Published by Dorin, originally written 2014, revised 2025

Putting aside the idea of “democracy” — which is still far from reality — what we often face today isn’t even a true “representative system.” And apparently, nobody really wants one.

It’s easier to ask: “Who do I vote for?” and then curse your “elected dictators” once you realize you’ve just swapped one problem for another.

If people truly wanted a representative system, they would fight for it from the ground up — starting with the right to form political associations, fair election laws, and the freedom to hold public gatherings.

Instead, many let themselves be distracted by political “characters” thrown at them to waste their time and obscure the real issues that should be debated.

As long as the conditions to have real choices don’t exist, you’re only legitimizing what those “in power” provide. We can’t even talk about a real representative system — let alone democracy.

It’s absurd to constantly wonder “Who do I vote for?” without knowing how and under what conditions these candidates got on the ballot.

Barriers are deliberately placed to keep only the “desired” players in the race. Election laws are tailored to exclude most others — much like state contracts that are rigged to favor certain companies.

What’s more concerning is that most parties and organizations simply accept this rigged game, instead of demanding fair rules from the start.

If all they want is to jump the fence and join the protected inner circle, they are nothing but opportunists and careerists.

The point isn’t to infiltrate the vicious circle by appealing to the people, but to call on the people to break that vicious circle altogether.

Losing candidates demand recounts and point out irregularities, but they rarely challenge the initial hurdles: the signature collection, the arbitrary conditions that weed out most alternatives. Why? Because they’ve somehow managed to meet those conditions themselves.

Sure, irregularities happen — plenty of them — but they occur among entities already selected by the system, which never question the system itself.

What if we started from the very beginning? What if we checked all those signatures and how candidates got qualified in the first place?

It’s clear that most don’t really care about democracy. They only want a seat at the banquet.

It would be refreshing if, before elections, these players pushed just as hard for fair participation rules as they do for fair results.

Because you can’t have fair results without fair participation — right from the start.

It makes no sense that a party, validated by a special court, forced by law to participate in elections to avoid being dissolved, with candidates vetted by the electoral authority, still has to collect “support signatures” for each candidate or list.

And it’s even more illogical that only parties can participate, when the constitution allows independent candidates as well. Any group of citizens should be able to participate equally.

Parties should not focus solely on winning elections, but rather on promoting ideas and engaging citizens in decision-making.