Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
In political relations within the society, things matter because people believe they matter. Feudalism was a system based on honour, and while this ideal was not always respected, promises and oaths were generally upheld because breaking them had massive negative consequences. Honour mattered - it was literally the social currency that feudalism was based on. Dishonourable behavior of the type seen from Westerosi nobles was exceedingly rare for the exact reason Martin has us believe Westerosi system is not functional - it was almost always self-defeating. In Middle Ages, lords and nobles did indeed believe themselves to be above the common man - and they were, thanks to their education, training and experience. But with this status and privileges also came duties, to their superiors and inferiors alike. And everybody watched everybody else for any breach of code of honour - a person who was not honourable could not be trusted, and would thus be abandoned and left to rot. King who did not respect his promises did not remain a king for long.
Nor was this system limited to lords and nobility. It was, in fact, based around corporations - groups of people who acted as a single entity. Each city was a political entity of its own, and within a city there were political entities - guilds and similar, who acted in a manner not unlike today's unions. Church too was important - but it was also fragmented, with different bishops having different policies and opinions on everything except religious dogma (and oftentimes even on that). As a result of this situation, the principles described above applied across the society as a whole. There was no tyranny in a feudal monarchy, simply because tyranny was impossible. Oppression did exist, especially in regard to serfs - but serfs were much better off than slaves in every way, and while slavery existed, it was rare when compared to situation in more centralized states.
But representative democracy is a system that is not based on honour. It is a system based on promises, which have to be repeated every four to five years. And the side which makes more convincing promises wins the elections and is free to steal and rob for the next mandate. And then onto new campaign of lies. As a consequence, the entire system of elections is antithetical to honour. At the same time, government is (pretending to be) given the mandate of the people. Whereas in the feudal or a federal system (e.g. Roman Republic) the periphery had very good reasons to resist and limit the authority of the center, in a democratic system the periphery is hoping to benefit from the center. Every regional, ideological, interest or other group is aiming to take control of the central government and then utilize its authority to impose authoritharianism. Instead of a danger, large government has become an opportunity.
And large government is evil. Humans are inherently flawed and thus cannot be relied on to make good decisions. This requires measures to limit the negative impact of any single decision, which means political decentralization and subsidiarity. Need is that much greater because, while even good people cannot be relied on to make good decisions, any concentration of power automatically draws in bad people. And in a democracy, for reasons already discussed above, there is little incentive to limit the powers of the government, making it in a massive asshole ascquisition device. This then leads to a downward spiral, where democratic nature of government leads to its growth, growth of the government leads to greater power, and its greater power leads to further growth. And along the way, any such government sucks in assholes like nobody's business. Ultimate outcome is obvious: regardless of its form (a democracy, a republic or a monarchy), centralized government always becomes a tyranny.
Nor was this system limited to lords and nobility. It was, in fact, based around corporations - groups of people who acted as a single entity. Each city was a political entity of its own, and within a city there were political entities - guilds and similar, who acted in a manner not unlike today's unions. Church too was important - but it was also fragmented, with different bishops having different policies and opinions on everything except religious dogma (and oftentimes even on that). As a result of this situation, the principles described above applied across the society as a whole. There was no tyranny in a feudal monarchy, simply because tyranny was impossible. Oppression did exist, especially in regard to serfs - but serfs were much better off than slaves in every way, and while slavery existed, it was rare when compared to situation in more centralized states.
But representative democracy is a system that is not based on honour. It is a system based on promises, which have to be repeated every four to five years. And the side which makes more convincing promises wins the elections and is free to steal and rob for the next mandate. And then onto new campaign of lies. As a consequence, the entire system of elections is antithetical to honour. At the same time, government is (pretending to be) given the mandate of the people. Whereas in the feudal or a federal system (e.g. Roman Republic) the periphery had very good reasons to resist and limit the authority of the center, in a democratic system the periphery is hoping to benefit from the center. Every regional, ideological, interest or other group is aiming to take control of the central government and then utilize its authority to impose authoritharianism. Instead of a danger, large government has become an opportunity.
And large government is evil. Humans are inherently flawed and thus cannot be relied on to make good decisions. This requires measures to limit the negative impact of any single decision, which means political decentralization and subsidiarity. Need is that much greater because, while even good people cannot be relied on to make good decisions, any concentration of power automatically draws in bad people. And in a democracy, for reasons already discussed above, there is little incentive to limit the powers of the government, making it in a massive asshole ascquisition device. This then leads to a downward spiral, where democratic nature of government leads to its growth, growth of the government leads to greater power, and its greater power leads to further growth. And along the way, any such government sucks in assholes like nobody's business. Ultimate outcome is obvious: regardless of its form (a democracy, a republic or a monarchy), centralized government always becomes a tyranny.