The difficulty of rulership

Democracy is the great ideal of the Western world. Is it time to assess if the great experiment is a failure?

In order to rule, a government needs to be empowered to do so by the masses. The masses of the average man elect those whom have the intelligence to run a country for the good of all. Here is the paradox- the mass has the power and empowers the minority elite to rulership. When, as always occurs, the mass disagree with a decision made by the elected elite then they remove them from power. The masses assume they know better and that a better government exists yet they offer no theories on how such should act. It is impossible for the minority to govern the masses where the masses are holding the power. Democracy effectively creates shepherds who have a thousand head of cattle as their masters. How can one shepherd ones own masters without power over them?

I have said before, when enquiring how best to run a farm then one does not ask the sheep. The recent Scottish independence vote produced a fine example of the thoughts that are present in a democratic vote. A fine clip exists of a Scottish man explaining that he wanted to vote for independence, but didn’t as he wished to retain the ability to watch Match of the Day on the BBC. If such important decisions with wide reaching consequences are swayed by the ability to view football highlights on a Saturday night, then why should we have faith that any other election is given anything near rational thought?

The major economic powers in the world right now have mere shadows of democracy to appease the masses. Perhaps we should acknowledge that the average man does not know what is best and that we can see this in Russia and China where the say of the masses is limited. By assuming the average man is wise enough to hold say over the government of country then we enter into a decadent state of declining nationality as everyone is taken to an average level.

Whom wishes to be average?