Democracy’s Major Upgrade – Moving to Democracy 2.0 To Eliminate Political Hijacking

First it makes sense to set the stage; here are realities we’ve been conditioned to live with and accept as the norm state of political affairs and most of it ain’t news/rocket science to anyone following the scene;

1. Before any government or presidential candidate is elected they go through a careful vetting process; no not by the public or security services to ensure clarity of allegiances, no. It’s a vetting process done for the most part by unelected power brokers & lobbyists (power coming from wealth or political power – internal or foreign – that has infiltrated the system) to ensure they follow the predefined path mapped for them coupled with an unwavering allegiance to their agenda/interests. Once T’s and I’s are crossed/dotted money flows into their campaigns and onwards once all is done/dusted directly into their wallets. Now it’s even admitted in public no need to hide cause for the most part these people have relevant protections against any form of scrutiny/accountability.
2. After the election something else happens; leaders begin payback time and start making concessions and following the predefined path drawn for them which may also align – in some cases – with their own political and/or religious “philosophies”. They also begin to act as kings of the land because a) election cycle means they cannot be touched and/or the majority/party compositions in parliament is such to make it nearly impossible for them to be unseated for any reason. They also have access to all the powers and control all public institutions and do as they please and where there is an obstacle they have full control to eliminate it or work around it behind closed doors; not news I know.

**Obviously not all political systems are created equal, forms of corruption/levels may vary and applicability may be adapted from one system to the other as a form of protection (or last resort protections) whether through a parliamentary oversight structure that is able to effectively intervene to reflect public opinion based on the petitions mechanism or some other way; but the overall concept of publics ability take charge where there is lack of action applies.**

In a nutshell we become governed by kings and queens until the next king and queen in waiting takes up the baton in the next election. Faces may change but the system continues as rigged as ever and even more powerful in protecting itself from within with this setup. Now, does this sound a bit more familiar whether in Europe, the US or other countries around the world? OK, let’s first focus on what we’ve got and what to do about it before getting ahead of ourselves? Here are some tried, tested and failed options that achieve precious little;

• Street demonstrations/protests: These may be useful some of the time but requires plenty in the way of funding, organisation and persistence to sustain pressure is nearly impossible.
• Social Media Activism: It may be useful to share/promote ideas but in many ways it’s a godsend for leaders as it keeps people engaged/distracted from activism/effort necessary to touch the “Chair”. In fact there is no form of activism that by itself can make changes….not even “satire”. Its only role is to let off steam, so we can then go back to our couch and return to the largely “potato” state we’re living in…..job done!
• Paid media events/talk shows that make money to popular activists but in actual fact achieve precious little – in other words activism becomes tool for business (a business unlikely to succeed in its real “business”). This is not to say that many are genuinely making an effort to inform/address concerns in political   

In other words any form of activism that does or cannot achieve the intended change is utterly useless; at least at this precarious moment where fundamental changes are being imposed that will have long term consequences across the board/across the globe.

OK, now what? Here are a couple of ideas; one general that will take years – if not generations – to implement properly and the second can be implemented relatively quickly; in my opinion. So here goes;

1. A complete overhaul of the political system that uproots all forms of corruption from its core from the so called “political” eco system and ensures there is solid protections against all forms of lobbying (internal or external), financial abuse/skyrocket salaries (just having an intricate lobbying industry in the west with its business support base is truly mind boggling – how the hell did is this deemed legal or even acceptable). But anyway, this obviously cannot happen within the currently rigged system and will require a well-articulated plan by legal, professional, academic and public service experts. In other words, it can/should be done but as phase 2 of the plan-not achievable at this stage cause a corrupt system cannot fix corruption, or am I confused?
2. Taking a currently adopted political concept and expanding it further-much further. The concept is the “online petition system”. Let me elaborate;

This system is problematic in its current form because it only allows parliamentary discussion once there is a specific threshold of signatures reached and with a rigged system such as it is it would be difficult to control discussions in parliament particularly where motivations of those taking part in the discussion and/or recommendations may be suspect. In addition there’s a limit to what may be expected/achieved from this method. So the idea would be to expand this system in the following way;

• Expand the petition system to make easier to file/promote a petition via a well secured mobile application where with a simple procedure people can view existing petitions and sign and promote them. The technology exists to achieve all this relatively quickly/securely and saves plenty of time/avoids disruptions and things getting out of control in street protests/heavy handed controls that are sometimes used as strategy to silence voices.
• A new petition system would have 3 thresholds based on numbers of those who signed it; a) lowest level threshold is similar to current system that forces a parliamentary discussion on the subject matter and coming up with a proposed resolution (this is sufficient in terms of national/regional issues like local governance and/or public service projects and such like) b) Mid level where a particular threshold level of signatures is reached that essentially forces the governments hand in taking (or prevent from taking) specific action/s on a specific national or foreign policy matter. In other words, ensures that the government is not overstepping its authority/mandate – particularly when being lobbied to do so – by literally taking charge on that matter via a direct vote also using the app. And finally c) the Highest level of signatures that essentially forces re-election when confidence has perished from a party or leader irrespective of election cycles or the political musical chairs in parliament that are in every sense of the word stagnating democracies.

There will of course be those who argue that restrictions on legal precedence or constitutional boundaries that would make such changes nearly impossible to achieve. Let me respond here my suggesting that when revolutionary changes are required and considering that laws (at any level) do not exist in a vacuum/silo but are actually there to serve/protect all citizens, these same citizens should have the power to make changes/adjustments in moments it is crystal clear that democracy is rigged and being abused at every level of governance. So in exceptional moments like these this approach should be activated until such time serious reform is implemented – which will probably take years to achieve.

The sole intention/focus for me in coming up with this proposition is ensure power returns to the people – irrespective of political affiliation (left, right or center) as its always meant to be in the democratic governance model. This will also provide an effective notice to politicians, so they understand/never forget they are essentially there to serve our interests/not highjack our democracy and can/will be held accountable swiftly by the people where appropriate-a more powerful control than any form of legal/procedural guideline.

For the above to be effective/achievable two main hurdles need to be overcome;

a. First is the tried/tested and proven approach in autocratic states which is the divide-and-rule strategy, which though quite convenient for political elites “milking” the system it is detrimental wherever it happens – to both social cohesion and national security. So we need to begin building bridges (away from the toxic political party influence) with those with varying ideologies so that we come to a base foundation of understanding to agree to collaborate on key issues; protecting/developing democracy is one such area (including supporting this “initiative” or any other) as well as to STOP demonising each other and reaching a common boundary when it comes to discussing/arguing views and highlighting the importance of this case from the perspective of national/security interests. We also need to remember that a rigged system cuts both ways in terms of effects in a democratic system (with a small ‘d’ at this stage). In other, words there is no left, right or centre beyond the boundaries of democracy and how to protect it from abuse as a fragile system that cannot defend itself and works only when certain conditions are met otherwise it becomes irrelevant/destructive from within.

b. We need to STOP importing foreign conflicts into our internal political space which results in;

• fundamentally distorting core values
• undermine national/social cohesion
• undermine our sovereignty and by extension our national security

It was quite shocking for me when I first got seriously involved in the UK Liberal Democrats party to learn there were different factions within the party with 2 quite distinct agendas (pro Israel & pro Palestine). Later on I discovered that this was the prevailing pattern within the political establishment. This is one of those key vulnerability points that needs to be eliminated altogether (not fixed).

Finally and whether or not you “buy” this approach or its achievability let me suggest that the main takeaway from this humble effort is this; we need to begin taking a more wholesome approach in fixing the mess we all face in the current governance model otherwise we and the next generations will spend our/their lives putting out fires rather than focusing on a truly “sustainable” mode of development. We shouldn’t take the political elites bait of focusing on the nitty gritty of politics and the theatrics/camouflage surrounding it (UK parliament being an extensive guide in this matter). After all what’s the point of focusing on the economics and social factors when the system is rigged from within and corruption/poor management cancels everything out. The world is changing fast and at the moment the west is playing catchup, and the worry is that this becomes the pattern for things to come. Also, hereditary politics (presidential or parliamentary) can no longer be accepted as the future of politics – we desperately a new blood stream of young politicians with new visions to help carve a new future which then becomes a form of systematic/constant evolutionary mechanism in politics but thats another story for another day.

OK, that’s all I have for you – it you’re still around – and if you think this maybe an interesting proposition do comment/share and lets see see where things for from here.

Thanks much for your perseverance and irrespective of where you go with this I wish all the best and Happy 2026 and better yet lets actively make it one.

Take care.

Fadel GALAL

Downloadable PDF Versions of Post