Democracy gives the power of government to the average person. At least this is the intent. With free elections, people choose their leaders. Presumably they base their selection upon the leader’s vision for the country. For every platform, every decision, voters want to know, “What’s in it for me?”.

Potential leaders base their platforms upon this selection criteria. Thus, they orchestrate a campaign that they think will get them elected. Because of this, campaigns resonate with promises of better lives, safer societies, happier constituents; that is, to safeguard the status quo. These promises target the voters and target one election. Thus, leaders only address immediate needs. Such a prescription leads to allocations as in the following graph (derived here);

In consequence, governments lock themselves into a perpetual series of short term advances to placate voters/individuals. Further, governments must maintain previous advances as no voter considers reducing their lifestyle. Hence, governments have a growing maintenance obligation, a diminishing ability to empower discoveries and no interest in preparing for the future. After all, there’s no benefit to solving a future problem as the problem may never arise or the problem will arise to the consternation of later governments. So, hundreds of years of democracy has resulted with individuals having perhaps the most luxurious lifestyles known but who live in a society with little thought or interest in a future past the next election and no interest past their lifetimes.

Certainly governments have the ability to redirect allocations, but only if they are so directed. How much are voters willing to forego to enable those yet born to perhaps enjoy a better life? Does democracy choke future’s potential?

Most of us capably make adequate personal decisions that see us through the day. We make choices of breakfast from the food available. We decide on who to speak with so as to enjoy the day. Perhaps surprisingly, only a few of us will consider future needs during our day to day activities.

Sadly many North Americans fall into the trap of assuming a life without change. A job becomes a life. A wage becomes an expectation. Once with a job, life becomes a matter of tick marks; a spouse, children, their education, and retirement. But retirement gets slated as a nirvana existence of pleasure, no demands and no productivity. No decisions, no stress, no choice.

When people enlarge their focus to include more than their nuclear family, their vision shrinks, if anything. City politicians must build roads to assuage businesses’ growth and their need for more workers. States look to remedy the negative effects of industry. Countries keep imports and exports flowing and look for more resources to sell. All to keep apace with the ‘norm’.

Nationals, as much as individuals, are guilty of ignoring the future in the expectation that continuity reigns supreme. Democracy, a guiding light for citizens, fails as it reduces to a system that rewards those who promise the most to the individual. Tax rebates, augmented health care, increased security wins at the ballot box. A destination, a future never even gets discussed.

Given the continual need for re-election, there’s no incentive, hence no desire, to consider a future beyond the next election. A five year vision whether for direct democracy or the central leadership of the Chinese seems to be as far as we can see.

Maybe this is why we see so few programs like the 10 years of the Apollo space program or the 20 years of the 3 Gorges Dam power supply program. What mechanism or incentive would ever see a human outreach to space that may take hundreds of years and international effort? Sadly, no one will ever vote for it as, obviously, there’s nothing in it for us. We will never see the benefit no matter how rewarding it may be for our children.

What other decisions do we shy from in the hope that inertia is absolute?