Valruzia

[Aethan]

Against the concept of "democracy"

An article regarding our notion of democracy and why it is not the "highest morality"

April 5664

Chancellor Iwan Nowik during the last electoral campaign

---

As my first term as Chancellor comes to an end, I have been asking myself a wide range of questions, as to how to improve our nation overall. As an avid learner of philosophy, I couldn't but wonder, in the light of the recent events all around Terra and as we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the fall of the Valruzian Unitary State, if the concept we have of "democracy" has lost all its meaning and become a corrupt word.

When citizens are asked “what do you think is the best model of government,” the vast majority respond that it is democracy, of course, and are shocked when other answers are given, as if anything that does not contain the word “democracy” cannot be good or worthy for the people. However, much of communist thinking leads to what is known as establishing the so-called “dictatorship of the proletariat,” and it is precisely that word, “dictatorship,” that sets off alarm bells in people, who throw their hands up in horror as soon as they hear that term. Perhaps if we referred to it as the “democracy of the proletariat,” we would gain sudden and massive support from the people?

As a citizen of Valruzia, one of the countries on Terra where communist parties—to which I myself belong and lead—have the most influence, I can say that the citizens here are not afraid of that term, and yet they continue to believe that “democracy” is the absolute good. But it was not democracy that brought down the Morawski regime. It was the armed and violent revolution of the working classes who, tired of oppression and suffering, rose up against their leaders and deposed them. Are these actions reprehensible? From a purely democratic point of view, they should be, since no one voted for them, no one appealed to the use of words. However, no one can bring themselves to think that what happened back then was a bad thing, but rather the opposite. Democracy came later, once the regime had been overthrown and the waters had been channeled. It was not democracy that brought down Morawski, but the revolution.

It is also true that in today's Valruzia, a communist party like ours can never aspire to true revolution without gaining the massive support of the people, since the system has equipped itself with counterweights to prevent such solutions from happening. We must first adapt to the game in order to win and then break free from it, and we do not know how long that may take, but we do know the frustrations it may generate. And it is precisely this that can work against us, as weariness and exhaustion set in more quickly than hope and excitement.

But that is precisely why, first and foremost, we need to educate the public. And I ask myself: would our citizens allow themselves to be operated on by someone who had been democratically elected by lottery from among all citizens, but who was, say, an economist? Would citizens allow their children to be educated by a murderer, since he or she would have been democratically elected by the citizens, or even by lottery? Or something that is a tangible example: the very existence of popular juries. If working as a doctor, teacher, mechanic, or judge requires the appropriate training and qualifications, why do we continue to allow the anachronistic existence of so-called “popular trials” in the name of supposed “democracy”? What makes the verdict of a randomly selected citizen more valid, whose criteria are probably not based on the laws and rules we have all agreed upon, but on their own morality and emotions of the moment?

At this point, we also arrive at politics, politicians, and our own democracy. If we demand that a surgeon be trained, a pilot be certified, and an engineer be qualified, then why do we allow the destiny of an entire nation to be decided by those whose only credential is their ability to win a popularity contest every couple of years? The ballot box measures charisma, rhetoric, and money far more than wisdom, competence, or vision. And yet we are told – with almost religious fervor – that this is the pinnacle of political morality.
History, however, has given us enough evidence to challenge this faith. There have been tyrants who came to power through free and fair elections, leaders who dismantled freedoms with the very mandate granted to them by the people. Does the fact that they were democratically elected make their crimes less heinous? If a government impoverishes its citizens, destroys their dignity, and silences their voices, does it matter whether it came into being through a metal bullet or a paper ballot? 

We must have the courage to admit that democracy is not a talisman against oppression. Without structures that ensure competence, integrity and accountability, democracy is merely another mask behind which corruption and mediocrity can hide.

For us, as communists in Valruzia, the task is clear. We must strive not merely to win within the rules of this system, but to educate the people so that they see beyond its illusions. The ultimate aim is not to reject participation, but to transform it. To replace the empty ritual of voting for personalities with the active governance of society by its most capable, committed, and principled members of the working class. Only then will politics cease to be a spectacle and become what it should have always been: the organized, deliberate construction of a just and equitable society.

And here, of course, comes the uncomfortable truth. Even within our own ranks in the PKW we cannot claim absolute moral high ground. I am painfully aware that some of our deputies are not in the Sejm because of their unique technical expertise, nor because they possess the combination of vision and competence I speak of. Some are there because of loyalty to the party cause, others because of the internal compromises and alliances that politics, even revolutionary politics, inevitably demands.

It would be hypocritical to pretend otherwise. I will not insult the intelligence of our citizens by suggesting that every name on our electoral lists represents the very pinnacle of meritocratic selection. We have comrades who are tireless organisers, loyal activists, and steadfast voices in the struggle, but whose professional qualifications may have little to do with the committees they sit on. And yes, there are those who are there because the party, like any other, must sometimes balance factions, reward dedication, and ensure representation from across our vast country, even if that means placing ineligible hands on steering wheels that require more than enthusiasm to drive.

But here is the difference, and it is an important one: we do not hide this reality behind platitudes about "the people having spoken" and leaving it at that. We acknowledge the gap between the ideal and the reality, and we treat it as a problem to be solved, not a permanent feature of the system to be romanticised. We openly discuss the need for internal training, political education, and the gradual transformation of our representation so that, over time, the Sejm will be populated not by those who simply won the popularity contest of internal primaries, but by those who are truly the most capable to lead and legislate in the interest of the working class.

In short, we do not defend mediocrity as a democratic virtue, we confront it as a failing that needs to be corrected. That is, perhaps, what most fundamentally separates our vision from the hollow rituals of the liberal order. Of course our system needs a reform, but we cannot do it alone.

And let us be clear: mediocrity, complacency, and the cult of personality have no place in a socialist republic worthy of its name. The Valruzian working class, the farmers, the scientists, the engineers, the teachers, the nurses, they deserve a parliament where every voice carries not only words aimed at convince one another, but that also have competence. They deserve leaders whose understanding of the issues is matched by their ability to deliver solutions.

The PKW will not shy away from this task. We will undertake a systematic review of our own candidate selection process, ensuring that every future list we present to the people will reflect loyalty to the cause and proven skill in the fields that matter. We will create mechanisms for continuous evaluation, so that no deputy believes their seat is guaranteed simply by wearing the party badge. Service to the people is earned every day, in every vote cast and in every law drafted. We believe that is true democracy and true representation, and not a popularity contest.

We know the ghosts that still haunt Valruzia’s history. We know what happens when politics becomes an echo chamber of slogans without substance, when blind loyalty replaces critical thought, and when the seats of power are filled by those unfit to bear the weight of responsibility. Our republic will not repeat those mistakes.

In our struggle for socialism, we must remember that we are not only fighting exploitation. That alternative we offer must be better, cleaner, more capable, and more honest than the system we seek to replace. If we are to lead the people towards liberation, then we must lead by example.

To our critics, I would like to say this: point out our flaws, and we will not hide from them. We will address them. We will improve. Because unlike the hollow democracies that shield incompetence under popular mandates, we understand that power is not a trophy to be kept.

And to the people of Valruzia, I give this pledge: the PKW will work tirelessly to ensure that your parliament is not only your voice, but your finest minds and your strongest hands. A legislature worthy of the future we will build together, with the will and the wisdom of the working class.

Iwan Nowik
Chancellor of Valruzia and General Secretary of the Communist Party of Valruzia