Are Democratic Elections a Threat to Democracy?
In order for democracy to survive, we may need to rethink how it works.
In a time of unprecedented global upheaval, the very foundations of democracy are being called into question. The idea that the electoral process itself could pose a threat to democratic institutions is a paradox that has ignited debate among scholars, politicians, and citizens alike. At the heart of this conversation is a controversial premise: could the very mechanism designed to empower the people—democratic elections—become a tool for undermining the fabric of democracy?
This question does not exist in a vacuum. Around the world, we've witnessed instances where the electoral process has been manipulated, where misinformation campaigns have swayed public opinion, and where elected leaders have sought to erode democratic norms from within. The rise of populist movements and authoritarian leaders who promote extremist ideas like “absolute free speech,” “socialists are parasites,” and “Austrian economics” has led to a reevaluation of what democracy should look like in the 21st century.
At the crux of this debate is a challenging, yet fundamental idea: in certain critical moments, might it be necessary to suspend democratic norms to save democracy itself? We do not need to search far to find examples of democratic elections which resulted in dangerous far-right extremists occupying the highest office in the land. It suggests that the immediate will of the people, as expressed through the ballot box, might sometimes lead to outcomes that threaten the status quo and could lead to disastrous outcomes. Examples from recent history include Nayib Bukele in El Salvador, Donald Trump in the United States, and Javier Milei in Argentina. All three of these extremist presidents clearly showcase the danger of allowing democratic elections to proceed without interference.
The simple reality is this: the people do not know what is best for them. After all, Hitler was appointed Chancellor by a democratically-elected President...
Indeed, history teaches us that democracy is too important to be left to the whims of the general public. After all, what are the odds that the collective wisdom of the population can match the enlightened perspectives of political analysts, celebrities, and those who have the foresight to see beyond the narrow confines of "voter choice"? The logical solution, then, is to ensure that election results are pre-approved by a panel of experts who have the necessary qualifications—namely, agreeing with the "correct" point of view.
To safeguard our democracies, it's clear we must introduce new measures. Perhaps every ballot should include a disclaimer: "Warning: Voting contrary to the recommended candidates may lead to unexpected and undesirable outcomes that could harm national unity and your personal wellbeing." This would certainly encourage voters to make the correct decision, thus preserving the essence of democracy—making sure that only the approved kind of democracy is practiced.
Moreover, the concept of "one person, one vote" is frankly outdated. A more nuanced approach would be "one person, one vote, provided you vote correctly." Votes in line with the "correct" choice could count as they normally do, while votes for the "incorrect" option could be counted as half, or perhaps not at all, depending on the level of their deviation from the recommended path. This innovative approach ensures that democracy is both preserved and directed towards the most beneficial outcome for all—defined, of course, by those who know best.
In extreme cases where the public accidentally elects the wrong candidate, a safety mechanism could be activated. This could take the form of a "Democratic Override" where the results are set aside for the greater good. After all, what is the point of having a democracy if it can't guarantee the correct outcome every time? It's only logical that elections should serve as a formal confirmation of what the most enlightened members of society have already decided is best. Donald Trump is a prime example of the dangers of our current democratic process. If the people are allowed to elect Donald Trump again in 2024, this could be the end of democracy as we know it.
This Democratic Override should be exercised not only in the United States, but in any foreign countries where the U.S. has a strategic economic interest. Just imagine for a moment if a U.S. vassal state was to elect a leader that refused to acquiesce to the reasonable demands of the United States… We need not imagine for long, because we are already seeing the disastrous results of “the will of the people” in El Salvador.
The burden of the Anointed is a heavy one, but a burden we must stoically bear for the greater good.
Let's not forget the educational component. A nationwide campaign to enlighten the masses about the dangers of independent thought in the voting booth could do wonders. Workshops titled "How to Vote Correctly" and "Understanding Why Your Opinion is Wrong" could be mandatory for all eligible voters. These campaigns can also be implemented at the public school level. Through such measures, we can ensure that the populace is not only informed but also corrected, gently guided back to the right path whenever they stray too far into the weeds of libertarian delusions, lest they start to internalize the radical and dangerous anti-socialist doctrine espoused by extremists like Javier Milei.
The future of democracy lies not in the messy, unpredictable hands of the many, but in the wise, steady guidance of the few who truly understand what's at stake. By implementing these modest proposals, we can ensure that democracy is no longer threatened by the dangerous experiment of allowing the will of the people to be the final word. After all, the ultimate expression of democracy is not the ballot box but the assurance that no matter what happens, the right party always wins. In this way, democracy can finally achieve its full potential: a system where the illusion of choice is perfectly maintained while the correct decisions are made by those who are clearly better suited to make them.
Ultimately, it is our duty to protect the people from themselves, and they will thank us for the cognitive safety and electoral certainly we, the Anointed, dutifully provide.
Editor-in-Chief, The Ecommunist