When protesters defy authorities in democratic countries, politicians desperately ask them to stop and instead manifest themselves using the voting power as suggested in the George Floyd case.
Nowadays it is an ineffective argument.
People no more believe that voting comes to a solution in democratic regimes, otherwise they wouldn't be on the streets fighting.
Would it be the end of a democratic regime?
If there were another solution better than the even more strict power of monocratic regimes like communism or monarchy, certainly it would.
The people's desperation due to the loss of hope makes a fertile ground to spread violence, a great opportunity for all kinds of interests to combat the current establishment.
Desperation is fed when the voting power becomes useless.
If the candidates do not represent the people's needs, the vote itself has no sense at all, just bringing successive disappointments that culminate in violence when the people's pleadings are ignored by the elected authorities. Unfortunately, when it comes, it also comes too late to believe in democracy since by its means there is no more faith in real social progress.
What happens nowadays in the USA and Brazil is an evident consequence of discredit and hopeless feelings that turn the hearts into what it comes today — fertile soil for violence and desperation.
The last election in Brazil had no real representation.
It simply meant a fight to make sure to remove the "status quo" that disappointed people focusing on another candidate that didn't fit the majority, but it was necessary to concentrate the efforts on the worse to avoid the worst.
In the USA we have a president that doesn't represent the needs to keep the gains of racial equality and therefore spread that common sense of respect to people independently of skin color, money power, or social origins.
When a regime fails to represent people's anxiety and aspiration, no matter its nature, if monarchy, socialism, or democracy, the desperation brings to the eruption of violence and rebellions of any sort as it is well known through the history.
Democracy needs improvements.
When candidates do not represent the real desire of their people, the elections should be revised and shall have a public commitment that would rely on more secure results that never fulfill promises made.
It shall have an instrument where a promise shall be delivered.
It is a debt and shall not be forgotten.
We need penalties for forgotten or not delivered promises.
Promises must come true or at least have a low rate of failures.
It is not what happens today. On the contrary, promises are just marketing that everybody hopes but does not expect to be real.
We shall no more accept this kind of indulgent behavior.
Another question is:
How much representative is the candidate?
Using the example of Brazil, this gets real clear on the first poll and such thing should have led to a better solution avoiding the second poll on behalf of new candidates to a new first poll.
If we are electing a leader, the numbers shall prove this.
Democracy must represent leadership and a candidate shall incarnate it.
The way democracy works today enables to force people to vote on non-representative candidates.
This is a smart way to keep the system's establishment and making possible to handle democracy to be conducted by minority groups.
Two key points are essential to turn democracy into a real democratic system:
1. Democracy needs alternatives to reevaluate the representativeness during the poll process.
2. Democracy must guarantee by an implicit public contract the commitment made by promises during the campaign implying some kind of charge, penalties, and obligations if not fulfilled.
Today, a candidate may promise anything and do it or not, it will happen nothing.
This a severe disease of democracy weakening people's faith in it.
The current system is ineffective to avoid scenarios like the one we live today and we will be subjected to deal again and again in the future if nothing is changed.
When a nation is divided there is no more a nation but two.
Fortunately, that was not the case since the majority required just a leadership opposing the previous.
Instead, it was elected a minority to provide leadership for the majority. This is not representative.
On the other hand, in the USA, the elected government requires to fulfill the promises to respect, preserve, and improve the human rights gains already conquered by society independently of the government's personal opinions, making sure by all means that there is no space to any kind of setback.
This would certainly discourage actions like those ones that led to the violence we see now exploding everywhere in American soil.
The resonance of an isolated fact multiplying through a country is a clear proof of leadership and commitment failure with the rights that should be respected and therefore preserved and encouraged.
Two presidents very alike leading to the same effects, conflict and nation breakdown, does really mean something, doesn't it?
