How come that, the global political thought has been stubbornly stuck in place throughout a certain era of human existence?
Isn’t it possible to think up, justify, and come up with something else, a new idea? How much they can bend, curve, branch, attach and graft this, which has been called “democracy”?
Is it not clear that in this technological crazy acceleration of the world in the 21st century, more or less real (at least perceived by the former world) democracy has remained deep in the past?
Is it not clear that what is called “public opinion”, the pillar of democracy, has been a result of purely information manipulations for a long time ago, distorted and detached from the truth and reality, an effective way to “transpor” and keep the society in “alternative” reality, with its all consequences?
Is it not clear, that in a truly developed democracy, in the countries with tens of millions or hundreds of millions of populations (even mentioning the smaller ones is unnecessary), it would be impossible to nominate and elect pure populists and even clowns by profession?
Is it not clear, that the widespread usage of information technologies in the electoral process has irrevocably alienated societies from the most important and critical chance given by democracy: from the right to elect leaders through the fair elections?
For more than a hundred years we have : social democracy, but in fact, dictatorship and fascism; democratic centralism, but in reality, one-party totalitarian dictatorship; liberal democracy, but in reality, perversion and chaos, etc., etc.
The whole of humanity seems to be in the shape of a squirrel in a circle called “democracy”.
Political scientists, Please, think of something new …
Apply to anthropologists, psychologists, physicists, astronomers, do what you want to do, and think of something new !
All the social sciences, particularly Law, and History, in some part also Economics get into trouble with this crumbling democracy.
Do something !
A very general observation, purely from a professional standpoint:
The countries with monarchs perhaps manage to ensure relatively stable positive economic indicators and the preservation of national values , but the real, nobleones, not dictatorial monarchs or something like that. Tyrants have also made short-lived successes at times, if being smartand patriotic, although they largely lost most of the wars in the final end.
There is no example of a successful country when there is anarchy and chaos,.
Think something, dear Political scientists, otherwise we should be obliged to turn to the philosophers again, and that will not take us to better place: they will “bury” all in the contradictory theories of rational vs irrational, materia vs idea, and etc.
Karen Chshmarityan