How to ensure democracy survives
- Réal Laplaine

- Jan 11
- 6 min read
Updated: Feb 2

History is testimony to the fact that the wrong people, in positions of political power, cause havoc. We are seeing the repeating cycle today with Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Benjamin Netanyahu and others, a handful of men actively working to destroy the work that decades of good leaders put in place to move the world closer to global unification.
If we accept that this cycle of dictatorial leaders is “just the way it is”, then of course that complacency and apathy will make it possible for such men to rise to power again and again.
So, what is the missing link? What is the fault in our democratic systems, such as in the U.S.A. and even Israel, that dictatorial regimes can come into power - a complete contradiction to the very paradigm of democracy itself?
One could argue that it is hit and miss - that a democratic society, by its nature, makes it possible for anyone to step up to the plate - but I offer another perspective, because in fact, men like Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu should never have been permitted through the front door in the first place.
Let’s leave Russia and North Korea out of this discussion, because these nations have NEVER known true democracy - Russia has only known Czars and dictators for centuries, and North Korea was turned into a subservient nation of slaves by a single family who has ruled it with an oppressive hand for decades.

In the case of democratic societies such as the U.S.A. and Israel, what is missing? How can the system allow dictators to rise to power?

In other words, a criminal, with a known history of tax evasion, of sexual debauchery, someone who incites crowds and followers to violence, and who spreads racism and hate, can become the President of the United States simply and ONLY based on rhetoric and popularity.
Is that democracy, or idiocy at work?
To help ameliorate this problem, possibly not a perfect system, but certainly one which would greatly reduce the chances of sociopaths making it into power, does not require a major change in democratic or social democratic platforms at all, it simply requires a simple step added to the election process which requires that anyone running for positions of political power are demonstrably NOT criminal.
Consider this simple option: at the beginning of every Presidential election, for example, where parties announce their candidates, an independent body is formed, whereby each party selects two people, a man and a woman for equal opportunity, to be part of it. If there are three political parties with running candidates, that would make six people - two from each party. If there are five political parties with candidates, that would make a body of ten people. This body would have the explicit mandate to perform a thorough background check on each candidate, gathering and cross-checking all information, through every possible avenue, with no bias, just facts, and measured against a set of pre-approved crimes - not misdemeanors such as minor theft, parking tickets or or such, but crimes like tax evasion, criminal associations and activities, child abuse, violating or prostituting women, or the like. This body then votes whether that person is fit as a candidate - ONLY based on discovery - FACTS not OPINION. The results are then published for all to see, so there is no hidden information, so that the electorate, the voters, can also see the truth about proposed candidates. Moreover, should a candidate feel they have been incorrectly rejected, they can appeal it to the same body.
This is really no different than contemporary systems already in place in almost every nation in the world, which licenses doctors, pilots, engineers, even teachers and drivers of cars, based on required standards, to ensure that society is protected. Why should it be any different in the political arena? AT THE VERY LEAST we should ensure that the people we permit to run for office are NOT criminals - that should be the bottom line, the basic bar - and if we cannot do that, we are openly inviting our democracy to be compromised and even destroyed.
The danger, of course, in putting any system in place to verify the acceptability of political candidates is that it too can be abused and can become the antithesis of democracy, but I challenge that while anyone should have the democratic right to step up to the soap box and pitch their platform, it is naive, to put it charitably, and political suicide, to permit a known criminal to run for office - because they will hide and discount their criminal past under an avalanche of rhetorical diarrhea designed to divert the electorate’s attention to other things, usually attempting to criminalize other candidates in order to make themselves look better.
We live in a world where sociopaths and criminals DO manipulate their way into power, so it is absolute insanity that we do not at the very minimum invoke some process that detects and outs the true criminals before they even reach the front door. That is protecting democracy, not compromising it.
Of course, if we really want to ensure democracy’s protection, we should also put a ceiling on political donations, as we see happening in such countries as Australia today where they capped political contributions to a very low figure. Because currently, as in the United States, where the ultra-rich donate MILLIONS to political candidates they want to see in power, the political arena has been hijacked, taking the power away from the people and putting it into the hands of those with wealth. And while one could argue that this is Capitalism at work, there is a VAST difference between capitalists and oligarchs. Capitalists want an open market, competition and profit, but oligarchs want CONTROL and disruption, because they feed on broken systems, broken companies, bankruptcy, a world where they move in and take over, monopolize the market. Men like Donald Trump and other narcissistic sociopaths, give them the conduit to bank and profit on that havoc, where they, like sharks, can move in and take control. People do not like to think of the United States as an oligarchy today, but in fact, unbiased reviews shows that it has moved into the realm of becoming an electoral oligarchy, where it appears that the electorate, the voters, have the say, but in fact, the ultra-rich are calling the shots. If democracy is to work, let candidates run their campaigns on the merits of their leadership ability, not by pandering to the wealthy companies and to the oligarchs to get more air time and media coverage.
We must remember that dictators are sociopaths, and one of the benchmark qualities of a sociopath is their ability to pretend, to act, to put on a false front and they are pathological liars too - which is why one can NEVER measure their authenticity or sincerity by the words coming out of their mouths, their rhetoric nor their claims - one can ONLY see past their facade by closely and unbiasedly examining their backgrounds, their past - because a close examination will inevitably reveal their true character and only an idiot, a criminal or an oligarch who feeds on disruption, would support such a person for political office.

If you are doubting the veracity of these words, ask yourself this; have you ever met or heard of a sociopathic firefighter? It sounds like an odd question, but here is where the rubber meets the road, because firefighters put their lives on the line every day to save other's lives, and by the nature of that job, they are required to help others, and that is a quality that a sociopath simply does NOT possess - they will never put their lives on the line for anyone - quite the opposite, they expect others to put their lives on the line for them - which is why behind nearly every war will be found a sociopath campaigning a false agenda, and demanding that YOU go spill your blood for them.

If we want to protect democracy in the future, this fault in our social matrix must be fixed, otherwise, sociopaths and dictators will continue to threaten and diminish democracy and freedom.

Réal Laplaine
Author of high-concept thrillers




Comments