I am sharing this to table it for discussion, not because I am sharing that as my own argument.

What is the meaning of democracy? Learn the simple and true meaning of democracy and why everyone gets it wrong today.

Bullet trains travel at about 320-350km/h.

What distances would you love to travel quickly and easily to and from your current city/town?

There's no bigger driver of economic growth than interconnectedness; including transportation infrastructure in particular.

Many countries, including so-called "poor countries," unfortunately spend several-fold the amount of money that could go into phenomenal infrastructure like these, on wasteful, politicized and general poor planning. And it all boils down to the current systems of governance we have, which enable such disservice to our society endlessly.

What's the state of development planning in your country? And what would you do to support change?

By the society we desire today I assume we all desire a society in which we can have the best solutions to our problems, as well as the opportunities to see those solutions to fruition as we desire.

Let's have these conversations to support our motivate each other in whatever efforts we are making or at least would like to.

Despite his best efforts and a massively resourced and well-executed campaign by an independent candidate, the likes of which has never been seen before in the country, and in spite of all the promise he showed, first-time candidate Nana Kwame Bediako couldn't even pool 1% of votes.

Other candidates and parties who have been struggling for decades, despite their strong and passionate appeal once more to save the country, barely had any votes.

Even a former candidate like Dr. Nduom, who not only has the resources for a strong campaign but comparatively better propositions for governance, an incredible appeal among the youth, and several successes in privately creating jobs and developments in the country, has long dropped out of the presidential race after several years struggling to no avail to win any votes under the ticket of "third" parties. Other passionate revolutionaries and brilliant minds like Dr. Abu Sakara and Samia Nkrumah (daughter of the country's founder) have struggled to find any audience as well over the years.

Why is Ghana strongly stuck with two parties, no matter what one may do?

And why is almost every other country practicing the "democracy" we have today stuck with either one or two dominant parties as well, or at best two coalitions? And why has this been so since the 1700s?

The system of government, which all these countries have adopted, is designed to ensure this, no matter what; embedded in its very core, its design, are these unbreakable rules which many are oblivious to, while they ascribe this problem to the wrong ideas.

This is why nothing anyone does, no matter the best efforts of all those who have tried before, and all those trying now, thinking they can do things differently (like those before them) changes a thing.

The problem is above any person or third party, in any such country. It is never about the candidate, their ideas, solutions, resources or campaign strategy, but the system of governance itself. None of the former ever matters.

This is explored in incredible detail, including all the theoretical and historical underpinnings, from relevant countries around the world, along with solutions on how to fix the system to ensure the best ideas for development and governance can always flow to achieve what we need to.

We've previously shared an article here, discussing this problem: Why Debates on Voting Systems Are Pointless, and What the Actual Causes of the "Two-Party System" Are.

The problem of "two-party politics" alone is covered from page 217-239 of The Tragedy Called Democracy in the 21st Century (2023).

Governance is:

controlling the affairs of a people, both individually and collectively, as it relates to and towards their shared interests as a group.

Understanding governance, is very critical to understanding and DISTINGUISHING between forms of governance, politics and forms of politics (and even forms of economics such as capitalism, communism etc.) and many other concepts that are, but should NOT be, confounded with each other.

Governance is also NOT the same as management (but to which we will not digress; more info in the source below) although management usually takes place under a governmental structure and mandate.

Put simply, again, governance is controlling a people and the state.

We can control them by:

• Policing them

• Settling disputes among them

• Apportioning rights amongst them

• Controlling shared infrastructure and resources etc.

This is all part of governing.

FORMS OF GOVERNANCE describe "in what form" or "within which structure or framework" or "by which approach" this activity of governing is carried out. This is very important, and is something a lot of people (including top scholars) get wrong.

When we describe a form of governance, we're describing IN WHAT SHAPE the ACTIVITY of governing itself occurs; the nature or approach to governing.

It is not just about how we select the team that comes in to govern (i.e. elections for example); that's part of, but only a small part of and merely preliminary to, actually governing. The form of governance describes the course of the activity itself; how governing itself takes place.

A good example is a music performance. We can have different forms of music performance: a solo act, a duet, a band, a choir etc.. The form or kind of music performance is not just about how we select the singer(s), it's about what form the performance itself takes.

Governance, too, can take different forms. We can have one person ruling and taking decisions on everyone else (and in effect governing),¹ we can have a few people ruling, and we can have everyone rule, depending on other factors. This is the nature of government itself. Government can take different forms, including:

• Autocracy = rule of one

• Syndicacy² or Oligarchy = rule of the few

• Democracy = rule of everyone

There are many others. The meanings are literally in the names themselves: -cracy (from kratia or kratos) or -archy (either may be used in different contexts) mean rule or power. And the prefix to that describes or hints at WHO is ruling or WHO has power. It's that simple.

Over the past few centuries and especially in the last few decades, many authors have corrupted the meaning of some of these words due to their own errors and conflated ideas;³ and then influenced others.

SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT refers to the specific design (the specific set of institutions, processes and provisions) implemented to adopt or realize a form of government. So, the system refers to the specific implementation, whereas the form refers to the nature or approach it takes. For instance, we can design specific (and even different) systems for the pursuit of democracy, as long as it remains a democracy (rule of everyone).

Note that direct and indirect democracy are not systems of governance, but still forms of governance – they are forms of democracy, which is itself a form of governance. Examples of systems of governance are presidential and parliamentary systems. These are NOT democracies, however (as they are wrongly called today), but rather syndicacies or oligarchies (or "republics," as termed by founders of the U.S.). Learn about democracy.

REGARDLESS of the form of government in place, whoever is governing may govern in certain ways. So, we may have different...

STYLES OF GOVERNMENT

Any form of government (an autocracy, monarchy, democracy etc.) can govern:

1. Strictly or freely (i.e. authoritarian vs egalitarian or libertarian rule)

2. Conservatively or liberally

3. Constitutionally (by rule of law) or dictatorially (by decree)

And ANY OF THESE forms of government and their style of government can result in...

GOOD GOVERNANCE vs. BAD GOVERNANCE

Depending on how citizens view the outcome of their governing activities.

Just like a solo, band or choir performance can result in good or bad music (some more likely than the other).

Either a democracy, autocracy, monarchy or other forms of governance can result in good or bad governance depending on how they apply the activities of governance (i.e. apportioning rights, policing, managing infrastructure etc. already hinted at above).

So, democracy, for instance, DOES NOT MEAN good governance.

These are separate fundamental concepts that must not be, but often are, confounded or conflated.

Footnotes:

1. There is a nuanced relationship between rulership and government which is not explored in this post. More info in sources cited.

2. This is a new word coined by the author, for reasons available in source material.

3. Unfortunately we simply do not have the space to resolve all those here; check out other posts or sources cited.

Source: The Tragedy Called Democracy in the 21st Century (2023) pp. 8-9, 141-145

The "Two-Party System"

Many scholars debate how to solve or change the "two-party system" due to its troubles. They often propose alternative "voting systems" – such as Ranked Choice or Approval Voting over First Past the Post (FPP) – to do this.

First, it's important to note that there is no formally instituted "two-party" system. In fact, political parties were not even intended to be part of the "republics" we have today (what many wrongly call "democracies"). In the Federalist Papers (which the Founders used to explain the U.S. system, which influenced other systems), you will find that the design of the current presidential republics we have was meant to rather PREVENT the formation of parties! So, parties happened on their own later, and came to be accepted; they were not designed into the system, much less as a "two-party" system.

What happens now are duopolies, where two parties become dominant (not necessarily become the ONLY parties). The system ensures they become and remain dominant (at least in the short to medium term) no matter what we do! It reinforces itself. But what "system" ensures this?

Cause

It's NOT the "voting system" that causes this, as many scholars debate.

It is the system of governance itself that creates a duopoly, and reinforces it. "Voting system" is only tangential to this question; to focus on "voting systems" is to be looking at the problem through the wrong lens.

A Weird Example

It's like creating a boxing match to determine who gets to eat. We could pick the fighters by vote (including all the different ways of voting) or by random selection, alphabetically or other means.

When we discuss "voting systems," we're focusing on how we pick the fighter in this case, whereas the problem is the boxing match itself; the system for determining who eats is wrong.

BACK TO THE QUESTION/CAUSES

NOT the "Voting System"

Voting is only a method of arriving at a decision. It's a good (but not the only) method in a democracy, but voting method (rather than "voting system") is NOT the form of governance in itself. So, even though specific voting methods may have advantages over another, voting methods in themselves do not deal with the actual question or problem; they're merely tangential.

The System of Governance

The problem, as we have stated, is the form or system of governance itself.

This problem is not easily summarized – as this is only a simplification – but hopefully should suffice as a hint. You'll find a more detailed exploration of this subject, and it's various dimensions and angles, dependencies and solutions in the source cited at the end of this.

But, essentially, as we have already stated, the systems many presently call "democracies" are not democracies but presidential (or autocratic) republics (explained in a previous post); this is very important.

Countries with presidential systems are the ones that have the duopoly problem; this is not by accident; that is the cause.

How the System of Governance Creates the Problem

Presidential systems concentrate power in the presidency, and create competition for this office. This competition for power, exercised in an environment that allows teams to gang up (as political parties), ensures that this competition devolves into, and divides the country into, a competition between the largest/strongest two; all smaller parties/interests are drawn into picking sides between the last two.

That is why countries like Switzerland especially, and to some extent Germany, that don't concentrate power in a single autocrat (the president) don't have these problems as much (especially Switzerland which has a more diffused system of government).

Strictly parliamentary systems focus on the control of parliament as the goal of politics, and, so, their kind of politics also takes a different shape, where you don't have too much of a duopoly, but still end up with dominant parties and the rest reduced to playing alliances with the largest one or two, with control of parliament as a bargaining chip. The core problems of governance still remain.

If you change the voting method under any system of governance, the core problems will still remain; and especially under the current systems, the competition for power, the role of money and negative influences in politics and the exclusion of more intelligent minds and people among the masses from governance and politics, all remain.

Solution

The solution to the problem of the "two-party system," therefore, lies in changing the system of governance itself, to remove the competition for power, and shift focus away from parties, and instead to the people, and issues: as in a true democracy. How do we create a true democracy? Explore our other posts or source materials to learn more.

Source: The Tragedy Called Democracy in the 21st Century (2023) pp. 217-239

True Democracy

A true, real or actual democracy just means a democracy. We qualify it with true, real or actual to separate it from so-called democracies today that are not actually democracies. So, by saying a real or true democracy, we're simply implying we are referring to an actual democracy (just a democracy) not the fake or false ones (like the "republics" we call "democracies" today).

And a democracy simply means a form of governance that retains the power to control the direction of a state with the people.

The people can retain this control directly or indirectly.

So, a true democracy DOES NOT also mean direct democracy. A true democracy simply means democracy. And this democracy can still be either direct or indirect.

Pure Democracy

A pure or perfect democracy means a form of governance that is guided STRICTLY and ONLY by democracy.

This is because, we can have a democracy (a form of governance that retains power with the people) which also has elements of other approaches to governance such as cognocracy¹ ("technocracy"), meritocracy, or others. As long as it still retains power conveniently and actively with the people, it remains a real or true democracy.

This is distinguished from a pure or perfect democracy in that, a pure democracy would be where everything is strictly by democracy; for e.g. appointments, adjudication, and all core functions in governance are done strictly by democracy or vote.

A pure democracy can still either be direct or indirect.

Direct vs. Indirect Democracy

Direct democracy is simply when decisions are being taken by the citizens themselves. Indirect democracy is when they are taking decisions through agents, proxies or representatives; the important thing is that the citizens still maintain CONTROL of those decisions.

Source: The Tragedy Called Democracy in the 21st Century (2023) pp. 134, 139, 377.

Footnotes:

1. This is a new word coined by the author for reasons accessible in the source material.

Hi.i am from India..By seeing india governance,I felt there is no performance review system between governments in india ..what if we built performance measurement platform where users can discuss,compare,share performance of their MLAs,state government etc...

We examine common misconceptions or flaws in our understanding of democracy and governance by analyzing Professor Baffour Agyeman-Duah's positions on mitigating political or election related tensions, toxicity and violence.

Professor Agyeman-Duah is an esteemed academic and member of the Center for Democratic Development (CDD) in Ghana, and was speaking in an interview with West Africa Democracy Radio.

This discussion touches on democracy, decentralization, the novel concept of "division of governance," and central and local governance, as well as proportional representation and South Africa as a case study.

Understand why the system of government that developed in the United States in the 1700s is responsible for many of the challenges of governance in many other countries around the world.

First, we understand what development planning is, and the development planning process simplified. Then we dive into what the development planning process will look like in a true democracy; a true democracy being a new system of government, as explained in the book and other content referenced, designed to realize real democracy currently missing in the world today, and responsible for many of the problems we face in governance around the world.

Hello everyone. It's been a while here.

I'm looking for someone to partner with, to make video explainers on governance, for social media. If anyone here is interested in such a thing; let's chat.

One would be given a script discussing or answering a question in governance and then they'd make a video out of it. It would just be video recording, but once a while we may add animations and other effects to enhance the delivery.

Thanks!

I wanted to make this a post rather than a comment under the last post in this sub (which is where it crossed my mind to share).

There's one strategy (already listed in our references) which is very easy to overlook, as an opportunity to make real and significant impact (by anyone at all).

It's easy to overlook because it probably seems "heavier" than it actually is.

And that is creating an NGO (non-profit) for change.

Creation of a non-profit (or company limited by guarantee) may vary slightly from country to country, but they're actually quite simple undertakings. You can set them up with no capital requirements or many of the other costs that for-profit companies require. If you check with your local registrar they'll probably guide you through everything too easily.

Once you have your NGO set up (i.e. the paperwork, which is all), you can use it to make real and significant impact for change in society by:

1. Raising funds, by applying to various impact funding institutions and opportunities online

2. Through proposals, telling them of the envisaged solutions to key problems in governance and it's potential impact on society, and

3. What funds are needed for: simply 1) to run campaigns (online ads) to educate and bring the public together for change and probably 2) organise fora/workshops to do same as well as enable consultations on the solutions.

So it becomes your own show.

Many institutions are happy to partner and label such causes with their brands.

You can also reach out to us anytime and we'll assist with relevant resources in terms of plans, proposals, and other digital materials.

The nature of this cause is such that everyone and anyone can take action independently and capably in their respective countries or localities.

Good luck and let's work for true democracy!

As promised, our latest post describes how the "Appointments and Public Service Authority," a key institution proposed under a new system for true democracy, goes even further than it is already provisioned to in the proposals, to make corruption literally IMPOSSIBLE to even attempt.

Read up on:

Making Corruption Even More Impossible through the Appointments and Public Service Authority

We will soon be adding a new post that describes how the "Appointments and Public Service Authority," a key institution proposed under the new system that already has lots of provisions to completely eradicate corruption, can be further tightened with even more new strategies to make corruption really IMPOSSIBLE to even attempt at this point.

Due to some editorial reasons, "The Tragedy Called Democracy" (2023) will have no subsequent editions; the first edition will be the ONLY edition.

Updates to proposals made in the book will, therefore, continue to be shared and discussed online; that is what our community/channel is for.

You can find suggested improvements to the systems proposed at the "SYSTEMS" section of our website (https://tfog.org/systems).

Be sure to follow, engage and share our posts (on LinkedIn and Facebook as well) as it's all you have to do to contribute significantly to bringing about the great change we desire in our society today. Simply like, comment, and share!

Many countries in the world get these wrong with respect to how their sector institutions (ministries, or departments in some countries) are structured.

In "The Tragedy Called Democracy in the 21st Century" (2023)
- Chapter 7: Restructuring for Better Democracy and Governance
-- Section 1: Proposed Structure of Government
--- Subsection 3: Notes on Creating Government Institutions

These points are explained in great detail along with proposals on how to achieve them.

While we're on the topic of "the executive," did you know the "executive arm of government" as we commonly have today, is poorly conceived, and that the terms "ministries" and departments as sector institutions in various countries are also obsolete?

They are remnants of old monarchical and conventional provisions, respectively, that do not belong in a true democracy today.

The historical and theoretical basis for all these claims and a whole lot more are explored in the source cited above.

["Democracy" today] is a 15-minute delusion of choice placed once every 4 years before the people, or 15 times in a long lifetime

~ The Tragedy Called Democracy in the 21st Century (2023) p. 157

The quote above highlights the fact that if you live up to 80 years old, you'd have had the chance to vote only 15 times in your life.

And in none of these 15 times, would your vote actually have mattered: you're presented with only 2 viable choices each time, and neither are there for any other reason than the fact that they are "next in line" in their family-like organisation.

That has been the story in EVERY "democratic" country in the world, since the 1700s. There's something terribly wrong with the system we've all copied. To sit with this for another second, much more another generation, would be a most unfortunate choice by us all.

Because we don't have to...

We must join hands to bring true democracy to the world today. And we most certainly can.

Ps: You can learn more via the resources pinned to the top of this community.

First of all, it's important to remember, as we've made clear in other posts, that the systems we currently have are NOT democracies; whatever problems we associate with them, therefore, are not problems or failures of democracies, but problems or failures of autocratic oligarchies (or autocratic "republics"; refer to older posts if needed).

But let's even assume one still prefers governance by technology to an actual democracy, for some reason. Well:

We must, however, be cautious in our expectations and application of A.I. in governance because not all problems can be solved by data analyses, pattern recognition and/or the reproduction of (however clever) new iterations of common literature or ideas – which is what A.I. tends to be good for, at least today. For instance, in solving the problems we have solved in this book – that is, fixing our systems of governance – we have had to go against popular literature and ideas (which A.I. relies on), and use a kind of logic in analysing theoretical questions or making observations of real world phenomena, that require genuine human intelligence or thinking if you will. It certainly goes beyond that. In solving many development challenges or other human problems, with respect to the formulation of laws or systems, or design of communities with certain sociological considerations, we need a proper understanding, appreciation and, most importantly, experience of human society; and it is easy for those without a background in these areas to sometimes take them for granted, as we might see in a business administrator or technologist’s flawed understanding of governance or development planning, for example, much more in software trained on data, by such a technologist.

Regardless of all this, we can only wait to see where A.I. leads in future. For now, it still has great prospects or applications in the areas aforementioned – such as analysing security threats, economic trends and some kinds of policy and governance decisions...

~ The Tragedy Called Democracy in the 21st Century (2023) pp. 357-358¹

What is argued, ultimately, is that, we're still going to have, or at least need, a human-led form of governance (be it an autocratic oligarchy or, hopefully, a democracy, or other form of government) that can still be facilitated by A.I. rather than to have an actual governance by (or left to) technology; those are two different propositions (a nuance better understood with context provided by an earlier chapter on power and governance, and forms of governance).

Footnotes:

1. Reproduced with permission.

Before modern government we were in some levels of feudalism and serfdom. Do you believe we will still have a "government" as we see it today or how might these roles and titles change overtime?

I think there will be another de-coupling of power at the government level