Some people have been expressing the thought of an elitist government, with the politicians behaving in the said elitist manner. This sort of behaviour really doesn't enamour the politician to the public, the public just doesn't like the elitist attitude. Who do they think they are? They don't 'own' me! I'm not their slave! They weren't voted in to do this - they lied! If I had their income, I too would be able to afford to pay tax! And other such expressions abound.
I think that if the politician had the median wage (as opposed to the average wage or what they actually earn), their policies would be wildly different. Would there be tax breaks for the rich? Would they understand that for the economy to grow there has to be money flow. For money to be spent, people have to have money! And what is the difference between the rich and poor spending habits? Do the rich spend more, generally? It would appear that the main difference between the rich and poor spending habits is that both spend about the same through the week, but the rich save more. So to give tax breaks, especially on savings, so to encourage saving is all well and good, but to put it out of the reach of the poor is disingenuous at best and outrageously Machiavellian at worst. Keep the poor poor and they wont trouble you! The French aristocrats of 1798 thought this and look at what happened there, the people revolted! "Ah, but we've moved on from those times, we are far more civilised and we have democracy" - maybe, but you haven't moved on from the French aristocrats!
What's wrong with our current system? We have democracy and the vote after all! Ah yes, the cornucopia of the modern civilised world - democracy and the vote! "If they (the voters) don't like what we have done, they can vote on it in the next election" - but by then the damage is done and whoever is voted in doesn't have the balls to undo it! Is the system broken? Well, it actually depends on how you look at the system. For the rich and those in power, probably not, for everyone else, probably yes! Notice the phrase "in power". This is partly the problem. Attitude. Politicians are "in power" to "serve" those who voted for them. Do they serve their constituencies or their party? Are they in politics to serve the voters or themselves? Has the power gone to their heads? When a person has a lot of power (and with that great power comes great responsibility), paranoia can set in and so they start to shore up that power, they become elitist.
Lets have a look at where the modern system started from. Democracy started two and a half thousand years ago in Greece. There was an area that ran democracy in its truest form and there was peace and joy throughout the land! Their neighbours were so jealous, they invaded and destroyed all that was built up and enslaved the inhabitants. What was this democracy? In its simplest form, distribution/dissemination of power. The city was run by the people for the people. Sure it had its problems, but it worked. There was a general set of laws and regulations, but there was also local regulation run by the locals for the locals because they knew the area best. And it worked - for many years. In this system there was also accountability.
Now-a-days, the laws are made by people who live miles away and have no real idea of how life is, and are not accountable - ah but we can be voted out - but, as said before, not until the damage is done! Aristocrats! The decision makers live in a world far away from those they govern and are so out of touch it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad and serious. This is more of a feudal system rather than democracy. If the politicians were paid a median wage, so they experienced what some of the poorest have to put up with, then may be, just may be, their policies might be different and favour the poorer in society, and they may not crave to power they've now come accustomed to.
Is this an altruistic dream? Not really! All this crap evolved out of and through greed and selfishness of those without a conscience and whose moral fibre is nowhere to be seen.
The mark one democracy wouldn't be acceptable today. Its principles would be acceptable to the majority of the populace but probably not to those in power. It would take a strong man (or woman) to recognise we're living in a feudalistic system and to bring back democracy in a more acceptable and equitable form.
photo credit: Sam Ilić via photopin cc
No comments:
Post a Comment