I can understand when ordinary people misuse it, but it baffles me when politicians, famous journalists, or even professors of political science throw around the term “Western democracy” or “liberal democracy” without truly grasping its meaning. The term “democracy” is used interchangeably to describe capitalism, neoliberalism, free market society, alignment with American imperial interests, civil liberties, rule of law, LGBT rights, abortion rights, affirmative action, street safety, universal health care, or even efficient logistics like trains arriving on time.
All of these elements can coexist within a democracy, but they are not inherently tied to it. It’s like saying a soup is parsley, onion, meat, or fish. Sure, you could use these ingredients to make a soup, but they can also be used to create a variety of other dishes. Similarly, you can have a monarchy or a communist government that incorporates capitalism, universal health care, or rule of law. And yes, you can have a democracy without any of these features.
Most recently, news outlets have framed the conflict in Ukraine as a battle between democracy and autocracy, but with Zelensky’s authoritarian and oligarchic regime, labeling it a democracy could not be further from the truth. This narrative has become the media’s cornerstone to justify funneling Western taxpayers’ money into military aid for Ukraine, ostensibly to defend Western democratic principles against Russia’s system of corruption and dictatorship. Yet, Ukraine is just as corrupt as Russia, if not worse. The irony is rich—literally. The democratically elected government in Ukraine wasn’t toppled by Russia, but by the United States, with funneling over $5 billion into a propaganda buildup that resulted in the 2014 Maidan coup (which was also orchestrated by elements in US government). In that sense, one could argue that Russia is positioning itself as defending itself strategically, as well as its population in Ukraine, from an anti-democratic West, which, through its funding and influence, has exploited and boosted neo-Nazi elements to create an effective front against Russia. Western media doesn’t talk about this truth. It is only spreading one side of the story – the globalist Western narrative, which has interest through its corporations to take control over Ukraine’s mineral and agricultural resources – which is the real reason why NATO provoked Russia into a war and another proof that our democracy and liberty is failing. This manipulation of extremist factions in Ukraine under the guise of democracy highlights the complex and often troubling alliances formed in the pursuit of geopolitical goals.
So What Does Democracy Actually Mean?
Democracy is a compound word derived from Ancient Greek, where demos means “the people” and kratos means “to rule.” In short, it refers to the rule of the people—a political system where citizens vote directly on laws rather than through elected representatives. This implies direct involvement of the people in the decision-making process, or in other words, involving people directly in politics.
In today’s Western society, we don’t have any examples of democracy in its original sense. What we have is a system where elected representatives govern on behalf of the people—a system historically known by another term: a republic.
The Legacy of Rome and Athens: Democracy, Republic, and Oligarchy
Around 509 BC, two distinct systems emerged in Athens and Rome. In Athens, Cleisthenes introduced democracy by overthrowing oligarchs, creating a fairer system with broader power sharing. Meanwhile, Rome expelled its last king, Tarquinius Superbus, and established a republic, which effectively institutionalized oligarchy. Despite having bodies like the Comitia Centuriata and Tributa, and later the Concilium Plebis—all attempts to broaden the power base—the Roman Republic clearly favored the wealthy, creating an oligarchic system. Athenian democracy, while not perfect, allowed a wider spectrum of the population access to power and was undoubtedly more just. While Athenian democracy eventually fell to the superior military force of Philip II of Macedonia, the Roman Republic collapsed internally, leading to bloodbath, civil wars and eventually Julius Caesar’s dictatorship and the establishment of an empire.
The modern republics of the Western world bear striking similarities to the Roman Republic, with power concentrated in the hands of a wealthy and influential elite—whether they are remnants of old aristocracy, industrialists, or newly minted political leaders who perpetuate existing power structures. Although these republics claim to uphold democratic ideals, they often function more like oligarchies, where a small group of elites dictate policy from top to bottom and maintain dominance over the broader populace. This concentration of power has historically led to internal strife and the erosion of the very principles these systems were meant to protect.
James Madison, one of the key architects of the United States Constitution, acknowledged the reality of elite rule. In Federalist No. 10, he recognized that the structure of the new government would allow for the creation of an elite class to guide the nation. While we cannot be completely certain of his membership in Freemasonry—a society often associated with dubious ideals of higher moral and ethical standards—Madison was likely influenced by these ideals, as many other Founding Fathers and presidents were members. He may have believed that it was beneficial for this governance model to be tempered by such standards. However, in practice, the concentration of power has often led to increasing corruption and the erosion of freedom and good governance, as elites have worked to protect and expand their own interests at the expense of the broader population.
Flawed From the Beginning?
Prominent figures like Noam Chomsky. Dan Smoot, Arthur R. Thompson, JT Chapman Aaron Good, and C. Wright Mills have all pointed out that the United States is not a democracy but a republic, and it was designed that way from the very beginning. The U.S. Constitution was crafted to support the creation of an elite class that would dominate the political landscape. As highlighted in Adam Curtis’s documentary Century of the Self, and supported by Aaron Good in his book American Exception: Empire and the Deep State, James Madison and other Founding Fathers deliberately created an unequal system because they distrusted the people. They believed that the masses were irrational and emotional, and therefore should not be involved in politics.
C. Wright Mills, in his seminal work The Power Elite, further illustrates how this elite class has maintained and expanded its influence, controlling key institutions and shaping policy to serve its interests rather than those of the general population. The Founding Fathers never used the term “democracy” for the system they were creating. To them, democracy was synonymous with mob rule. Despite knowing how the Roman Republic ultimately collapsed, they opted for a republic instead of a democracy. But there was also a practical reason for this: Athens was a small city-state, where it was feasible to gather all citizens for voting in the agora. The United States, being much larger, couldn’t expect its citizens to travel daily to Washington (or Baltimore, its first capital) to vote. The only viable option was to establish a system of representation.
However, times have changed. With modern digital technology, we can now envision and implement a more direct form of democracy. In my book Flawed Democracy, I propose a system that could work far better today than the republic we currently have.
Distinguishing Key Terms
To avoid confusion between democracy and various terms commonly used in politics and media—often blurred under the guise of so-called Western democracy—and to clearly distinguish the differences between them, I’ve created a short cheat sheet for the most common ones:
- Democratic Rights: These are rights that involve citizens directly in the political decision-making process, where people vote on laws themselves rather than through elected representatives. The key difference between a democracy and a republic is that in a democracy, the people vote directly on laws and policies—potentially having referendums over digital platforms every day—while in a republic, elected representatives make those decisions on behalf of the people. Democracy means direct participation in governance, not merely selecting who will represent you and then letting them rule on your behalf.
- Civil Liberty Rights: These are fundamental personal freedoms that protect individuals from government overreach, such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, as well as the right to a fair trial and the sanctity of the home. Although the political system in the West is still considered to grant these rights, they have been seriously infringed upon in recent decades. The Patriot Act and Espionage Act have expanded government surveillance and reduced privacy protections, undermining the sanctity of the home and individual freedoms. Additionally, the high cost of legal proceedings often prevents individuals from standing a fair trial against powerful corporations, effectively curbing the right to justice. Freedom of speech has also been curtailed by the rise of political correctness and hate speech regulations, which, while intended to protect vulnerable groups, have at times been used to suppress dissenting views and stifle open debate.
- Free Market Economy: An economic system where prices for goods and services are determined by open competition in a market free from excessive government intervention. A free market is not inherently tied to democracy, civil liberties, nor republic. For instance, Singapore, an authoritarian state with limited political freedoms, operates a highly efficient free market economy, as did Pinochet’s Chile under a military dictatorship. Similarly, post-Soviet Russia in the 1990s embraced free-market reforms under oligarchic control, without transitioning to a true democracy.
- Rule of Law: The principle that all individuals and institutions are accountable to laws that are fairly applied and enforced. The rule of law does not require citizens to directly create or vote on these laws. For example, in 19th-century France, the Napoleonic Code established a comprehensive legal framework that upheld the rule of law, even though it was implemented by an authoritarian regime. In the 21st century, countries like Singapore maintain strict adherence to the rule of law within a highly controlled political environment.
- Geopolitical and Corporate Interests: These are the strategic and economic goals that shape a country’s policies, often driven by powerful elites rather than the populace. These interests are typically decided without direct public involvement, which differs from true democracy. For instance, the U.S. often uses the term “spreading democracy” as a guise for maintaining its corporate and strategic influence, such as during the 1953 coup in Iran or the 2014 coup in Ukraine, where the CIA played a pivotal role in toppling democratically elected governments to advance corporate agendas and strategic interests.
- Logistics – or How the Trains Arrive on Time: This refers to the efficiency and reliability of a country’s infrastructure and services, like transportation and supply chains. Many people mistakenly associate democracy with a perfectly organized system where everything functions smoothly, inspired by examples like the USA or post-war Western Germany—both republics, not democracies. The efficient systems in these countries stemmed from market competition and the organizational skills of Protestant North European nations, which falsely labeled their republican structures as democracies. The efficiency of their train networks and other logistical advantages is often confused with democracy, even though these systems were managed by experts, not through direct democratic decision-making. For example, Nazi Germany and modern China maintain efficient logistics without public involvement in governance.
- Feminist and Minority Agendas: These agendas focus on achieving equality and justice for women and minority groups, advocating for rights and representation, often through initiatives like affirmative action and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. While these topics are prominent in the modern discourse of so-called democratic countries in Western Europe and North America, they don’t have much to do with the concept of democracy itself. It’s not even clear that the majority of the population supports these initiatives. Instead, they are often the subjects of vocal activism, which can gain traction in the political party system of a republic, rather than in a true democracy—especially if the majority might oppose them.
- Universal health care: It refers to a system where all citizens have access to health services without financial hardship. While often associated with democratic nations, universal health care is not inherently tied to democracy. Countries like the United Kingdom and Canada, both of which have universal health care, are often held up as examples of democracies providing essential services to all citizens. However, non-democratic countries like Cuba also offer universal health care, demonstrating that such a system can exist under various forms of governance. The provision of universal health care is more about the priorities and policies of a government, rather than a direct reflection of whether a country is democratic. In a true democracy, citizens would directly vote on whether to implement such a system, rather than having it decided by elected representatives in a republic.
The Illusion of Democracy: Why Mislabeling a Republic Matters
Politicians and the mass media often use the term “democracy” to give people the illusion of control when, in reality, they are not. Despite their claims of independence, these entities act as instruments of the elite, who are fully aware that we live in a republic, not a democracy. The emphasis on civil liberties and the rule of law, while beneficial, serves to obscure the true nature of elite governance, creating a false sense of participation among the public.
In the Western world, we live in republics that are, in essence, institutionalized liberal oligarchies run by elites. These elites either stem from old aristocracy and industrialists or are newly made politicians who perpetuate the existing power structures. This concentration of power in the hands of a few has contributed to both World Wars and numerous regional conflicts. If true democracy existed, where the general population had a genuine say in decision-making, many wars might have been avoided. However, since elites do not fight in wars—rather, they profit from them—conflict persists, driven by their interests.
Liberal oligarchies have become adept at controlling the masses, bending public opinion and policy to serve elite needs. Often, two or more superficial agendas are thrown into public discourse, which do not address the real issues at hand. These agendas are often designed to deceive and divide the population, while behind closed doors, a much more important and self-serving agenda is pushed forward by the elites.
But There Are Still Democratic Elections, Right?
At first glance, the existence of elections might suggest that a democratic system is in place. However, in the United States, the reality is more complex and often troubling. The integrity of both presidential and congressional elections has been increasingly called into question, particularly due to allegations of voter fraud and manipulation. The phrase “Election Day is Resurrection Day” highlights concerns that non-existent votes—often attributed to deceased individuals or those who did not actually participate in the election—are being added to the tally.
These allegations, though frequently contested, have fueled skepticism about the fairness of the electoral process. Issues such as gerrymandering, where electoral district boundaries are manipulated to favor a particular party, further distort representation and undermine the democratic process. The 2000 presidential election, where the Electoral College awarded the presidency to a candidate who lost the popular vote, also raised questions about the system’s fairness.
Additionally, the malfunctioning of voting machines, particularly in areas with high populations of minority voters, has contributed to doubts about election integrity. Practices such as vote harvesting, where third parties collect and submit absentee or mail-in ballots, and discrepancies in voter rolls, which sometimes include outdated information about deceased individuals or those who have moved, further exacerbate these concerns.
While these issues may stem from a mix of administrative errors, legal practices, and systemic flaws, the perception of widespread fraud persists, eroding trust in the system. Thus, while elections are a key feature of democratic governance, the concerns surrounding these practices challenge the notion of whether elections even embody democratic ideals.
Further Reading
This critique of modern governance is not without substantial support. Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels, in their book Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government (2017), argue that modern republics frequently fail to reflect the true will of the people, with political elites and interest groups exerting significant control over policy outcomes. Similarly, Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, in their study “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens” (2014), conclude that economic elites and organized interest groups have a substantial impact on U.S. government policy, while the average citizen has little to no independent influence.
The idea that wars are driven by elite interests rather than the needs or desires of the general population is supported by Paul Poast, in The Economics of War (2006), which provides an analysis of how economic incentives and the interests of elites can influence the decision to go to war. Additionally, R. Harrison Wagner in War and the State: The Theory of International Politics (1994), examines how war has historically been a tool for state-building and how elites have used war to consolidate power.
Manipulation of public opinion is a critical tool in maintaining elite control. Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), argue that the mass media serves as a tool for elites to shape public opinion and maintain control by setting the agenda and framing issues to benefit their interests.
The influence of financial interests on political outcomes is thoroughly analyzed by Thomas Ferguson in Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems (1995), where he explores how financial power shapes party competition and policy decisions. Similarly, Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal, in Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches (2006), analyze how political polarization, driven by economic inequality, can be a deliberate strategy by elites to maintain control by keeping the population divided.
Finally, Richard Hofstadter’s The Paranoid Style in American Politics (1964) discusses how elites might use divisive issues to distract the public from more significant problems, thereby obscuring their activities and maintaining their grip on power.
For a comprehensive examination of these themes, along with practical ideas for moving toward a more genuine democracy, my book Flawed Democracy offers an in-depth analysis of the shortcomings of current political systems and explores the potential for direct democratic governance in the digital age.
Conclusion
In the West, we often conflate civil liberties with democratic rights, mistakenly equating our relative freedom with democracy. However, true democracy means direct participation in governance—voting on laws and policies directly, not through elected representatives. Our system, despite offering more opportunities for political change than authoritarian regimes, remains a republic, which is de facto a liberal oligarchy, not a democracy. The term “democracy” is often used to create a false sense of participation and control, masking the reality of our political systems.
In geopolitics, the rhetoric of “spreading democracy” is frequently used to justify actions that primarily serve the interests of powerful elites. This is evident in cases like Ukraine, where geopolitical maneuvers under the guise of democracy led to conflict aimed at weakening perceived opponent countries, such as Russia, and the potential exploitation of Ukrainian natural resources by international corporations. Such actions reveal the stark difference between the ideals of democracy and the reality of elite-driven agendas.
In recent decades, the institutionalization of liberal oligarchy in our republics, often through woke and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) leftist agendas, has allowed the concentration of power among elites to go largely unnoticed. This has contributed to significant global conflicts, wars, and the manipulation of public opinion. True democracy, where the general population has a genuine say, could potentially prevent such outcomes. However, as long as elites profit from the status quo, the cycle of conflict and manipulation will persist.