My Proposal for How to Achieve a Democracy

4 April 2025, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

As I have previously documented, the United States is controlled by its billionaires and not by its public; we have an aristocracy not a democracy. (As I had mentioned there, “The breakthrough first study, in 2014, was brilliantly summarized and explained in a 6-minute video here.” It shows by means of graphs what the first study found. And all subsequent such empirical studies have come to the very same conclusion. The evidence is therefore, by now, clear and overwhelming, that America is an aristocracy — of wealth — NOT a democracy that authentically represents the public.)

Furthermore, a major international polling that compared in each of the individual countries the percentage of respondents who answered “Yes” to the question “Does your Government represent you, or not?” showed that in the U.S.-and-allied countries, the percentages who answered “Yes” were far lower than for the average country, and that all 11 of the lowest-scoring (or most dictatorial) countries on that list were in the U.S.-and-allied group. Who will know whether a given country is a dictatorship if the people who live there don’t know it? Will people who have never lived there know more about that? (Of course not.) And their answers to the question “‘In general, do you trust your National media?: Usually, To some extent, Not at all.” for the “Not at all” option, were higher than average for the U.S. and almost all of its allied countries. (However, residents in Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Philippines had the lowest score on that and the highest trust in their news-media. Are we, who don’t live there, better-able to answer that question for them than they are? I don’t think so.)

And all indications are that the head-of-state in the U.S. and in each of its colonies (or ‘allies’) have public-approval ratings that are far below the global average; and, not only this, but two of the countries that the U.S. Government says are dictatorships and must therefore be ‘regime’-changed — Russia and China — actually have the two highest public-approval ratings for their head-of-state, which means that the U.S. Government wants to install a dictator there (because the given target-nation’s public are extremely supportive of their head-of-state, it would have to BE a dictator). And not only that, but on 22 August 2022, I headlined “NATO-Affiliated Poll in 53 Countries Finds Chinese the Most Think Their Country Is a Democracy”. That NATO poll found 83% of the residents in China said “Yes” to “My country is democratic.” It scored #1 of the 53 nations on this. U.S. was worse than average, and was tied at #s 40&41, out of the 53 nations, with Colombia, at 49%. Right above them was Saudi Arabia, at 50%. That’s what the NATO-affiliated poll found. (For some reason, they didn’t publicize it.)

What the political ‘scientists’ understand about democracy is nothing. Though the empirical ones perform an authentic contribution by their empirical findings (such as have been mentioned here), the theoretical political ‘scientists’ (the people who are supposedly trying to UNDERSTAND what the empirical findings in their field actually mean) are still operating on the basis of the opinions of philosophers, and this is to say they’re operating on the basis of opinions INSTEAD OF on the basis of the relevant EMPIRICAL DATA (such as these that have been linked-to here).

So, the field of political science is at around the stage of development that physics was at the time of Galileo, and that biology was prior to Darwin and Mendel. I do not consider this acceptable. But the practitioners do. Even the very definition of what “democracy” means is not yet determined — that word doesn’t yet have any concrete meaning in (doesn’t yet exist in the theory of) political ‘science’, except on a philosophical — i.e., opinion-based — foundation. I greatly respect Jeffrey Sachs and his outstanding empirical works in political science; and, so, on March 31st, I emailed to him

Eric, March 31st:

Subject: A political left that’s controlled by billionaires is fake ‘left’: hypocritical nazism.

Date: March 31, 2025 at 7:27:43 PM EDT

[The opening part of that linked-to article linked to documents that showed that in the U.S. and many other countries it is not the public that control the Government via elections, such as democratic theory alleges, but instead the billionaires who control the Government — the billionaires control the Government much like in former centuries the aristocracy controlled the Government, but now they do it by using different methods. That is the problem, and here was my proposed solution to it in order to be able to produce maybe an AUTHENTIC democracy. This is not a theory but ONLY an hypothesis now, and it would need to be tested:]

I would suggest that it [selection of the U.S. President] should be done by lottery (among all adults) for the legislatures, and that those [lottery-selected] legislators would then have the power to expel from their midst any of them that a two-thirds majority of them vote to expel, and that the entire body will, by majority vote, appoint judges, and will select as the head-of-state, one among themselves who has served in the federal legislature for five years or more. There would be no term-limits, and Parties would be illegal. There woud be no elections. The country would, over time, come to be ruled by professional legislators, who will not be competing against each other. Elections will be replaced by lottery-draws. There will be no “campaigns” to fund. Consequently, over time, the members of the legislature will come to know the strengths and weaknesses of each of the other members. All of the incentives that have caused America to be ruled by a tiny aristocracy of billionaires will have been removed. Just think of it: a country in which billionaires must adhere to the laws, and have no control OVER the laws. THAT would be a truly democratic revolution, even though the public would never vote. It would be a revolutionary revolution. Replacing elections with lotteries is the only way I can think of to get us out of the present situation in which Governments keep going from bad to even worse and are now — throughout at least the U.S. empire — incredibly atrocious. To anyone who opposes this, I ask “And what is YOUR proposed solution?” Whatever that ‘solution’ would be, will be far preferred by the billionaires, over what I have proposed here, which would end the “gravy train” of ‘the elite’.

This is my idea of a political left that’s NOT controlled by billionaires. And as for the political right, that has ALWAYS been representing ONLY the aristocracy — so, a ‘right-wing democracy’ is a self-contradiction: democracy can exist ONLY in a country that authentically has equality before the law — NO one is above the law (there IS no aristocracy).

Eric, April 3rd:

What did you think of my proposal to achieve democracy by replacing elections (voting) with instead a lottery-based system?

Jeff, April 3rd:

I didn’t have time to read your proposal, just the sentence advocating sortition rather than elections. My comments [I hadn’t received any comment from him about this matter; so, I don’t know what he was referring to there] were in response to that.

I do know what the problem is. I’ve been writing about “the problem” for twenty years and more.

Parliaments are better than Presidential systems. Direct democracies might work better than representative democracies. Or sortition, or no democracy. Take your pick. There is no magic in this. Aristotle knew that in 330 BCE. Every formal kind of government can be good or bad. What counts is the virtues of the citizenry.

Eric, April 3rd:

You don’t “know what the problem is.” The problem is that authentic democracy (and Aristotle knew nothing of it, just like every OTHER philosopher has) does NOT require that the public vote and that elections be held — neither for Parliamentarians nor for Presidents. There is a BETTER way, and I described it in this passage, which you refused to read: [I then repeated to him the proposed solution that I had sent to him, which you’ve now read.]

Jeff, April 3rd:

I spend a lot of time on what you write, but I’m busy and don’t read everything that you write. I also don’t like a stream of insults or to be told what I know and don’t. I am writing in shorthand and if it’s not up to your par, so be it. I’ve studied sortition systems for decades. The idea is not new. The issues have been around for centuries. I’ve written books and articles about the corruption of the US political system. I’ve observed many excellent non-democratic systems as well. As for virtues of the citizenry, that’s not blaming the victims. It’s the central problem discussed by philosophers since Confucius, Mencius, and Aristotle. The dynamic relationship between citizens and rulers, and how virtues of the two interact.

Eric, April 3rd:

The discussion that we have had about this matter — which I obviously think is a crucially important matter, important for the history of ideas, and so forth — should be published as an article so that the public may consider it, without any further commentary [from us]. Both you and I have fully stated our respective views on it; and now is the time when I, as a journalist and the person who came up with this idea that you ignore, ought to present it to the general public for their consideration of it.

If you have any objection to this (my moving forward on it today), please tell me ASAP so that it can be done today; or else, if you want to add anything more to it, then I shall include that, so that you will have the last word in it, stated as fully as you wish it to be (in which case I shall be willing to wait for that if you will give me a specified time by which your final word on it will be emailed to me about the matter).

Eric, April 3rd: PS: I was NOT recommending a sortition system. I was recommending replacing elections, and voting, replacing them by the type of lottery system that I described. [By contrast, sortition systems can co-exist along with the holding of elections, sush as was the case in ancient Athens. I was hoping to get into that matter with him — the need to entirely eliminate elections, so that ONLY an unelected legislature will be voting. This wouldn’t exclude their selecting experts to advise them on particular issues, nor would it exclude their taking testimony from the public, but it would exclude the public from the decision-making — and this would be ENTIRELY NEW as a structure to achieve a truly representative Government. That’s what is new about this, but Jeff wasn’t at all interested even in reading what I had presented to him — much less in discussing with me the matter.]

Jeff, April 3rd:

No, please no. This was a private exchange. Not for publication.

Eric, April 3rd:

Then I shall have to paraphrase your statements and directly quote only key phrases from them. I shall explain in the article that you would not allow me to do more than fair-use quotations from you.

Jeff, April 3rd:

If you quote me in a private communication, I simply won’t communicate with you again. I was having a private exchange with you. No more. And hardly a detailed one. Do not infringe on my privacy, please.

Eric, April 3rd:

This is NOT a “private” matter. It is the most important PUBLIC matter that exists — How to Achieve a Democracy. Like I said in my “PS: I was NOT recommending a sortition system. I was recommending replacing elections, and voting, replacing them by the type of lottery system that I described.” You ignored my proposal. You misrepresented what it is. You now apparently want to censor-out from the public discourse our discussion of the most important public matter that exists. You are a public figure — not ONLY a private individual (which I am ONLY). You are furthermore one who is a recognized EXPERT on democracy. We were NOT discussing PRIVATE matters; and, so, there is no issue here that is private — the entire issue — 100% of it — is the mega-public issue of How to Achieve a Democracy.

You cannot have it both ways, Jeff — being the public figure that you clearly are — and whom I have ONLY PRAISED IN PUBLIC, many times — and refusing to so much as address IN PUBLIC your response to an entirely new proposed method to address the biggest PUBLIC ISSUE of them all, How to Achieve a Democracy. You are seeking to censor it, as being merely PRIVATE — which it is NOT. You are making an unfair request to me.

If you are not satisfied with the case that you made in our discussion of How to Achieve a Democracy, then can we just start over on the whole thing, after you finally HAVE gotten around to reading the proposed solution to it, that I had presented? I would be willing to go along with that if you give me a reasonably soon deadline for you to give me your carefully considered answer to my proposed solution — something that you consider publishable (since you apparently don’t think that your previous responses to it were). Indeed, I would be happy if you would do a much better job of it than you have so far done — and your new response would then be the only one that I will go forth with. (However, in that case, I cannot assure you that you will have the last word on the matter, because if you again bring up non-rellevant objections (such as sortition systems), I shall then need to point out — and will document — their irrelevancy to the problem at hand, which is SPECIFICALLY my proposed solution to the problem of How to Achieve a Democracy.

Jeff, April 3rd:

I do understand from what you write that I should not interact with you by email. My email to you was a few quick casual and friendly remarks while sitting at a dinner, not a prepared essay. As I said, I had not then (and still have not) read your proposal, nor am I debating it with you.

——

Those were the communications. I was NOT seeking from him a “debate” but instead his thoughts about my proposed replacement of electoral voting-based ‘democracy’ which has never represented the public but always some aristocracy (of wealth) or else some theocracy (of a religion — which in the Soviet Union was Karl Marx’s philosophy) — replacement of the existing ‘democracies’ by instead the lottery-based system I described, replacing those voting-based ‘democracies’ — replacing all elections and all voting except inside the 100% lottery-based legislature. The very CONCEPT of what “democracy” means is at issue here. Is it NECESSARILY to include voting by the public? In all of the existing self-declared “democratic” U.S. colonies and the U.S., the myth is propagated that “because our Government is elected, it is a democracy” but ALL OF THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THAT IS FALSE. These Governments do NOT represent the public.

When he said to me “The idea is not new. The issues have been around for centuries.” and then told me that he hasn’t read my proposed solution but knows that it is a sortition system — which it is NOT — then I knew that he simply isn’t seriously interested in the problem of how to achieve a democracy. When he said “As for virtues of the citizenry, that’s not blaming the victims. It’s the central problem discussed by philosophers,” I was stunned to find that he believed that the central problem in political theory is to inculcate ‘virtue’ (whatever that means) into “the citizenry.” He implicitly assumed there that the problems around us (the corruptness that actually controls our Government) are the citizenry, instead of the aristocracy that deceives, controls, and exploits, them (by controlling the Government, the media, and the elite universities and think tanks). When he said that “Direct democracies might work better than representative democracies. Or sortition, or no democracy. Take your pick.” he was alleging that democracy — a Government’s representing its public — isn’t even necessary in order to have a good Government. Of course, the alternatives to a democracy are a Government that instead represents either its aristocracy or its theocracy — a dictatorship. He was saying that it makes no difference: “Take your pick.” I was shocked. I had, I now recognize, erroneously thought that he, like I, is committed in favor of democracy and against dictatorship. Sadly, I was wrong. I had not previously understood him. Now I do.

He had not replied to that article I had sent to him, though he often has commented to me on others I had sent to him; so, I sought, on April 3rd, to ask him what his thoughts on it had been. Actually, I had thought that he would have found it to be more of interest than any I had ever sent to him and to which he had sent me comments, and so I was surprised that he hadn’t commented on this one.

Jeffrey Sachs is an internationally recognized expert on democracy. If he isn’t interested in replacing the existing fake democracies by a new form of Government that perhaps really WILL represent the general public instead of some aristocracy or theocracy (either type of dictatorship), then who WOULD be interested in it? I wonder.

Now that he has indicated to me that he isn’t interested, I invite comments on this problem from ANYONE, and especially from an expert on democracies (but one who — unlike Dr. Sachs — DOES recognize the need for radically new thinking on this vitally important public matter). (There is nothing private about it.)

We have ‘democratic’ Governments that are, and have been for decades, lying to their public about everything and especially about international relations and about their causing wars all over the globe, and how can a democracy be like this? I don’t think it can. Political ‘scientists’ think it can and is — that such war-mongering is basically a problem of a lack of “virtues of the citizenry.”

And, if anyone can explain to me why my proposed solution CANNOT work, then I shall welcome THAT type of input, also. Any way to IMPROVE my proposal will be especially heartily welcomed, from ANYONE. (However, I will not respond to any ad-hominem comments; ONLY to ad-rem ones.)

I can be reached at the.eric.zuesse@gmail.com.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.