Why democracy is a cruel joke on a modern society

Disclaimer : Now before I begin, let me clarify that I belong to none of the groups you'd probably start associating me with post reading the title. I just am a free-thinker and mostly sharing here my observations on the world around us. Hence, please don't lump me into any of your activism/agenda.

It was well established during the ancient greek civilization as well as during the period of Roman empire, that democracy really isn't an ideal solution for governance. At a glance, this might look like a great solution to a set of people who are tired of single human based governance systems. But then if you think carefully about it, this looks like using a sticky tape to cover a hole in the wall. Works fine as a temporary measure but not really a solution. Forget about it being a solution for long term.

Now let's dive deeper into issues that lie beneath this golden wrapper of democracy hiding a cruel truth. I'll divide it in steps so it's easier to understand where and how people who this concept should've avoided are in fact benefiting of it the most. Let me repeat it's 'the concept' and not 'the system'. System itself has a ton of flaws in the implementation.

Most of us are well versed at this date and time on how politicians gather a crowd to benefit their goals. It can be either based on an ideology or financial benefits or a propaganda or a crazy idea or any of the combinations. Now, let's see the chances of people becoming a candidate with chances to even win a single seat to survive the election.

First let's start with very obvious candidate, the bully. You can't ignore this cliche character since ancient times which believes that power rules the world. A bully is usually the winner in most case scenarios by default as power can not only be physical but monetary as well as in a modern society, legal power as well.  Chances of such candidates coming out as elected is mostly 70%. No matter how much we hate this kind of character, but we do end up voting such people either knowingly or unknowingly.

Second comes the sly fox. Ideally, I love all the fauna but I can't be the one who really goes above linguistic terms all over the world and cancel out saying this is bad or wrong. Anyway, foxes are smart and cunning in their own ways. Hence, not really insulting the creature. This type of candidate has usually struggled a lot through the hierarchy and just wants to be at the top for once but doesn't hold the capability to rule from the top. Hence, they might be the most ideal looking candidate for the ones that want to ignore the bully but end up falling in the fox trap. As seen before, fox mostly ends up setting some sort of deal with the bully for help and in a way bully still wins. So I'd say the chances of a sly fox winning is 50% or maybe 60% depending upon the situation.

Next comes the cry baby or should I call a neo-activist. This person has mostly seen activism his whole life and never bothered on how to actually solve a problem for real. Most of the solutions this kind of person comes up with are either half baked or a patch work solution that might work for a temporary period and then hell breaks loose when it stops working and the person handling the situation at that point of time will never be able to hold it together no matter what type of a person he or she is. This kind of person relies on getting chosen by sympathy votes. Manipulation by emotion, crowding on basis of activism and once achieved the power, ending up asleep with barely covering the mere basic duties or panicking on slightest issue. This type mostly ends up either quitting early or substituting the works to the bullies or sly foxes.

Last and not the least, our ideal candidate. The one who is patriotic enough to care for the people. One who lives the life to serve the humanity. One who ideally takes care of every issue with best possible care and makes sure everyone is happy. This type of candidate really never even comes into the picture. When they do arrive, they're either trampled by the previous three or either are just lost somewhere due to lack of support. Why you'd ask? Because at the heart people are selfish and ungrateful. 'Once myself is safe and secure, I don't care what happens with the world.' Is their line of thinking and I don't really blame them for that. This is why the chances of this type of candidate coming into power are not even 5%. If by some miracle they do reach the position, either people have lost their patience to trust and the other three would surely use their whole power to throw that one off the seat so that they can reach the top again.

When I mentioned each type of character, you must have imagined someone inside your head. Gently smiling at the cruel reality you must be wondering what should be the solution out of this situation right? If not, then it's not bad either. If you think carefully, anyone can become a candidate and stand up to be elected. Do you really think when simplest of the jobs in the world require a relevant education and a rigorous training, a profession which can decide the fate of humanity has no such entry bars? Why this system is so conveniently designed to let the people whom this system should be avoiding, is taking only those ones in?

If democracy wants to survive and not fall into ashes giving rise to an obvious fish brained logical decision of one person ruling system ( monarch, military leadership, etc please add your own examples). How should a good democratic system be?

Here are a few points that I'd say might help in improvising the system. I know it's not the best solution but it can certainly improve the chances of deserved ones reaching their milestones.

1. There should be an educational institute. There are law institutes for the ones practising the law. Similarly, there should be an institute for lawmakers too. Their curriculum should strictly graded based on the practical work and during the period of voting, this work should be used to judge the efficacy of a candidate.

2. There should be a rule that if a person, let's say wants to become a finance minister, should have a financial knowledge. Also, person shouldn't belong or have ties to any of the bigger institutions.(MNCs, Other govt organizations, NGOs, etc).

3. At first, the candidates will be chosen on the basis of their grades. Post the filtration based on grading, there should be an election between top 10 candidates.

4. Most importantly, these candidates shouldn't have a fixed term period. If their performance drops, a council can bring them down from their posts. This council should include members that are never going to be someone who'd hope this post. But these members should be passing from the same school of political education.

5. Most importantly election campaigns are not supposed to be run by the individual candidates but the commission conducting the election itself.

This article was mainly aimed at the country based or a state based governance politics but this can be also thought on and applied to basically ever leadership position in any organization or even inside a familial structure.