There are obvious downsides to democracy. When we look at the distribution of opinion on a particular issue, it generally follows a normal distribution. This implies that to achieve the majority, it's theoretically advised to stick to the centre. And this love for mediocrity makes democracy allergic to politically solid decisions.
However, democracies have been hugely popular. And people have reported being happier. Whether this is induced, indoctrinated or influenced is another question. But history has chosen its course. In this piece, I have made an attempt to understand why.
Along with it, democracies tend to be the rooster for sweet talkers. And that is an outcome rather than a voluntary trait. Primarily because most voters need to be equipped to deal with the complexities of the field. For example, it could be more practical for an electrical engineer to comprehend medical patterns and the pandemic's effect on production. Thus, democratic institutions need people managers who have two keywords to watch out for - sweet talking and status quo.
IKEA's effect summarises the psychological change when a DIY part is added to an automated job. The most pressing example is when the cake mix sales went overboard after adding egg was delegated to the buyer. Paradoxically, we are attached to things that require more effort. But that sense of possessing is something we can look for in a democratic process. Although the importance of an individual vote is minimal by statistics, the population's psychology counts. The final accountability rests upon the voters themselves.
This isn't the case with a communist or monarchical setup. Countries in such setups have a common complaint. The political structures were handed down to them, with no control or power over them. That's why reading Marx in the paper is a beautiful feeling. It stands out as a utopia, relinquishing material love and emphasising liberty. But at the end of the day, what makes achieving Marx is not its drive for ideals but its non-flexible cogs, which are bound to get rusted with power.
In that sense, capitalism is an ugly system. Where the drive for material is sempiternal, with an ever-widening gap between the privileged and impoverished, that makes equality a joke. But at the end of the day, the final goal of the system is to keep moving. Even with enough riches, one can hardly afford to stagnate. Change and completion drive the system, which doesn't address ideals other than capital production.
Ironically, it brings me to one of my favourite philosophies. It's only the journey to an ideal where we feel satisfied. If we were to be given that in a silver plate, would only our appreciation be less, or will its utility diminish too.