Democracy
- Introduction:
-
- Media Manipulate Votes
-
- Television or Mass Manipulation
-
- Those with money can afford posters and advertising
-
- Never define what “exactly” is meant
-
- Nobody reads what a party truly wants
- Conclusion:
- Other Arguments
Democracy was never real
Introduction:
I want to discuss whether democracy is really as ideal as it is often portrayed. I will examine democracy from a critical and problematic perspective and present various arguments.
1. Media Manipulate Votes
Instead of serving as a neutral information platform, news outlets filter and frame topics according to their own political and economic agendas. Through targeted language, repetitive coverage of certain issues, and the omission of other viewpoints, they significantly influence what voters consider important and how they perceive candidates or parties. This undermines the foundation for an informed and autonomous decision-making process, which is essential for a “true” democracy.
2. Television or Mass Manipulation
Public opinion, the basis for democratic decisions, is heavily controlled by capital and media. This includes various TV channels, news outlets, and newspapers. Wealthy individuals and large corporations can dominate political campaigns through media ownership and advertising, steering the debate in their favor. They decide what we talk about, and more importantly, what we do not talk about. Targeted disinformation and massive misinformation or omission of information can be used to artificially create a desired artificial opinion. This creates an opinion that suits them. It is no longer information. It is fabrication. It is the artificial construction of public opinion. Of course, there are occasional exceptions or individuals who go against the tide, but they are given little attention.
3. Those with money can afford posters and advertising
Only parties that sell themselves and show up everywhere with advertising are elected and gain attention, while others with less money cannot afford such luxuries. Elections and public appearances are no longer won solely by ideas but primarily through financial resources. Those with large funds can push their messages into the public space via expensive ad campaigns, posts, attention, and professional marketing. As a result, well-funded positions are perceived disproportionately, while alternative or critical voices without sufficient financial support hardly get heard. It’s not “One person, one vote,” but “One euro, one more voter.”
4. Never define what “exactly” is meant
In the context of manipulation, a key strategy for maintaining power is to deliberately leave meanings vague and elusive. When political slogans, promises, or even threats are never precisely defined, they can mean anything and nothing. The voter can fill in the gaps mentally themselves or steer their perception so they believe their values are being supported. Vague promises like “security,” “democracy,” or “freedom” can be filled with hopes from very different voter groups. Everyone hears what they want to hear. Since it is never specified how something should be achieved or what it exactly means, it cannot later be held accountable for not fulfilling it. The promise was technically never broken because it was never clearly articulated. Critics are declared a problem, not the lack of clarity. Thus, language is used not as a tool for clarification but as a tool for obfuscation (confusion). The refusal to define something “exactly” is not an accident but a method.
5. Nobody reads what a party truly wants
Every party has a party program and ideally a campaign program. But these are long and complicated. Sometimes the rhetoric is hard to understand. But who has the time to study them thoroughly? Not everyone has time to read them. Between work, family, and other commitments, most barely find the time. And not everyone can or wants to engage so intensively with politics. Nor are they necessarily interested. People decide based on headlines, debates, short information snippets, feelings, and what they catch in their environment. Complexity is replaced by simple messages. Politics becomes a brand. We vote for a feeling, a face, a slogan, an illusion, but not the reality. The real plans and positions are hidden in thick documents that hardly anyone reads. And we not even discuss about broken promises or lies, or opinions and demands that constantly change. In the end, it’s not the best idea that wins, but the loudest. And those with the biggest media outlets or the most expensive advertising campaigns usually find the most ears.
Conclusion:
The arguments show that democracy is an ideal for most people, but reality does not meet that ideal. Moreover, the definition of democracy is broad and can even be claimed by non-democratic countries. Therefore, a new, qualified term for democracy is needed. One that includes aspects like media manipulation, lobbying, and lies in political practice. The goal of such a term would be to show that the claim of popular sovereignty is far from being fulfilled. Instead, the current system seems to be shaped by elites, manipulative opinion-making, and neglect of the broad population. This new term should be linked to a concrete checklist that clearly defines what a “true” democracy entails (contains) and considers manipulative strategies and their deficits. Possible examples of such neologisms could be:
- Fair Democracy
- Balanced Democracy
- Folkratie
- Peoples’ Republic
- Transparent Democracy
- etc.
Other Arguments
- Media manipulate the votes
- Television or mass manipulation
- Those with money can afford posters and advertising
- Never define what “exactly” is meant
- No one reads what each party truly wants
- Genuine opinion vs. what the mainstream wants to hear
- Slogan as statements instead of facts
- Emotional manipulation instead of arguments
- Us versus them
- False facts/misinformation
- Logical fallacies
- Lobbying
- Lies
- Corruption
- The definition of democracy has always been imprecise1
Sources: