Democracy/es: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<languages /> | <languages /> | ||
'' | ''El 6 de julio de 1980, en una conferencia titulada "Creo en los Estados Unidos de América", [[Special:MyLanguage/Elizabeth Clare Prophet|Elizabeth Clare Prophet]] hizo el siguiente comentario sobre la democracia. Si bien la forma de gobierno de los Estados Unidos generalmente se describe en términos generales como una democracia, con más precisión se trataría de "una democracia en una república".<ref>Del Credo Amercano, por William Tyles Page.</ref>'' | ||
Revision as of 03:23, 18 July 2020
El 6 de julio de 1980, en una conferencia titulada "Creo en los Estados Unidos de América", Elizabeth Clare Prophet hizo el siguiente comentario sobre la democracia. Si bien la forma de gobierno de los Estados Unidos generalmente se describe en términos generales como una democracia, con más precisión se trataría de "una democracia en una república".[1]
La mayor parte de los americanos creen que los Estados Unidos es una democracia. No lo es. Varios de ellos se sorprenderían de saber que en el momento de la Guerra de la Independencia, la “democracia” denotaba la forma más baja de gobierno y estaba asociada con el desorden civil y la asunción temprana del poder por parte de un dictador.
John Adams habló por muchos de los primeros patriotas cuando dijo:
Siempre estuve a favor de una república libre, no de una democracia, que es un gobierno tan arbitrario, tiránico, sangriento, cruel e intolerable como ha sido representado el toro de Falaris.[2]Robespierre es el ejemplo perfecto del carácter del primer líder en una democracia.[3]
Why were they so opposed to democracy? Democracy comes from the Greek word for “the people,” demos. It connotes a rule based on the majority decisions with full participation of all the people.
Whereas this sounds enchantingly fair and sensibly practical, the system has never worked. It didn’t work in the Greek city-states, and this our forebears knew. A pure democracy is unwieldy—250 million people cannot govern themselves. How can millions of people vote on everything and every issue, or even inform themselves sufficiently to cast the proper vote?
The framers recognized that a pure democracy was really nothing more than a crowd, and crowds are easily manipulated by demagogues, i.e., the Nephilim, the fallen ones. That’s why these fallen ones push democracy. In a pure democracy, there is a natural tendency for a dictator to manipulate the people and then to assume power. One of the reasons for this is that the people really don’t want the responsibility of self-government. They’re always ready to follow somebody who is going to say, “I’ll do it for you.”
Today many of the worst totalitarian states are democracies—people’s democracies, so-called. They are Communist states wherein by doctrine, the government exists for and draws its power from the proletariat, or the workers. In practice, however, they are dictatorships which pay lip service to the people and obtain their power from the barrel of a gun. The Soviet leaders tell the people of Russia that Communism is the rule of the people. In America, our leaders tell us the same. But in fact, a power elite is ruling both Mother Russia and Mother America.
The only democracy that will ever work is a democracy in a republic, which is simply a representative democracy. We all can’t govern together, so we appoint representatives; we vote for them. Like a democracy, a republic is a government established with power vested in the people, but unlike a democracy, the power stays with the people. This is accomplished by the election of representatives, who arbitrate the interests of the people in Congress with other representatives. By incorporating this hierarchical structure, a balance is struck between a tyranny of the few—which is an oligarchy—and a tyranny of the many—a democracy.
The people retain the power because they can recall the representatives from office who do not do what they promised to do, or what they were directed to do when they were sent to office. In a republic, the people retain the power; in a democracy, they get taken over.
To the Founding Fathers of America, a republican government meant the delegation of powers by the people to a small number of citizens “whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial consideration.”[4]
When each individual follows the path of Christhood, then each individual has access to the inspiration of Almighty God. That is when a democracy in a republic works—when the individual exercises his franchise. And it only works if he is exercising the franchise of his Christ consciousness—the freedom to elect to be a son of God.
See also
Sources
Elizabeth Clare Prophet, I Believe in the United States of America... [DVD]
- ↑ Del Credo Amercano, por William Tyles Page.
- ↑ Falaris fue el legislador de Acragas (ahora Agirgento) en Sicilia, aproximadamente del 570 al 554 AC. Él fue sumamente reconocido por su excesiva crueldad, que incluía quemar a sus víctimas vivas dentro de una olla con forma de bovino.
- ↑ Carta de John Adams a Mercy Otis Warren, 30 de julio de 1807. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-5199
- ↑ James Madison, The Federalist Papers, no. 10.