseudo-explanation of will formation. Now WE need to finally overcome this pseudo-democracy and its inherent homunculus, this gateway for mental and economic corruption!

Enough of Demon(s)cracy!

Summary – 3 definitions for Demon(s)cracy:

1. Demonscracy is the reign and decision making through mass manipulation similar to the form of Asch conformity experiments, i.e. majority decisions with social pressure or factional obligations and preliminary manipulative opinion polls, without the guarantee of free, conscientious decisions.
2. Demoncracy is the ideological, externally controlled reign and decision-making occuring without formal real-time feedback regarding public welfare or coherence with basic and human rights. People are ruled by authorities who, in their action in theory and practice aren’t supported and controlled by transparent, psychologically validated structures and criteria for conscientious decision-making (in terms of priority, fit and progress). Accountability is already required in relation to mental corruption, but is lacking the practice of its concrete measurement, self-regulation and self-control. This “rabbit hole” in the system is exploited and misused for personal gain on a daily basis, to the detriment of the masses and the sovereign. Thereby, hierarchies and elites prevent a sustainable development and the necessary progress for a real democracy in which the voters will, public welfare, achievement, fit and level of representativeness is concretely measured and controlled.
3. While in a Demon(s)cracy it is measured how well mass manipulation has worked while reverting to God, in a real democracy appropriate discussion tools such as an Extended Liquid Feedback concretely measures what the voter wants, how well someone is suited for an office and to what extend a proposal is suited to solve a specific problem (or met specific quality criteria) of importance and how much a solution matches our core values and universal human rights (the actual “Black CORRUPTION Box” before the final resolution).