My argukment that our countries by far no NO functional republics, states, democracies. Notm only have their functionality been hijacked by the few and tailored to serve the few's own interest for power and financial and economic influence, but the distortions also produced a self-dynamic in distorting the system ever on. Cliques are running the system over here, bypassing the electorate'S votings. Big money runs your country, bypassing the electorate. Maybe you think that having elections have a meaning today anymore, but I say they are just clever camouflage to keep the people quite in the streets while securing the statzus quo for those soicial castes controlling things in the background. And the factual constraints and inherent necessities of ordinary everyday politics do the rest for limiting the freedom degrees of any govenrment being elected to form something new creatively , or even to just break the pattern of the very system itself. Our states are effectively bancrupt, and live on tic, which means they have no freedom of acting at all - or only at the price of increasing debts. There are the obligations from older treaties. Laws formed by past adminsitrations. And always again yiou run into the cliques in the background who make sure that nobvody is able to chnager so much that the system of maintaining these cliques would suffer real damage. Its in Germany that way. It is in europe that way. And it is in America that way. By its Bsic Law, Germayn was meant to be something different. So was the US meant to be different by the general thinoing of the founders and first influential polticalins and thinkers and authors of those old historic documents.
And tyrants not leaving behind a state surving their own death, that is not necessarily true. Sometimes tyrants form dynastieys, may it be on the basis of brutal force, may it be on the basis of the love of their people. A king, in the end, also is a tyrant. Or the Romans, in the young republic: in times of war, they stepped back from the principles of having a "democratic" gremium where the social elites and the representaitves of the ordinary people met and decided in disucssion how to run the state. Much rivalry there due to different interests between the upper class, and the lower class. However, int imes of war and crisis, they elected two tribunes, who then took over all power and command and reigned in y tyrant'S style until the crisis was solved. After that they were expected to hand over power again, and to step back. In theory at least
: some did, some tried to do that not.
Demcioarcy was another attempt to solve the problpem of tynrannies: tyranny is nice and well if the leader is competent and righteous. Ifg he is not, if he is a dilletant or a criminal egoist, thenh you have a problem.
But have modern democracies really solved this probkem by having a cycle or electing or re-electing representatives in regualr intervals peacefully? Incompetence and narcissm reigns. Lobbyism is omnipresent. And as I just explained and argue all, the time, the system makes sure that only candidates representing its own rules, the interests of the cliques having hijacked it, come to influence and power. Democracy is no safeguard against corrupt leaders, not at all, we just learn it the hard way once again both in the EU and in the US currently; and it also brings not the bright and cpompetent to power, but for the molst: the loudest, the richest, the influential ones having good ties in the network of cliques, the good manipulators and liars to the masses.
It just does not work as intended.
It could mayb eonly work as intended in social communtiies that are to small that every member can seed and know what every other member is doing, and what consequnces the other'S actions have for all others, and what consequences one's own actions have for all others. That limits the functionality of democracies to extremely small community sizes: as I said, only a few hundred, at best a very few thousand people. But our current national states? With dozens of millions of people? Complexity degrees of organisations and process and interaction patterns that nobody can overwatch and understand anymore? Or supranational organisations like the EU, the UN ? Impossible. I cannot imagine that to ever function as advertised. Why is that? You said it yourself, you pointed to human nature.
In our historical papers, our nations look nice and well. But the reality that they came to, has little or nothing to do with these old visions.
Which, for a closing, brings me to my favourite sentence that I have repeated already so often:
We are too many people.