2024: The Year of Democracy - Unmasking a Deceptive Idea

Ifeoluwa Siddiq Oyelami

We are still in the early days of 2024, with 11 months ahead; the global political landscape is poised to witness what many anticipate to be the zenith of democratic fervour. The year will see more than half of the world’s population go to the polls, including the European Union, as well as seven of the ten most populous countries among 40 nations across the world. For ardent proponents of “the power of the people,” 2024 promises nothing short of excitement. Citizens are poised to exercise their “electoral rights.” Nevertheless, there are very many reasons that cause apathetic and critical stances. In this purported democratic year, a question lingers inside sane minds: does the modern world still harbour genuine faith in the efficacy of democracy in the year 2024?

The historical trajectory that paved the way for modern democracy in Europe was, at its core, a relentless struggle against the entrenched forces of feudalism and class-based oppression. The 20th century witnessed the triumph of democracy in battles against authoritarian rules and despotic “dictators.” Fast forward to the 21st century, and the narrative has shifted; now, the focus is on extending the reach of democracy to every nook and cranny of society. However, a critical inquiry into the state of democracy becomes imperative – is it delivering on its lofty promises, or is it merely chasing clouds?

The year 2023 stands as a testament to the complexities and challenges that democracy faces on a global stage. A surge of disinformation, hate, and accusations characterised the electoral processes in Nigeria and Turkey. Despite all these, election results designated continuation for ruling parties. Meanwhile, Argentina witnessed a change in leadership accompanied by weird promises. Egypt’s dictator orchestrated what appeared to be a one-man show but quite “democratic” as it recorded a decline in voter support from 97% in 2018 to 89.6%.

The approaching 2024 polls are poised to encapsulate the inherent challenges often accompanying the democratic process. At the heart of these issues lies the enduring fallacy of majority rule, a principle that, while ostensibly promoting the well-being of the majority, tends to neglect the predicaments faced by marginalised minorities. Democracy, particularly in its reliance on popular elections, adheres to the tenets of utilitarianism. This ethical philosophy hinges on the belief that what is deemed “good” is synonymous with what brings happiness to the majority. While the proponents of utilitarianism may not be entirely culpable for their allegiance to this theory, it is essential to acknowledge its inherent limitations. In numerous democratic nations, this philosophy has not consistently delivered on its promise, often resulting in ideological consensus rather than genuine governance elections. A striking example of this problem is evident in India, where the impending polls set for April-May loom against the backdrop of a populist regime led by Prime Minister Modi and his Hindutva gangs. As the election approaches, Modi’s supporters have increased their crackdown on the Muslim minority, and the government opening the Ram Temple, sitting in the place of the demolished 5-century-old Babur Mosque, has intensified troubles amidst the political process. After “the people” appeared to prioritise the Hindi majority’s ego-massaging over providing equitable services.

Democracy is often lauded for championing representation, but in 2024, a trend may be rejuvenated: the calculated silencing of opposition voices through ostensibly “legal” means. It has gone beyond customary suspects like Russia, Rwanda, and Belarus; even the United States, the world’s democratic police, is in an unfolding drama of trying to jail its principal opposition figure, former President Donald Trump. With this busy calendar of elections, there will be a lot of scandals because this is how democracy works. In Tunisia, headed by a secular dictator, the main opposition leader, Rached Ghannouchi, has been sentenced to three years in prison over accusations that his party received foreign contributions. Meanwhile, the party, Ennahda, has denied that. In Pakistan, Imran Khan has also been sentenced in various allegations, and his party proscribed.

Meanwhile, while raising the issue of silencing opposition, it is important not to paint opposition movements as always virtuous. Indeed, opposition figures can vary in motivations; as much as there is principled dissent, some just fit the traitor labels the regimes give. In the democratic process, compromising national interests for personal gains often serves as the basis of opposition movements, which easily reach younger voters. Unfortunately, while the Millennials and Gen-Z often drool at hearing “freedom,” they rarely critically examine its nuances- whose freedom is being advocated and for whom. This same trend is expected yet in the 2024 elections of undeveloped countries.

Democracy proponents advocate for the presumption that every adult is the best judge of their own interests. However, they often overlook the reality that the electorate tends to follow the bandwagon, with many not critically considering their choices. Instead, they are swayed by what appears appealing, succumbing to the influence of the greatest lies—lies that democracy, unfortunately, cannot exist without. Music and the media play significant roles in manipulating public opinion, prompting leaders to prioritise heavy investments in these channels rather than social amenities. Consequently, elections become expensive for leaders, while governance becomes relatively cheaper.

On the leaders’ side, this financial dynamic leads to a preference for investing heavily in media rather than social welfare. In underdeveloped countries, this expense is illegally shouldered by the state’s coffers. In developed countries, the costliness results in leaders aligning themselves with particular lobbies. Notably, the Zionist lobby AIPAC stands out as one of the largest spenders in US elections. Slate News reports that this year, the lobby is expected to allocate at least $100 million in the Democratic primaries, aiming to eliminate seven pro-Palestinian candidates from the running.

The Palestinian issue serves as yet another illustration that leaders often fail to genuinely represent the people, as democracy asserts. A recent poll by Data for Progress revealed that 66 percent of Americans support a cease-fire, along with 80 percent of Democrats. However, the USA has impeded any efforts toward a cease-fire. Similar situations arise in many European countries, where public sentiment may oppose their country’s stance on Israel’s occupation, yet the elected “representatives” diverge. This discrepancy stems from their allegiance not to the people but to the influential lobbies that secure their victories in elections and maintain their grip on power. Thus, despite democracy’s claim to the intrinsic equality of all individuals, the larger influence often lies with those backed by significant funding. Worse still, in a modern democratic setting, a foreign power doesn’t necessarily need warships at your shore to conquer you; controlling narratives through election and media funding can be just as effective.

Democracy, in reality, falls short of its ideals. Nevertheless, its allure lies in the promise of personal freedom, leading many to believe in its efficacy. Ironically, people escaped from feudalism only to find themselves in systems closely resembling it. But then, it is a worthy reminder that the absence of “democracy” doesn’t necessarily equate to automatic descent into authoritarianism, contrary to what democracy advocates might assert. A governance structure that doesn’t centre on democracy can still be effective, especially when guided by individuals of wisdom in the leadership selection process – akin to an epistocracy. In the Islamic context, these individuals are known as Ahl al-Hal wa Aqd (people who loosen and bind.) They hold the authority to elect and, if necessary, dismiss the head of state. Chosen based on their knowledge, wisdom, and experience, they serve as a crucial check and balance within the government. Many cultures have variants of such systems before the false hope called democracy.

If governance aims to address the people’s issues, there’s no necessity to deceive them into believing they are in control. A system in which the populace is only awakened during elections lacks actual control. When mass media and social media giants easily shape public opinion, it jeopardises the people’s right to self-governance, allowing external forces to exert control.Hence, it is high time to find a viable alternative to modern democracies, which can inadvertently manifest as neo-aristocracies, neo-feudal systems, or even neo-fascism.

As we ponder these considerations, let’s brace ourselves for 2024, a year that will unveil yet numerous failures of democracy…