The case against democracy

Steve Jobs loved citing the example that animals ran faster than humans but with a bicycle humans completely outpaced the animals. The fact is that humans are toolmakers. That ability makes up for the inefficiencies we naturally have. To Jobs, the computer was the same tool, only for the mind.

Similarly, in the cosmos, the human sense of vision is the most unreliable way to observe and understand the stars and galaxies because the human eye is connected to the brain, which is filled with preconditions, prejudices, and opinions. The telescope, the tool humans made, helped in arriving at whatever cosmic conundrums we have. The problem is that wherever human judgement is involved, wrong things happen.

A democratically elected leader comes to power after he or she caters to people’s emotions, psychological needs, and fears. Ever wondered why the world almost never had a scientist leader? Because a true scientist would talk in terms of numbers, data, and rationality while completely discarding our belief system and opinions. And it sure would be a boring election campaign, which wouldn’t arouse our emotions and we won’t experience any adrenaline rush.

A leader is elected after he mesmerises the people with spells of the right words spoken with the right tone and nowadays displayed on social media with the right visuals and hype. Hocus pocus; the emotions arouser achieves an image of being the true saviour and absolute changemaker, created out of thin air. Somehow, leaders always want the top job by claiming these two credentials mainly: saviour and changemaker.

If the standard for a democratically elected leader is to capture people’s imagination, then the most mesmerising personality that comes to my mind was perhaps Rasputin. He wasn’t elected but boy, did the Russian girls and czars love him! He also came up with an outlandish ideology and drove people to craziness with controlling their emotions. Rasputin convinced people to clean their souls by sinning immensely.

I was at a Houston mosque offering Friday prayers a few months ago. When I was leaving, I was greeted by a man who said “Assalamaleikum” and introduced himself as a local politician running for office. His last name was Kulkarni. He wanted my vote. Kulkarni is a born American with an Indian father and a White mother. He spoke well and had a pleasant personality. However, I was taken aback by his use of terms such as “Assalamaleikum” and “InshaAllah” not because he was not Muslim but because he was tailoring his message to us. A few miles down the road toward the east, he would be in a Texas country White neighbourhood where people love watching baseball and nascar. It’s the people that jealously guard their Second Amendment rights and believe Jesus paid for their sins. Kulkarni might have to run for cover if he said InshaAllah with those people. Just like he told us he was one of us, I am sure he emphasised on his mother being White and a descendant of Sam Houston, while talking to the nascar and gun folks.

Democracy is based on the central practice of listening to the leader making promises. And there’s a lot of human senses involved. Listening is processed with a preconditioned mind. Speaking by the leader is done with a preconditioned and made up speech written by well-trained professional speechwriters who include words intending to convey a certain meaning and trigger certain emotions. It may be what people desire but desire and aspirations devoid of rationality are not reliable factors to determine governing.

The point is: human emotions and prejudices are involved in democracy. Therefore, I don’t know if it’s a reliable system of governance. Mankind has not yet invented a tool that can remove human emotional propensities from the practice of democracy.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 8^th, 2020.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.