Why Democracy?

Democracy is a synonym of popular sovereignty, from Greek dêmos “the people” and krátos “power, sovereignty”. It is regarded as the form of government in which sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it directly (direct democracy) or through freely elected representatives (indirect democracy).

It can be argued that a state led by one or few people of immense wisdom and benevolence is a better form of government than current democracies. However, human society has yet to prove that it can infallibly identify its best leaders. Even when these rose to power, they were hardly ever able to establish a government that would deservingly succeed them on a lasting basis.

The fact that an “enlightened” monarchy or oligarchy may feel more appealing than a democracy is an indication of how society collectively is far from being fully evolved. In a truly mature society, individual ability, ethics and critical thinking would be so great that there would be no need to delegate decisions to one individual or group. One could even say that, at the last stage of social evolution, individuals’ ability, rationality and freedom would be such that democracy would be superseded and individuals would live in a state of Individual Sovereignty.

Democracy is a phase in the Sovereignty Cycle. This, like all cycles, proceeds gradually. At the beginning there is conflictual individual sovereignty, where the law of the strongest is in force: the so-called state of nature. This is followed by centralized sovereignty, headed by “the strongest” established at the previous stage: the monarch or oligarchs. When people demand to rule their own nation, democracy occurs and sovereignty belongs to all individuals collectively.

Eventually, when each individual’s potential is fully realized and they no longer perceive other individuals or parties as threats, rational individual sovereignty would take over. At this final stage, people’s values and conduct would be governed by reason and they would be able to live in harmony in a condition of self-regulation.

While evolving through the Sovereignty Cycle, engagement, knowledge, freedom and responsibility increase for everyone. These four principles are not only the effect of progress, they are also its cause. Individual interest, education, critical thinking and desire to make decisions on public issues are necessary to advance along the Cycle. In contrast, disinterest, ignorance, authoritarian thinking and irresponsibility are the main reasons for regression to lower stages.

So, for society to evolve, individuals must keep up with the responsibility entrusted to them in order not to regress, and aspire to and prepare for greater responsibility in order to progress. Nurturing individual responsibility and competence is therefore an essential duty of the education system.

Democracy is formally adopted by the vast majority of the world’s countries, but it is legally configured and implemented in very different ways. Each type of (claimed) democracy is located at a specific point in the Sovereignty Cycle. Direct democracies and democracies valuing minorities are the most advanced.

For example, Article 1 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China establishes a socialist state subject to the “people’s democratic dictatorship”. Although the use of the terms “democratic” and “dictatorship” may sound contradictory, the phrase can be interpreted as totalitarian subjection to the majority will of the people. Technically, this excludes the minority from the political process. Since this is an indirect democracy, dictatorship is exercised by the governing bodies and, de facto, by the Communist Party of China.

The individual rights acknowledged by western Constitutions – which descend from the U.S. Constitution (in particular from the Bill of Rights containing the first ten amendments) – represent monumental achievements, if one considers the legal and factual condition of people in the previous millennia. However, most of such Constitutions establish indirect democracies, which ended up alienating the individual from the government and limiting the actual democraticness of their systems.

For example, the fact that referenda on new bills are not allowed in many western “democracies” is absurd. Why entrusting a parliament – whose only function is to represent the will of the people – with the power to make laws and deny that same power to the people – the represented?

The claim that members of parliament are endowed with greater wisdom would not be a valid answer. In no case can the elected’s mandate of representation allow them to depart from the will of the people in the name of an alleged intellectual superiority. Such a system would be an aristocracy (from Greek aristos “best” – i.e. “sovereignty of the best”), not a democracy.

Efficiency is no justification either. National laws are meant to be general political decisions affecting everyone’s life. Therefore, they deserve the involvement of citizens, in contrast to the many specialized administrative acts and regulations which must swiftly execute such decisions. Furthermore, advances in technology – e.g. blockchains – can make referenda safer, quicker and less expensive.

Western countries also provide examples of de facto aberrations in their democracies. The rigid American two-party system, based on the opposition between two broad and well-established groups, is an oversimplification of democracy that limits voters’ freedom of choice. A two-party system also facilitates control by external influences, which secure powerful positions regardless of the election outcome by directly or indirectly supporting both parties.

The advent of indirect democracies was accompanied by the formation of a new social class: professional politicians. This has grown so consolidated and isolated from the population as to constitute a lobby in itself, pursuing its own class interests. In many countries, politics has become a TV show, where parties stage a fan clash – as if they forgot that a nation is one team – while going hand in hand behind the scenes.

Several western democracies are in a stalemate due to weak or virtually absent majorities. Decisions are not made, election promises are not realized and sovereignty is not exercised. Politicians find themselves in the “fortunate” position where they receive salaries and allowances without having to take responsibility for decisions and act. Instead of acknowledging the serious economic and social consequences of such stagnation and seeking compromises with the other parties, they keep on staging their show, made of quarrels and obstructionism, posing as passionate champions of party ideologies that in reality have disappeared for decades. The opposition between the right and the left does not properly represent today’s diversity of political views and its practical effect is to divide the electorate and exacerbate the conflict within it.

The solution to the concentration of power in the political class and the stalemate of indirect democracy is the decentralization of decision making offered by direct democracy. An illusory “solution” is technocracy, which represents a regression towards a lower level of individual responsibility and involvement.

The national system closest to direct democracy is the Swiss one. Arguably, this is at least correlated with the fact that Switzerland also has the highest average wealth per capita and ranks first in the Human Freedom Index as well as in the Global Innovation Index.

Every year, Switzerland holds the largest number of referenda in the world by far. It is the only directorial republic, where an executive body – the Federal Council – consists of members of each of the major parties and serves collectively as the Head of State. Members of Parliament meet in four regular sessions per year, lasting three weeks each, and for the rest of the time they go about their professions. This facilitates contact with the population and awareness of the needs of the working world and society at large.

Swiss citizens are constantly called upon to express their will on local and national issues. Their interest and competence in the topics being discussed at any given time demonstrate how an inclusive decision-making system also increases individual responsibility. The choices they make often reflect the pursuit of the collective interest over mere individual economic advantage, as shown by the result of the 2018 referendum against the abolition of the TV-radio tax. At the same time, citizens are free to decide on proposals that would sound like fantasy in other countries: in 2019, Zurich citizens approved tax cuts for companies.

The pluralism found in the Federal Council is also found at all the other levels of the system. Confrontation between parties is mostly marked by respect and dialogue, and it pursues collective agreement, knowing that the whole community will suffer if that is not achieved.

While every nation stands at a specific point in the Sovereignty Cycle, they all deserve to progress: from monarchy to democracy, from indirect democracy to direct democracy, and beyond. Clearly, the transition must be gradual. Forcing an uninvolved population to directly manage a country overnight is a recipe for disaster. People must be educated into competent, responsible and critical-thinking citizens and gradually entrusted with an increasing number of decisions.

Unfortunately, the global trend is currently moving in the opposite direction. The global average democracy index and the voter turnout have been steadily decreasing. The Human Freedom Index has declined for almost 90% of the world’s population in recent years.

At Time Zero, we strive to resume a positive trend in international political progress, first and foremost through Education.

© 2026. All rights reserved.

Privacy policy