I am becoming seriously annoyed by the attitude of media towards democracy. The French and Belgian media have this naive, mistaken image of democracy as an idealised system that would solve all of the world's problems. I think this is a common view in Europe, though less so in Britain.
I hear all too often people complaining about companies relocating or offshoring to developing countries. But that is a fundamental right of democracy. Why wouldn't companies be allowed to do that? Private entreprises have not vowed or pledged to help the local population by providing work to them over foreigners. In fact, most large companies today are multinationals and owned by shareholders from all over the world.
In any case, democracy in ancient Athens was never about protecting the workers. Democracy was just a voting right for the elite of free citizens. The bulk of the population was composed of slaves, who had no rights. In modern political democracy, it is still the same: only citizens have the right to vote.
It is the right of company owners and decision makers to do whatever they want with their company. A company's owners are its shareholders. Decision makers are the board of elected directors (CEO, CFO, etc.). Both can be seen as the citizens in the corporate democracy. Workers have nothing to say unless they are stockholders. It is naive to think that things work otherwise in our current democratic system.
The same thing applies to the state. In so-called democratic countries, only legislative assemblies, like parliaments or municipal councils are democratically elected. The government (i.e. the ministers) is not directly elected, but indirectly via the parliament. Civil servants are not elected. Magistrates aren't either. So in all the structure of the state, among the executive, legislative and judiciary powers and the administration, only the legislative body is democratically elected. Yet most people seem happy with that. Why would employees of a private company think that they have more democratic right to make decisions about relocation or mass layoffs than they have to appoint or fire judges or civil servants in their country ?
The issue is that they don't understand what democracy really means. Democracy is only a right for some people and about politics. The basic principle of democracy is that it is always the majority of votes that win. Too many people mistakenly believe that democracy is listening to the minorities. It's not how it works. This is something I hear almost every week on French-speaking TV. I wonder where they got this idea. In fact, if governments were to bend to the will of the minority (or minorities) it would be the opposite of democracy. Democracy is by definition a rule of the majority (among those who have voting rights). Those who wish otherwise need to rethink the system.
But who controls the people? Now think about it. People elect parliaments, who in turn elect governments, who assign civil servants, and so on. Nowadays it is undeniably the media who control the people, because most ordinary people are essentially simple-minded, credulous and sheepish. Sorry it that sounds cynical, but that's how it is, even if I wish it weren't.
And who controls the media? Some countries have public TV, but these often have to rely on outside sources. There are hardly any public newspapers, and most of the big international news agencies are also non-governmental. It may sound like a good thing since the government in power shouldn't influence (or brainwash) the votes of the people who have the power to re-elect them. But in the globalised world of corporate democracy it basically means that those who own the big media companies have the population at their mercy. So the combination or political and corporate democracy is essentially the recipe for the law of the rich, and even governments have to bend to the pressures of global media. The media are also the best way to control the stock market. Controlling the media equals controlling the stock market and make as much money as you want.
That was modern democracy explained in brief. I am not saying it is a bad system, because it did work out better than any other system so far in history. I also don't see how it could be improved easily, in a manner that the ordinary masses can still understand.
I hear all too often people complaining about companies relocating or offshoring to developing countries. But that is a fundamental right of democracy. Why wouldn't companies be allowed to do that? Private entreprises have not vowed or pledged to help the local population by providing work to them over foreigners. In fact, most large companies today are multinationals and owned by shareholders from all over the world.
In any case, democracy in ancient Athens was never about protecting the workers. Democracy was just a voting right for the elite of free citizens. The bulk of the population was composed of slaves, who had no rights. In modern political democracy, it is still the same: only citizens have the right to vote.
It is the right of company owners and decision makers to do whatever they want with their company. A company's owners are its shareholders. Decision makers are the board of elected directors (CEO, CFO, etc.). Both can be seen as the citizens in the corporate democracy. Workers have nothing to say unless they are stockholders. It is naive to think that things work otherwise in our current democratic system.
The same thing applies to the state. In so-called democratic countries, only legislative assemblies, like parliaments or municipal councils are democratically elected. The government (i.e. the ministers) is not directly elected, but indirectly via the parliament. Civil servants are not elected. Magistrates aren't either. So in all the structure of the state, among the executive, legislative and judiciary powers and the administration, only the legislative body is democratically elected. Yet most people seem happy with that. Why would employees of a private company think that they have more democratic right to make decisions about relocation or mass layoffs than they have to appoint or fire judges or civil servants in their country ?
The issue is that they don't understand what democracy really means. Democracy is only a right for some people and about politics. The basic principle of democracy is that it is always the majority of votes that win. Too many people mistakenly believe that democracy is listening to the minorities. It's not how it works. This is something I hear almost every week on French-speaking TV. I wonder where they got this idea. In fact, if governments were to bend to the will of the minority (or minorities) it would be the opposite of democracy. Democracy is by definition a rule of the majority (among those who have voting rights). Those who wish otherwise need to rethink the system.
But who controls the people? Now think about it. People elect parliaments, who in turn elect governments, who assign civil servants, and so on. Nowadays it is undeniably the media who control the people, because most ordinary people are essentially simple-minded, credulous and sheepish. Sorry it that sounds cynical, but that's how it is, even if I wish it weren't.
And who controls the media? Some countries have public TV, but these often have to rely on outside sources. There are hardly any public newspapers, and most of the big international news agencies are also non-governmental. It may sound like a good thing since the government in power shouldn't influence (or brainwash) the votes of the people who have the power to re-elect them. But in the globalised world of corporate democracy it basically means that those who own the big media companies have the population at their mercy. So the combination or political and corporate democracy is essentially the recipe for the law of the rich, and even governments have to bend to the pressures of global media. The media are also the best way to control the stock market. Controlling the media equals controlling the stock market and make as much money as you want.
That was modern democracy explained in brief. I am not saying it is a bad system, because it did work out better than any other system so far in history. I also don't see how it could be improved easily, in a manner that the ordinary masses can still understand.
Last edited:
.
