I should have been smart enough as to not be surprised when I found out that some particular atmospheres cater more for determined thoughts and ideas than others. I was not, however. It felt good.

I spent the last 5 days at my grandmother's, where my aunt also lives. Aside from the incredible time I had there, activities-wise, Portugal's Republic Proclamation Day (October 5th) also managed to sneak in. Republic this and that, and Democracy this and that. It made me wonder, and from that wondering arose series of ideas to which I, while not adhering to, believe are important enough to be raised, and discussed.

I'll start by saying I am a democrat. I believe in unconditional equality and in liberty, and I am not trying to convey any sort of bigoted view or propaganda - I wish merely to debate the following, in whatever length it takes to clarify it. Modern democracies are not "pure". Most people firmly believe that the ideal form of government would be a direct democracy where all citizens would express their opinions on any given subject, and those same opinions would have an effect in any final legislation. These are not used because it would simply not be feasible to consult the entire population of a given country because the costs would be astronomical, and the decisions would be too slow to have a practical effect.

Instead, we use representative democracies: populations vote for Parties who, after being voted in, act in the name of the population (whether in the name of the entire population or just in the name of those who voted for them is debatable, but let's leave it at that), legislating with better or worse results, and often against the wishes of the majority of the population - their justification?: it is the best for the country. Well, they were voted in, the only thing that can be done is to wait for their term's end, and after it, to vote someone else in their stead. So far so good.

However, therein lies the key of my entire "point" (if I even have one beyond these ramblings): if direct democracies aren't used because of "astronomical costs" and "impossibly slow decisions", then isn't the whole Democracy concept being compromised in that name? If we were so keen on having a People-ruled country, aren't we purposely treading the wrong path for money's sake? In other words: we are being either blind or hypocrite when we claim to hold Democracy in such at such lofty heights if we are willing to sacrifice it in the name of something else - in conclusions, Democracy is not an end in itself.

What can be gathered from all this? I do not know for sure. However, I will make a risky (and controversial; a potential slippery slope fallacy) statement, and dare to claim that the conclusion that can be reached is "Democracy is not an end in itself". Having this finally stated, we can topple down more... dangerous paths, which we should, if only in an hypothetical and thought-provoking mood: if Democracy is not an end in itself, then what makes it so praise-worthy? Perhaps the fact that after all is said and done, there is still an universal ability to hold positions of power - everyone is able to rise, everyone is able to mould a determined project, provided that this "someone" is a) skilled enough in the tasks they propose themselves and b) hold a general level of acceptance from the population they seek to govern. But why is Democracy the only path to this? It is not. The mere suggestion of a different System of Government that follows these rules and is not Democracy (or at least is not a "Modern Democracy") easily makes me think of other, possibly still-nameless systems: what about a system where there are actual applications for the Chairs of Health/Defence/Education/etc (this would ensure that whoever would end up being the Minister would necessarily be good at what they'd do), and the population be given the power to call out a referendum if/when they believe that the best course of action would not be taken? This would likewise ensure that whoever is elected is a) skilled enough in the tasks they propose themselves and b) hold a general level of acceptance from the population they seek to govern. Others certainly exist. However, the final question, or polemic, or controversy I was seeking to reach is as simple as this:

After all this, are Modern Democracies still as good as we make them (and I am thus missing some point), or is there some Reformation to be done?

- Miguel