Democracy is Against the Law of Nature

The parliamentary principle of vesting legislative power in the decision of the majority:

• rejects the authority of the individual
• puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place.

In doing so, it contradicts the aristrocratic principle, which is a fundamental law of nature.

In this decadent era, the aristrocratic principle is not as incorporated in the upper ten thousand.

The parliamentary institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics.

This discourages men who have real leadership qualities from taking part in political life.

This is because these circumstances call for a man who can bargain for the favour of the majority, instead of a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship.

Thus, the situation will appeal to small minds and will attract them accordingly.

The narrower the mental outlook and knowledge in a political jobber, the more accurate is his estimate of his own political stock.

Thus, he will be all the more inclined to appreciate a system which does not demand creative genius or even high-class talent, but rather that crafty kind of sagacity which makes an efficient town clerk.

He values this kind of small craftiness more than the political genius of a Pericles.

Such a mediocrity does not even have to worry about responsibility for what he does.

This is because from the beginning, he knows that whatever be the results of his ‘statesmanship’ his end is already prescribed by the stars.

He will one day have to make room for another who is of similar mental calibre.

The Majority Vote

This new invention of democracy is very closely connected with the cowardice of most of our political leaders.

Whenever important decisions have to be made, they always have to hide behind the backs of the majority.

They wheedle the majority in order to get their sanction for whatever action.

They must have accomplices in order to be able to shift responsibility to other shoulders whenever it is opportune to do so.

That is the main reason why this kind of political activity is abhorrent to men of character and courage, while at the same time it attracts inferior types.

If a national leader comes from that lower class of politicians, the evil consequences will soon manifest themselves.

Nobody will then have the courage to take a decisive step.

The majority can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice.

100 blockheads do not equal 1 man of wisdom.

If there appears a superior leader, a joint front will be organized against him.

The inevitable result is that the intellectual level of the ruling class sinks steadily.

One can easily forecast how much the nation and State are bound to suffer from such a condition of affairs, provided one does not belong to that same class of ’leaders’.

The parliamentary régime in the old Austria had this very archetype.

The Austrian Prime Minister was appointed by the King-Emperor. But this act of appointment merely gave practical effect to the will of the parliament.

The huckstering and bargaining that went on in regard to every ministerial position showed all the typical marks of Western Democracy.

The intervals between the replacement of one person by another gradually became shorter, finally ending up in a wild relay chase.

With each change, the quality of the ‘statesman’ in question deteriorated, until finally only the petty type of political huckster remained.

In such people the qualities of statesmanship were measured and valued according to the adroitness with which they pieced together one coalition after another.

In other words, their craftiness in manipulating the pettiest political transactions, which is the only kind of practical activity suited to the aptitudes of these representatives.

The whole spectacle of parliamentary life became more and more desolate the more one penetrated into its intimate structure and studied the persons and principles of the system in a spirit of ruthless objectivity.

It is very necessary to be strictly objective in the study of the institution whose sponsors talk of ‘objectivity’ in every other sentence as the only fair basis of examination and judgment.

If one studied these gentlemen and the laws of their strenuous existence the results were surprising.

There is no other principle which turns out to be quite so ill-conceived as the parliamentary principle, if we examine it objectively.

In our examination of it we may pass over the methods according to which the election of the representatives takes place, as well as the ways which bring them into office and bestow new titles on them.

Only to a tiny degree are public wishes or public necessities satisfied by the manner in which an election takes place; for everybody who properly estimates the political intelligence of the masses can easily see that this is not sufficiently developed to enable them to form general political judgments on their own account, or to select the men who might be competent to carry out their ideas in practice.

Whatever definition we may give of the term ‘public opinion’, only a very small part of it originates from personal experience or individual insight.

The greater portion of it results from the manner in which public matters have been presented to the people through an overwhelmingly impressive and persistent system of ‘information’.