United States Bolivarian Party

We Propose the Derogation of Same-Sex Marriage in the US

5. The Foundation of a Not Populist Democratic State



The United States Bolivarian Party sympathizes with the Foundation of a democratic State not populist.


Populist Democracy


We define the populist democracy as any political system that selects its leaders through the creation of political machinery called parties. Candidates for the Presidency and to the different political posts are not selected on the basis of objective criteria of intelligence, administrative capacity and service attitude, but they are selected by political parties based on their abilities to capture the vote of the people. Citizens vote for candidates to the Presidency and public offices previously selected by the political parties. Political parties operate as associations of opportunists to achieve power and distribute the political spoils.



That is, Presidents, legislators, Governors, mayors are elected by vote of the people to the candidates of political parties previously selected by the political parties which, as already pointed out, are associations of opportunistic dedicated to benefit from the sharing of the political spoils for various posts. Populist democracy is that exists today in the United States and the rest of the American countries, as well as in many countries of the world.


The system of political parties is designed in such way that it makes very difficult to the best qualifications and honest persons to serve the people obtain or get the power. On the contrary, the political party system and its machinery are designed to facilitate that dishonest people with interest of power for its own benefit and their co-religionists to reach power. To become the ruler in populist democracy is required to be a politician with the largest capacities to cheat, lie and manipulate public opinion. Honest politicians who speak the truth to the people are made very difficult to get to power. Apart from having ability to demagoguery, the candidate should have ability to raise funds for advertising in the mass media that have control of public opinion through the press, tv, radio, internet, etc.


The vote of the people depends on sympathy or popularity that every candidate to be elected unable to establish in every voter. Sympathy and popularity that a candidate may have depend on the magnitude of the campaign of political propaganda that can sustain. While more millions of dollars to spend on design, advice, deployment of press, television, radio and internet ads, more sympathy will succeed in reaching voters. While more million dollars achieved to collect for your political campaign, more commitments and privileges will have economic interests that finance his political campaign and more corruption and demagoguery there will be in his Government.


Since medium and large economic interests of countries are those who have the money to finance political campaigns, it happens to the politician who aspires to a position have to agree to offer privileges to economic interests that finance his political campaign.


The other factor that politicians use to get to power is constituted by the promises it offers to different groups of voters to get their vote. A large part of these promises is not met because it's simple demagogy to achieve power. The other part of the promises of campaigns that if met is done on the dilapidation of economic or natural resources of the country to be delivered to those groups or individuals who support and mobilize the vote in favor of its candidate. The politician who aspires to a position don't give wealth that even though they benefit a group are detrimental to the well-being of society as a whole. That is, politician do not concern give economic resources of the State because they are not of him.


The anarchy generated dishonest politicians who want power in the populist democracies is responsible for the increase in the level of social anomie, corruption and decrease in the level of institutionalization in the country. The level of institutionalization of a country depends on the level of civility of the people and the level of civility of the people depends on the proportion of the population that have installed in their psyche the basic social values. The basic social values are "lying is bad", "stealing is bad", "being dishonest is bad", "being unfair is bad", "not to be equal is bad", etc. While more is the proportion of the population with basic social values installed in their psyche, more is their level of civility and therefore greater is their level of institutionalization and greater their level of economic development. In developed countries the proportion of the population with basic social values installed is greater than in underdeveloped countries. That's why populist democracy produces more anarchy, social anomie and corruption in the undeveloped countries that on developed. However, populist democracy generates corruption in all countries, although to a lesser extent in developed ones. (see a detailed discussion of this topic in the section of this Web site entitled: I. sociological analysis of underdevelopment and its relationship with the decline of excellence at the University by clicking here).


The degree of demagoguery and corruption which politicians will have in a populist democracy will depend on the level of civility that exists in the population. As we have pointed out, the level of civility in a country depends on the proportion of people in the population with basic social values installed in their psyche.


The level of civility in people or proportion of people with the basic social values ​​installed in their psyche is likely to vary over time depending on the educational influences they receive over time. Educational influences can reinforce the installation of basic social values ​​in the population or on the contrary can be uninstalled these values ​​depending on whether these educational influences promote the defense of those values ​​or the change and the substitution of those values ​​by anti-values.


Democracies are self-degenerating over time insofar as they encourage the uninstallation of basic social values ​​in the population. That is, the greater the proportion of the population that does not have the basic social values ​​installed in their psyche, the greater the proportion of politicians in political parties who do not have such values. Consequently, the greater the corruption in political parties and politicians, the greater the number of demagogic and degenerate politicians. It's like a snowball that rolls downhill and grows in size over time. After a period of time that can fluctuate between 100 years (Athenian democracy) at 450 years (Roman democracy) tend to disappear and to be replaced by authoritarian governments.


Authoritarian governments can be more efficient than democratic to promote order, productivity and progress, depending on whether the ruler in question uses his administrative management to promote the common good or on the contrary is dedicated to seeking his own good and of his own. Authoritarian government, unlike democratic government, does not need the population to have a high proportion of the basic social values ​​installed in their psyche to generate efficiency and progress. It is enough that the ruler has the basic social values ​​installed in his psyche and imposes pyramidally from above to the rest of the population. In this way the authoritarian government is able to generate progress although the population has a low proportion of the basic social values ​​installed in its psyche. An example of populations with a low proportion of the basic social values ​​installed in the psyche and yet which have high rates of economic development are the authoritarian government of Singapore and the authoritarian government of China. Both pyramidically impose the fulfillment of values ​​from above. In both countries, corruption is combated and impunity is not allowed in the face of violation of values, as happen in democracies with a low proportion of the basic social values ​​installed in the psyche.


In modern history the populist democracy is a form of Government of relatively recent creation. It was invented by the United States and France just 250 years (10-15 generations) ago and it has spread quickly through the world countries driven principally by the own United States.


Populist democracy exhibits a tendency to anarchy and is headless. It has as advantage that accelerates the development of innovation and change, but it has as a disadvantage the accelerated decomposition of social values and its replacement by new values whose efficiency and benefit have not been tested over time.


What causes the tendency towards the breakdown of democracy is its populist character. Populist democracy is a form of Government where the authority responsible for leading the country is named and sanctioned by people that that authority will direct and lead. The problem with this way of choosing the leadership is that, when the supervisor is named and sanctioned by the supervised there is a no real chain of command and, consequently, there is a tendency that the Government fall into the hands of dishonest, opportunistic politicians and demagogues who votes for manipulate the public with all kinds of offerings which generates anarchy. For example, in the case of the French Revolution the cruelty with which dishonest politicians were beheaded, not only to the noble class, but to anyone who was accused wrongly of traitor is well known. Anarchy was widespread. In the case of the Athenian democracy is condemned to banishment or ostracism by popular vote people unjustly accused of being against the people. The anarchy generated by dishonest politicians who reach power is the result of the way in which leaders are chosen and their dependence of the sympathy and populist approbation to exercise his function of leaders.


Throughout history the democracies have only lasted for short periods of time because they have within themselves the seeds of the contradiction that destroys them. The democracy of Athens only lasted 100 years. The democracy of Rome at the beginning of its history lasted for about 400 years. Carthage democracy lasted more or less the same as the Roman. Democracies are degenerate until they self-destruct.


The Athenian democracy, for example, was degenerating or corrupting product of freedoms granted to citizens. One of the laws that was enacted was to sentence to banishment (exile) to every citizen who the people by popular vote would not want. The word ostracism comes from Athenian citizens recorded in a shell called Oyster the name of the person who did not want to and put it in a ballot box.


The story narrates that Aristides the just was an honest politician unlike the dishonest in the Athenian democracy. Dishonest politicians developed a campaign against him for his exile, and he was banished as a result of this campaign to discredit. The history narrate that Aristides, near the urn where votes are cast for his banishment, was approached by an illiterate peasant influenced by propaganda against him and asked to him for the favor that wrote the name of Aristides in the shell since he didn't write. It was obvious that this citizen did not even know Aristide since he did not recognize him. Aristide asked the peasant why he want to send to the exile that person and he replay that he did not know him but was tired of hear say that it was the just. Aristide not questioned any more the peasant, wrote his own name in the shell and as desired of the citizen put it in the ballot box, thus contributing to its own banishment. Years later, Athens need that honest politician to solve a period of crisis. Because Aristide had great talents was called back to serve their homeland, returning so the exile.


Democracy returned to the resurgence in 1776 with the independence of the United States in modern history. This nation was founded by a group of people who were persecuted for their Puritan religious beliefs. While they evolve and constitute a secular democratic Government, its origin was a confessional society and its strong religious influence is present in the symbolism of its currency. The dollar says, among other things, "In God we Trust". However, while it's been just 250 years from the onset of this populist democracy, it has been degenerating their religious values in which it was founded to become the first country that legalizes same-sex marriage and promotes it in other countries around the world that for imitation copied it from the United States.


In little more than 250 years the nation that made reborn populist democracy and promote it in the rest of the countries in the world shows clear signs of social breakdown and used all his power and influence as a hegemonic power to promote homosexuality in the rest of the countries in the world, although they are not aware of this, because they are victims of erroneous pseudo-scientific ideologies. For a detailed discussion of what the promotion of homosexuality is, see the portal PaisesHomosexuales.com (notice that this portal uses objective scientific language and images which can be very strong for the people not accustomed to the rigor of the objective scientific language. Therefore we prevent religious people so do not access the website if your sensitivity does not allow it).



Criticism of Democracy by the Greek Philosophers


The perception that we have developed from our experience and observation with respect to the self-destructive aspect of populist democracy in the long term, is not unique. Needier is unique our perception that the populist democracy is acephalous and has no address or orientation in the long term. When we investigate the history, we find that, to our surprise, this perception and controversy has been present since the dawn of the birth of democracy in Athens, being a discussion topic addressed by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.


Like Plato, Socrates and Aristotle, both criticized democracy by what they viewed as aspects that generated corruption, demagoguery, and the Government of the less apt. For them the Government of the least skilled is the consequence of the demagogy of opportunists in democracy. We call these aspects populist democracy.


Plato as Socrates and Aristotle believed that rulers and judges should be selected, not because of his popularity, but by their knowledge, skills and wisdom. In other words, the rulers must be selected among the philosophers.


Aristotle identified three forms of Government: Monarchy, Aristocracy, and the Republic. For Aristotle, any of the three forms of Government produces good Governments and bad governments depending on if the rulers are right people who exercise the right government. Right Governments are those who pursue the general interest and move away from pursuing the (welfare) personal or particular interest. According to Aristotle any of three forms of government degenerates when the ruler looking for their own well-being and their frends instead of the general interest. In such a case, the Monarchy degenerate into Tyranny, Aristocracy is degenerate into Oligarchy and the Republic degenerates into Democracy.


That is, democracy for Aristotle is anarchic and degenerates as consequence that opportunists using demagoguery are made with power for its own benefit and his frends. We see this same criticism of democracy in Socrates and Plato.


In the present the tendency to degeneration in democratic Governments is what we perceive and we have called populist democracy. As you can see, the aspects that generated demagogy, corruption, lawlessness and injustice in the ancient Greece are the same of the present.


So Aristotle, as Socrates and Plato seem to suggest that any form of Government, including democracy, must select the people with the best qualifications and merits to the post and not the most popular people or more sympathies of the people as rulers. For Aristotle democracy, to be right and becoming a Republic, that is, to pursue the general good, must select right rulers that are more suitable to exercise the charges based on the merits and not on the basis of their sympathy.


Proposal to Eliminate the Political Parties


As we have pointed out, one of the most detrimental elements of populist democracy is the formation of political parties. These structures become associations of people organized for one purpose and is to get some loot of benefit of win the elections. The formation of political parties in populist democracy encourages a caste of corrupt politicians, demagogues who legislate for the economic interests that finance their campaigns and bribe them. His only interest is to occupy the post to hold power and benefit and benefit those who finance their political campaigns to get to power.


Furthermore populist democracy creates parties structures which act as obstacles to hinder that honest politician or although it is not honest want to manage properly the Government, he can do it. The so call party machinery constitutes an insurmountable obstacle against that politic and in favor of the political and economic interests that finance political campaigns.


Populist democracy established in that way is at the service of economic interests and does not at the service the majority of the people. To reverse this order the United States Bolivarian Party sympathizes with the idea of proposing the construction of a new formula of political democratic system to avoid that political demagogues and corrupt people rise to power.


To remedy the problems of populist democracy, we propose the elimination of the political parties that serve only to promote the associations of corrupt people to take power and benefit. Instead, we propose the selection of a slate of three of 10 to 15 candidates for each post or elective office on the basis of scientific criteria. The potential candidates will have a series of discussions in the mass media. Each candidate will have the same time to present their ideas on the different problems that afflict the country or the municipality or town and that he will try to solve during his incumbency and a time to answer the proposals of the other candidates. He will also have time to answer the questions made by journalists and the public. After these presentations the people will vote for the candidates of their choice.


To select the 10 or 15 best candidates to a post they will be supplied with intelligence tests on emotional, mathematical, social, abstract reasoning and knowledge of history, administration, etc. and selecting 10 or 15 candidates aspiring to a position between people with high scores in the tests. These candidates selected in this way will be those who will have equal time in the media to present their ideas and discuss the ideas of the other aspiring candidates to the same post. The collected funds to finance political campaigns would be prohibited, so all candidates compete in a similar situation.


Alternatively, you can opt for the parliamentary model rather than the presidential model. In this way democracy would be less populist as President would be not selected direct by vote and, therefore, by the popular sympathy, but would be selected by persons chosen by the citizens as parliamentary representatives of the people. The people would elect their parliamentary representatives who are supposed to be selected among smart and prepared persons in the country. As already mentioned, the parliamentary representatives would be selected among the shortlist of 10 to 15 candidates with the higher qualifications and scores for each test as representative of the people.


To maintain the continuity of the administration program, members of Parliament would not be elect all at once in every four years, but a third in each four-year period so that the Parliament could renew all its members every 12 years instead of every 4 years. For example, if the Parliament have 30 representatives of the people, every four years 10 representatives will be chosen. Every election 10 members of Parliament who are to be replaced would have the right to compete in their proposals with the proposals of the new candidates for those positions of representatives and be eligible for re-election if so decided by vote the people.


In this way would avoid that dishonest politicians and demagogues rise to power as happen in populist democracies.


Note that the Group of parliamentary representatives would act as a Parliament of wise men because they are elected among people more intelligent and prepared in the country and not among the politicians more demagogues and corrupt of the country.