In mediaeval history, governance of society was under a feudal system in which the majority of people were controlled by a minority of aristocrats. I remember thinking the people must have been cowardly or sheepish to pay tithes or a tenth of the income from their labour to overlords who had not earned it. Of course, it was the fear of being harmed by the force of weaponry and the law that cajoled people to comply with being exploited. Most of the tithes thus collected were used to disproportionately enrich the ruling class or fund expeditions of conflict. Expenses arising from such wars leading to oppressive higher taxes eventually resulted in revolt and overthrow of the aristocracy in the case of France for example.

Modern governments when taking up the airwaves are often proselytising about the superiority of their “democracy” to justify attacks on foreign dictatorships. While it may be true that a dictatorship may be a more barbaric form of governance than a democracy, the fact is that almost all modern countries do not have real democracy for their citizens. Democracy means that the people have the power to decide on all matters of public policy by a vote of majority. In contrast, in most modern countries, the people are only able to vote to delegate or divest their decision-making rights to representatives. Most of the time, representatives once elected do not act according to the wishes of the people who voted for them, or even according to their pre-election campaign mandates, because there is no mechanism to prevent those who receive power from using it for their own ends until their term has expired. Some politicians might start out with ideals to change the government for the better, but typically as they get older with success and form families for themselves they become more inclined to be interested in politics for the high salary. Once elected, politicians usually act without consulting the public because this makes them feel powerful, influential, and important.

It might be thought that the electorate have the choice to vote for candidates with the opposite policies, but in reality the voters have no choice over who ends up on the ballot sheet and often the only candidates with a chance of securing enough votes to be elected are from one of two parties that can simply alternate power after abusing it in the same way from one term to another. Sometimes the two main candidates do not differ substantially in their policies or characteristics so that there is not significant variety for the voter. An example of Hobson’s choice for a voter with anti-elitist sentiments could be for example the election of either candidate in the American presidential elections where both main party nominees had been members of the same elitist secret society. The American system is designed such that only those who have enormous financial resources are able to fund the election campaign, which inevitably means that elites will always retain power no matter which of their nominees is elected. There is a propensity for the elected to be beholden to the funders rather than the voters.

Another consequence of the expensive campaigning is that voters are influenced to make a decision based on the candidates’ charisma rather than manifesto. During election campaigns, posters of unflattering candidates can spoil the remaining scenery in the already metal, concrete, and asphalt urbanised landscape. To outsiders, the American elections appear to be an utterly hellish system, and yet they are the most arrogant in insisting that other nations conform to their version of “democracy”. It is not surprising that they would take that stance since this form of government is so easily funded, infiltrated, and manipulated by foreign agents. Many people could say that former dictatorships such as Iraq or Libya were better places to live before their dictators were overthrown.

To make matters worse, when the electorate is compelled to choose a person to vote for, there is no way to prevent conflicting policies from manifesting within the same candidate or nominee. For example, if a voter wants to vote for environmental preservation as well as moral conservativism but the only candidate with stated policies of environmental protection is perversely liberal, then the voter would have no choice to vote exclusively for all preferred policies.

Remedial Proposal: My suggestion to solve the problems noted above is to abolish all politicians entirely and restore decision-making on policy to the voting public. In essence, citizens would be able to vote for policies rather than politicians or for principles instead of presidents. The details for achieving this true form of democracy could differ, but I could offer some illustration. In each local area of a certain population size large and small enough to fit into a hall to be used for the purpose of assembly, at regular intervals they would convene to propose bills and vote. Many such local areas could be formed from parishes having churches or town halls already that would be suitable for the congregation. It could be defined in national legislation that the last Friday of every month, for example, could be guaranteed to be a day exempt from any form of work or employment to enable this day to be reserved or set aside for voting and other political decisions. Nobody would be allowed to work on that day from the morning to the evening, even in retail, hospitality, or entertainment, with exceptions perhaps of emergency responders, but few other essential services. Anybody would then be able to attend the local hall on that day. Attendance would not be compulsory. People could use the day off to go for some exercise in the park if they prefer. On the other hand, all those who are interested in being involved could contribute by voting or by proposing matters to be voted upon. Anyone unable to attend the hall because of being abroad or too infirm shall be deemed ineligible to vote, as necessary to prevent falsification of votes.

On these political days, when voters enter the hall, they would be given their voting token, which they would put into ballot boxes to indicate their decisions. The slots to the ballot boxes would be behind a screen so that only the voter would be able to see what his vote is. This is important to prevent interference on the voter by the pressures or intimidation of others in society. When the voter is voting, the display of his proof of identity would be demanded and his name would be ticked on a checklist to ensure that no one else impersonates him and to prevent him voting more than once. When all voting on that issue is complete, the numbers of tokens in each ballot box would be counted quickly for example by weighing or stacking them into shaped containers, which could be effective when the tokens are all of the same proportions and material. There would also be a check done to confirm that the number of tokens in the ballot boxes matches the number distributed at entry. It is important that executive voting on enacting issues be done without electronic devices to avoid interference, tampering, or election fraud. Notwithstanding that, voting and contributions on more preliminary matters and drafts could be done electronically, provided the final versions are voted on by physical token.

All matters on governance of local issues would be decided by majority vote of those present from the area. When an issue is being proposed for being voted upon, it must be put in typed writing on a standard form without any other promotional information such as photographic or artistic renditions of any person. For people who are unable to read, there would be a facility for the text to be converted to an audio speech simulation from a diverse range of synthetic computer voices, but it would be forbidden to read or broadcast the text of any proposal publically by any other voice, in order to prevent people being persuaded to vote one way or another by any personality.

To propose an issue to be voted upon, it would be written in a short title presented to all voters. If a majority of them decide it is a topic worth considering, then any voter may submit proposals for or amendments to exact wording. This could be done at an electronic stage. There would be a rule that only one topic or policy can be contained in the wording of each proposal so that there would be no conflict within it. A proposal with exact wording agreed upon by majority voting proceeds to the formation of a bill. The agreed wording approved by majority electronically must subsequently be approved by a majority of votes in token form to progress to publication. This must be printed and published for inspection in the hall. At least one month after the publication of the agreed wording, a vote is to be taken on whether it should be enacted. Each voter must be handed a hard copy of the written bill at the moment of voting on it. This hard copy can be shared and passed around if resources are limited. There would also be hard copies of the text at the altar and as a poster in the voting booth. It would be enacted locally if there is a majority of votes for it from that hall.

However, there would be rules nullifying the effect of local bills if they conflict with national legislation or are not within the sphere of local matters unless enacted on the national level. There would be laws on the national level to allow uniformity of conduct when travelling from one locality to another within the country. For example, laws on behaviour would be mainly at the national level to prevent travelers being surprised or caught out by unknown laws when transiting. A bill voted for by majority in a local hall that requires national approval would be submitted to a higher tier such as a county or province of halls. At the higher tiers, there could be further opportunity for amendment to the exact wording of the proposed bill. If a majority of halls in that higher tier also vote in favour of that bill, then it could pass to the national level where it would be enacted if approved by a majority of the halls throughout the country. Some issues affecting fundamental laws such as of a constitution would require a referendum whereby the question is voted upon directly by the people as individuals because it affects them individually and not their locality per se. Bills on spending and taxation would not be decided by referenda, but through the tiers of halls.

All appointments to public jobs would be decided by the citizens in the local hall if the job is a position acting only locally. If a job is to be involved at a higher tier or nationally, then the appointment must be approval at the appropriate level. No public job position appointment or hiring would be allowed unless voted upon by a majority at the relevant tier. Like the proposition of bills, any jobs required must be proposed starting at the local hall level and at an electronic stage to begin with. Once it is agreed by majority that a certain type of job is required, further contributions would be considered on the exact job description and requirements and remuneration for advertisement to applicants. Voters must agree by majority on all conditions such as knowledge, skills, or experience and whether they are desirable, necessary, or sufficient alone or in combination for being hired and these conditions must be included in the advertisement. At least one month after the publication of the advertisement, the final version of which must be agreed upon by token voting, and when an adequate number of applications have been received, shortlisted candidates must present their bodies in the hall before the assembly to prove that they are genuine and not virtual candidates and are of sound body or intellect for the role as the case may be. This session may include performance tests, requests for proof of identification, and other verifications. Voters list their choices scored in order of preference and these are added up to hire the most successful applicant. Transfer voting could apply.

At the appointment stage, a final approval has to be obtained by the courts which decide whether a background check is required for that type of job. This is to be decided by whether there has been a precedent from any sentence for any offence prohibiting any convict of that activity or if it is specified in national legislation. The courts must decide whether the type of work of the job requires a background check before accessing the records of the applicants in particular. The appointment decision for a particular applicant is to be influenced by whether any criminal conviction of that applicant included in its sentence a prohibition, whether enduring or not, on certain stated kinds of work. Otherwise, the appointment is not allowed to be influenced by records of offences. This is to be done for data protection reasons and to prevent minor offenses such as traffic offenses from influencing the employment if they have no relevance to the type of work.

If “representatives” are required for trade missions or diplomacy, these are to be treated as civil servants appointed in the usual manner outlined above. They are to have no executive negotiating authority, but may only gather and convey information between the exterior personnel and the interior citizens, who decide on every agreement or treaty by majority voting. All tendering processes are to be decided either by citizen voting or by suitably qualified civil servants appointed for that purpose.

Proposals for cancellation of any public job or indeed firing of any particular civil servant may be presented at the voting halls by any citizen, which can and should be done anonymously, and are ratified by majority at the relevant tier for that role.

This form of democracy that I propose is more similar to the original Greek form of democracy or of “direct democracy” in practice to some extent in a small number of countries such as Switzerland than the forms of politics of most modern countries are. The pre-existing instances of direct democracy demonstrate that this is an effective mode of politics, and that lesser forms of “democracy” involving election of representatives as politicians steal rights of autonomy from their citizens and can be little better than short term monarchies.