Why do we have to evolve?
During the 18th century, a “set of ideas” developed to change the relationship between the rulers and the ruled. This “set of ideas”, known as Constitutionalism, contemplates the need to:
- Declare a supreme law (→ Constitution).
- Guarantee the rights of citizens (→ Rule of Law).
- Divide the Power of the State (→ Republic).
- Legitimize the Power of the State through the sovereignty of the citizens.
Constitutionalism emerged for the first time in the US Constitution in 1787. As a method to “Legitimize the Power of the State”, the North American assemblymen adopted the “Democratic Method” of selection (of authorities, representatives, laws, etc.). (see more about Democratic Method here)
From that moment on, Constitutionalism spread throughout the West in a few decades. With the work of political philosophers (such as Tocqueville) and the comparison with the Ancient Greek Democracy, the applied Constitutionalism began to be called Democracy. With the filming, the needs, the use and many times abuse by the politics of different countries, by the middle of the 20th century, the word Democracy came to be used to refer to the doctrine of “everything good that can happen to a society”.
US society had and still has an idiosyncrasy, a “national being” and a sense of justice very different from those of European, Latin American, Asian and African societies. Some of these societies adapted to Constitutionalism in such a way that it preserved its integrity. In others, especially in “charismatic” type societies, the “Democracy Doctrine” colonized and diluted the principles of Constitutionalism.
Few doubt that the application of Constitutionalism produced a very positive revolution in humanity. Today’s world is different and it is largely thanks to global change that this “set of ideas” introduced.
But more than 2 centuries have passed. Isn’t it strange to assume as an unquestionable truth that today “Democracy” is the best system of government that we can have? It’s strange isn’t it?
The concept of Democracy came to have so many free and directed interpretations that the application of Constitutionalism with a democratic method of selection, today it is precisely defined as “Democratic Polyarchy” (see more about Polyarchies here). In non-academic settings it is called the “Democratic Republic”. The Defenders of “True Democracies” call it the “Liberal Representative System”
To understand why the Democratic Polyarchy must evolve into an “Optocracy”, one must first understand the “systemic failures” that all “Democratic Systems” have. These failures predict a clear limit to development as a society, however, the current slogan is “Democracy is all the good that can happen to society and there can be no better system.” We are not proposing or discussing an improvement of the system, we are only trying to incorporate “virtues” into society, which is good, but very ineffective. (see more about systemic failures here)
Winston Churchill in 1947 (more than 70 years ago) said something like “Democracy is a bad system, if we exclude everyone else.” So … Do we just have to settle and accept the situation? When are we going to stop justifying Democracy?
Citizen dissatisfaction tends to focus on seeking political changes, on name changes. The real change is not political. The real change is system.
There is an incipient manifestation of the need to change the system that seems to be wrongly oriented towards returning to a “Direct Democracy” system. “Direct Democracy” magnifies the systemic failures of Democracy and constitutes another justification for “Democracy.”
Tired of hearing all kinds of justifications, I decided to propose the Optocracy. This new system should actually be called Optocratic Polyarchy because it meets the “rules of Polyarchy.” It could have been called “Democracy 2.0” because it has the same objectives as “Democracy”, but this would only add confusion to the word. Who knows, perhaps with that eagerness that exists to reference new concepts with what we know, in some years the Optocracy will also be called “Optocratic Democracy”. (see what the Optocracy is like here)
I must warn the reader: on the first approach to the concept, Optocracy seems too complex a system to be applicable. After a more detailed and prejudice-free analysis, it can be found that it is actually quite simple and its applicability only depends on the slogan.