Bullshit masquerading as Democracy – Escaping from Bullshit

Compare single leader governments with the Swiss federal council

ChatGPT said:

When comparing single-leader governments (where one individual holds executive power) with the Swiss Federal Council (a collective executive body), several key differences and similarities emerge in terms of leadership structure, decision-making processes, and governance philosophy. Below is an analysis of these differences and similarities.

1. Structure of Leadership

Single Leader Governments:
- In a single-leader government, one person holds the top executive position (such as a president, prime minister, or dictator), and they wield significant decision-making authority.
- Examples: The president of the United States, the prime minister of the UK, or authoritarian leaders like those in Russia, China, and other one-party states.
- The power of a single leader can vary greatly depending on the political system: in democracies (e.g., the U.S.), the president has significant authority, but checks and balances limit their power. In more authoritarian systems (e.g., Russia), the leader’s power is often less constrained.
Swiss Federal Council:
- The Swiss Federal Council is a collective executive body consisting of seven members, each heading one of the government departments (such as foreign affairs, defense, or finance).
- The presidency of the Swiss Federal Council rotates annually among its members, meaning there is no fixed “leader” in the traditional sense. The president does not have special executive powers; rather, they serve as a primus inter pares (first among equals), and their role is largely ceremonial.
- This creates a consociational or power-sharing system where decisions are made by consensus rather than by the authority of a single individual.

2. Decision-Making and Governance

Single Leader Governments:
- Decision-making is often centralized in the hands of the leader, with their cabinet or advisers providing input, but the leader usually has the final say.
- In democratic systems, the leader is typically accountable to a legislature or other democratic mechanisms, but they often have significant influence over policy direction.
- In authoritarian regimes, the leader’s word is often law, and decision-making may be more arbitrary, with less accountability.
Swiss Federal Council:
- Decision-making in the Swiss Federal Council is consensual and involves negotiation and collaboration among the seven members. They aim to reach consensus on issues, and if a consensus can’t be reached, decisions are made by a majority vote.
- This system reflects Switzerland’s strong commitment to direct democracy and federalism. Power is shared among different regions (cantons) and political groups, reducing the risk of any one person or group gaining too much control.
- The focus on consensus politics in Switzerland fosters stability and cooperation but can also lead to slower decision-making compared to systems with a strong, central leader.

3. Accountability and Representation

Single Leader Governments:
- In a democracy, a single leader (e.g., a president or prime minister) is accountable to the electorate through regular elections and checks and balances by other branches of government (e.g., judiciary, legislature).
- In authoritarian or semi-authoritarian systems, the leader may not be directly accountable to the people or may face very limited opposition, especially if they control the media and suppress dissent.
- Representation is typically more centralized in single-leader systems, with the leader often presenting themselves as the face of the nation and representing the people’s will.
Swiss Federal Council:
- The Swiss Federal Council is highly accountable to both the Swiss people and the Federal Assembly (Switzerland’s bicameral legislature).
- Its collective nature ensures that a variety of political interests are represented in the decision-making process. The fact that the Council represents several political parties, including members of both left-wing and right-wing parties, helps balance competing interests.
- Direct democracy mechanisms in Switzerland, such as referenda and initiatives, allow citizens to have a direct say in policy decisions, enhancing the democratic accountability of the government.

4. Stability and Flexibility

Single Leader Governments:
- The strength of a single-leader system can lie in its decisiveness. In times of crisis, a leader may act quickly and unilaterally, which can be an advantage in situations that require rapid response (e.g., wartime or national emergencies).
- However, the system can also be prone to authoritarian tendencies if checks and balances are weak, and leadership transitions can be turbulent if the leader is removed from power.
Swiss Federal Council:
- The Swiss system tends to provide more political stability over the long term. The power-sharing arrangement and commitment to consensus means that leadership transitions are smooth and the focus remains on maintaining national unity.
- The decision-making process is slower, which can be a disadvantage in times of crisis when quick, decisive action is needed. However, this deliberation can also help avoid rash decisions and maintain long-term stability.

5. Leadership and Governance Philosophy

Single Leader Governments:
- Authoritarian systems may emphasize the centralization of power in a single figure, with the leader often seen as the embodiment of national will and direction.
- Democratic single-leader systems (e.g., the U.S.) prioritize the idea that the leader should represent the people’s interests, but the leader’s power is still checked by democratic institutions.
- In both systems, the leader’s role is often seen as decisive, with a clear individual responsible for national direction and policy.
Swiss Federal Council:
- The Swiss system emphasizes collective leadership, with power diffused across a group of seven individuals who collaborate to lead the country.
- The philosophy behind this system is one of shared responsibility and cooperation, which aims to reflect the nation’s diverse linguistic and political landscape. The approach is rooted in consociational democracy, designed to ensure that different groups (language, region, political parties) have a voice in governance.
- The Swiss system discourages authoritarianism and personality-driven politics, in favor of a more moderated and stable style of governance.

Summary of Key Differences:

Feature	Single Leader Governments	Swiss Federal Council
Leadership Structure	One person holds executive power (president/PM/leader)	Collective leadership (seven members)
Decision-Making	Centralized, with leader having final say	Consensus-based, with majority votes if needed
Accountability	Elected (in democracies) or unaccountable (in authoritarian regimes)	Highly accountable to legislature and people
Flexibility	Decisive, but risk of authoritarianism	Deliberative, slow but stable
Representation	Centralized, leader represents the people	Power shared across political groups and cantons
Leadership Philosophy	Focus on individual leadership	Focus on collective decision-making and cooperation

In conclusion, while single-leader governments tend to centralize authority in one person, the Swiss Federal Council represents a system of collective leadership that emphasizes consensus and power-sharing. The Swiss model fosters stability and accountability through collaboration, while single-leader systems, depending on the political context, may offer either efficiency or risk of authoritarianism.

Divide and Conquer

The following posting on Facebook received 7.7 K likes, 613 Comments, and 8.1K Shares

This depicts IDEOLOGICAl division among the people, as does the following poster:

But the more serious division is a division between means of ENFORCEMENT, as illustrated by the photos below:

And the whole situation is best depicted by the pyramid of power and privilege:

Michael Shermer, the non-skeptical myopic liberal democrat

While searching for interviews with David Wengrow, I came across the podcasts of Michael Shermer, the co-founder of the Skeptic magazine. Since he too is in the business of exposing bullshit, I watched some of his other interviews, and on the basis of what I have watched, it seems to me that he is in the business of Practicing Safe Philosophy.

Let me explain. He espouses critical thinking, but he seems to confine this criticism to exposing pseudo-science and superstitions, including a criticism of religion. But such criticism was already done during the Enlightenment, and those who have not absorbed these criticisms are The Unenlightened. As to the existence of God, there is no need to duplicate such articles as that of C.D. Broad’s Arguments for the Existence of God and The Validity of Belief in a Personal God. As to debunking pseudoscience, there is Martin Gardner’s Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.

Debunking of this sort is fine, but a critical thinker must distinguish between important problems and puzzles. The important problems are “existential,” by which I mean those problems which hinder human animal existence: problems of food, water, shelter, and such. These are economic and political problems.

I wanted to find out Shermer’s stance on political and economic issues. What I found out so far is that he seems to be a moderate conservative. By this I mean that he accepts capitalism and the type of liberal (mass, macro) democracy as found in the United States. His concern is to improve the policies of the government of the United States — like abortion or immigration policies. He is not concerned with, for example, comparing the democratic government of the United States with that of Switzerland. And he seems to be oblivious to an anarchistic federalist alternative. And because he does not consider such varieties of democracy, he is — in my view — myopic.

As an example of what I am saying, let’s consider his latest interview with Brian Klaas, the author of Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How It Changes Us, 2021. Here is the interview:

Comment: Klaas is interested in the question whether corruptible people seek power or whether power corrupts? And Klaas said that his question is ultimately how to fix the system. Both were interested in how to better recruit leaders. But it never even came up to ask the question of whether instead of a single leader, such as a President or a Prime Minister, a Federal Council of seven individuals, as exists in Switzerland, was preferable.

Klaas made a distinction between a dysfunctional democracy and a functional democracy. But what alternative democracies are possible never even came up, except for a sortition (lottery) shadow parliament.

Shermer thinks that the United States is a functional democracy. His criterion of a functional democracy seems to be whether there is free and universal mass voting. That’s all. He also was non-critical about promoting liberal democracy around the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact that both countries were invaded by the United States was — as it were — justified if the US was successful in promoting liberal democracy. And Shermer seems to be ok with the hundreds of US military posts around the world, and proposed that some troops should have remained in Afghanistan.

My impression is that he is playing it politically safe with liberal democracy in having an ongoing popular talk show.

“A Kind of Fascism Is Replacing Our Democracy”

by Sheldon S. Wolin, Newsday, July 18, 2003

Sept. 11, 2001, hastened a significant shift in our nation’s self-understanding. It became commonplace to refer to an “American empire” and to the United States as “the world’s only superpower.”

Instead of those formulations, try to conceive of ones like “superpower democracy” or “imperial democracy,” and they seem not only contradictory but opposed to basic assumptions that Americans hold about their political system and their place within it. Supposedly ours is a government of constitutionally limited powers in which equal citizens can take part in power. But one can no more assume that a superpower welcomes legal limits than believe that an empire finds democratic participation congenial.

No administration before George W. Bush’s ever claimed such sweeping powers for an enterprise as vaguely defined as the “war against terrorism” and the “axis of evil.” Nor has one begun to consume such an enormous amount of the nation’s resources for a mission whose end would be difficult to recognize even if achieved.

Like previous forms of totalitarianism, the Bush administration boasts a reckless unilateralism that believes the United States can demand unquestioning support, on terms it dictates; ignores treaties and violates international law at will; invades other countries without provocation; and incarcerates persons indefinitely without charging them with a crime or allowing access to counsel.

The drive toward total power can take different forms, as Mussolini’s Italy, Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union suggest.

The American system is evolving its own form: “inverted totalitarianism.” This has no official doctrine of racism or extermination camps but, as described above, it displays similar contempt for restraints.

It also has an upside-down character. For instance, the Nazis focused upon mobilizing and unifying the society, maintaining a continuous state of war preparations and demanding enthusiastic participation from the populace. In contrast, inverted totalitarianism exploits political apathy and encourages divisiveness. The turnout for a Nazi plebiscite was typically 90 percent or higher; in a good election year in the United States, participation is about 50 percent.

Another example: The Nazis abolished the parliamentary system, instituted single-party rule and controlled all forms of public communication. It is possible, however, to reach a similar result without seeming to suppress. An elected legislature is retained but a system of corruption (lobbyists, campaign contributions, payoffs to powerful interests) short-circuits the connection between voters and their representatives. The system responds primarily to corporate interests; voters become cynical, resigned; and opposition seems futile.

While Nazi control of the media meant that only the “official story” was communicated, that result is approximated by encouraging concentrated ownership of the media and thereby narrowing the range of permissible opinions.

This can be augmented by having “homeland security” envelop the entire nation with a maze of restrictions and by instilling fear among the general population by periodic alerts raised against a background of economic uncertainty, unemployment, downsizing and cutbacks in basic services.

Further, instead of outlawing all but one party, transform the two-party system. Have one, the Republican, radically change its identity:

From a moderately conservative party to a radically conservative one.
From a party of isolationism, skeptical of foreign adventures and viscerally opposed to deficit spending, to a party zealous for foreign wars.
From a party skeptical of ideologies and eggheads into an ideologically driven party nurturing its own intellectuals and supporting a network that transforms the national ideology from mildly liberal to predominantly conservative, while forcing the Democrats to the right and and enfeebling opposition.
From one that maintains space between business and government to one that merges governmental and corporate power and exploits the power-potential of scientific advances and technological innovation. (This would differ from the Nazi warfare organization, which subordinated “big business” to party leadership.)

The resulting dynamic unfolded spectacularly in the technology unleashed against Iraq and predictably in the corporate feeding frenzy over postwar contracts for Iraq’s reconstruction.

In institutionalizing the “war on terrorism” the Bush administration acquired a rationale for expanding its powers and furthering its domestic agenda. While the nation’s resources are directed toward endless war, the White House promoted tax cuts in the midst of recession, leaving scant resources available for domestic programs. The effect is to render the citizenry more dependent on government, and to empty the cash-box in case a reformist administration comes to power.

Americans are now facing a grim situation with no easy solution. Perhaps the just-passed anniversary of the Declaration of Independence might remind us that “whenever any form of Government becomes destructive …” it must be challenged.

Category: Bullshit masquerading as Democracy