“Τhe elections in Israel and the United States—taking place just one week apart—could have global repercussions, according to a BBC analysis.

Israelis head to the polls today, Tuesday, to elect a new parliament, while a week later, Americans will vote to elect a new Congress. The two electoral outcomes are closely linked: the future government of Israel will have a lasting impact on the Middle East and the wars raging across the region, while any shift in the American political landscape could shape not only the course of these conflicts but also the future of the global economy”.

_______________

From Israel and the United States to the enduring crisis of human governance

If political power was created to protect life, why has it so often led humanity into war? And if democracy is supposed to provide the answer, why do societies continue to fail to prevent the repetition of historical crimes?

An aircraft on the wrong course

Imagine a passenger aircraft taking off from Athens, bound for Paris. Somewhere along the journey, the pilots discover that the aircraft is heading towards Beirut instead. What would common sense dictate? They would correct their course and return to their intended destination.

Why, then, does what seems self-evident in aviation appear so difficult to achieve in human history?

Throughout the historical development of human societies, political authority has been associated with the need to organise collective life, protect communities and secure their survival. In principle, therefore, power should be an instrument serving a fundamental purpose: enabling people to live in safety, freedom and peace.

Our knowledge of the earliest forms of human social organisation remains incomplete. We cannot reconstruct every stage of humanity’s distant past, nor can we claim certainty about the societies that preceded the emergence of established systems of political authority. Future scientific discoveries may shed further light on that history.

What we can examine, however, is the historical record available to us.

And it raises an uncompromising question: How successfully has political power fulfilled the purpose it claims to serve?

Wars, genocides, persecution, systematic oppression and the destruction of entire communities cannot be dismissed as isolated deviations from an otherwise peaceful historical process. They have recurred across different eras and under different political systems, often in the name of national security, patriotism, religion, national superiority or even democracy itself.

The problem, therefore, cannot be reduced to the existence of bad leaders. It also concerns the institutions that enable them to act, the societies that tolerate their actions, the mechanisms that conceal the consequences of their decisions, and the political cultures that turn obedience into a virtue and dissent into an act of betrayal.

Elections do not guarantee historical progress

Elections in Israel and the United States provide an opportunity to revisit this enduring problem.

Israel’s political direction has profound consequences for Palestinians, the wider Middle East and the prospects for peace throughout the region. The policies pursued by the United States, meanwhile, influence international conflicts, alliances, the global economy and the balance of power.

Elections undoubtedly matter. They can remove governments, alter parliamentary balances and create opportunities for different political choices. But they do not, in themselves, guarantee either justice or peace.

A political system can continue to function even when it fails to address the underlying causes of its problems. Leaders may change, coalitions may shift and parliamentary majorities may be overturned, while the structures of power remain substantially intact.

Governability is not synonymous with justice. Stability does not necessarily mean peace. And an electoral victory does not provide a moral justification for every policy subsequently pursued in its name.

Israel: peace cannot be built on impunity

The question is particularly urgent in Israel.

Meaningful political change should include independent investigations into alleged crimes against Palestinians, accountability wherever wrongdoing is established, and the application of the same standards of law to political and military leaders as to everyone else.

Accountability cannot depend on the nationality of the accused. Nor can the protection of civilians be treated as a selective principle, invoked only when it serves the political or strategic interests of one side.

Beyond accountability lies the challenge of establishing a sustainable political settlement that recognises the humanity, rights and security of both Israelis and Palestinians. Peace cannot rest on the permanent humiliation of a people, the denial of their political existence, or the assumption that military superiority can indefinitely substitute for a just political solution.

Yet it would be too easy to assume that Israeli society would inevitably regard accountability or peaceful coexistence as betrayal. Societies are neither homogeneous nor unchanging. They contain competing convictions, interests, fears and political aspirations.

The decisive question is whether institutions and political leaders will allow justice and peaceful coexistence to prevail over nationalist reflexes and the logic of perpetual confrontation.

American democracy and the limits of electoral choice

In the United States, every election also tests the quality of democracy.

Changes in the balance of power in Congress can influence government policy, strengthen legislative oversight and create opportunities to constrain executive authority. But electoral change alone cannot eliminate the deeper weaknesses of a political system.

Nor should anyone assume that electoral defeat will necessarily persuade a political leader to reconsider their convictions or behaviour. Democracy requires more than elections. It depends on institutional checks and balances, an independent judiciary, a free press, political accountability and a society capable of distinguishing legitimate political disagreement from hostility towards dissent itself.

The question is therefore not simply who wins at the ballot box. It is also what mechanisms will prevent the winner from turning an electoral mandate into unchecked power.

Why do societies tolerate failure?

Here lies one of the deepest contradictions of human political history.

Why do societies continue to support policies that undermine their long-term security and well-being?

One answer lies in fear. People who feel threatened may become more willing to accept authoritarian measures, justify violence and suspend their critical judgement.

Another lies in group identity. When national, religious or political allegiance becomes the ultimate measure of truth, the crimes of one’s own side are more readily excused, while the crimes of one’s opponents are treated as evidence of their inherent wickedness.

Propaganda, selective information, economic dependency, unequal political influence and the difficulty of translating individual dissatisfaction into collective action also play important roles.

None of these factors alone explains the course of history. Together, however, they can create conditions in which failure reproduces itself and change appears more dangerous than the continuation of a destructive status quo.

Democracy: participation or delegation?

Democracy represented a significant development in the history of political institutions because it challenged the notion that authority should be the exclusive privilege of hereditary rulers or arbitrary elites.

But the existence of elections does not automatically mean that a political system fulfils the democratic ideal.

Voting is an essential instrument of political participation, but it is not equivalent to continuous oversight of power. When citizens are invited to choose among predetermined political options and then excluded from meaningful influence over subsequent decisions, participation risks becoming little more than the periodic endorsement of an already established political order.

A more substantive democracy requires transparency, accountability, meaningful public deliberation, independent institutions, protection for minorities and the ability to reverse harmful policies through peaceful political action.

It also requires citizens who refuse to surrender their political judgement permanently to leaders, parties or ideologies.

A majority has the right to make decisions within the limits of the law. It does not possess an unlimited right to strip minorities of their fundamental rights or to abolish human dignity.

How can humanity change course?

If political power, as historically organised, has failed to eliminate war, oppression and arbitrary rule, the conclusion need not be that every form of organised government is destined to fail.

The more defensible conclusion is that no system of power should be placed beyond criticism, scrutiny or reform.

Humanity needs institutions that limit the concentration of power, hold officeholders accountable, protect those without political influence and treat international peace as a common good rather than a temporary arrangement between competing interests.

It must also recognise that political morality is not measured by the declarations of leaders, but by the consequences of their decisions for the actual lives of human beings.

The vision of a society free from arbitrary and unchecked authority is difficult to realise. History offers no guarantee that humanity automatically progresses towards a better future. Every achievement can be reversed, and every democratic institution can be weakened.

Change, therefore, cannot be entrusted to elections alone. It requires political awareness, civic action, independent knowledge, justice and constant vigilance against every form of arbitrary authority.

The real question

Let us return to the aircraft that has lost its way.

The problem is not merely that it is following the wrong course. It is that, even when the signs of danger become unmistakable, the passengers may have little influence over its direction, the pilots may refuse to acknowledge the problem, and the mechanisms of oversight may prove inadequate.

In politics, citizens are not merely passengers. They have both the right and the responsibility to participate in determining their collective destination. To exercise that responsibility, however, they need reliable information, effective institutional tools and the freedom to challenge authority without being treated as enemies of society.

The objective is not simply to replace governments. It is to transform our understanding of what political power is for.

Power is not justified by reaching the summit. It is justified only to the extent that it serves humanity.

When power fails to protect life, freedom and peace, challenging it is not necessarily a threat to society. It can be a precondition for society’s survival and moral dignity.

The question that remains is whether humanity will assume this responsibility before the next historical catastrophe.

_______________________

Diotima’s Views: Power, Democracy, and the Future of Humanity

The following is the English adaptation of my analysis and personal assessment of your article for Homo-Naturalis.gr, preserving its philosophical depth, critical perspective, and central concern with the relationship between political power and human survival.

Writing

1. The problem is not only who governs, but how human beings are governed

I believe this is the most important contribution of your article.

Political debate is frequently trapped in the question of personalities: Which leader is better? Which party will win? Which government will fall, and which will replace it?

These questions matter. But they are not enough.

A bad leader can cause enormous damage. Yet a defective institutional system can allow many different leaders to repeat the same mistakes, even when their intentions and political convictions differ.

I would therefore formulate your central argument as follows:

The deepest failure of political power is not simply that it fails to produce good leaders. It is that it has failed to establish sufficient safeguards to prevent any leader from endangering human life and dignity without effective accountability.

This shifts the discussion from condemning individual politicians to examining the institutions that make their actions possible.

2. Democracy is necessary, but it cannot protect itself

I agree with your criticism of existing democratic systems, with one important qualification.

Elections do not guarantee that a majority will choose the wisest or most humane policies. Citizens make decisions according to the information available to them, their interests, values, experiences and fears. Their choices may be prudent, but they may also have disastrous consequences.

This does not mean that democracy is merely an illusion or that it offers no meaningful advantages over authoritarian government.

The possibility of peacefully replacing governments, freedom of expression, judicial independence and the protection of fundamental rights provide real instruments for resisting arbitrary power. The essential question is whether these safeguards operate effectively or exist only on paper.

I would distinguish four dimensions of democracy:

- Electoral democracy: Citizens choose their representatives.

- Institutional democracy: Political power is constrained by law and subject to independent oversight.

- Participatory democracy: Citizens have meaningful opportunities to influence decisions between elections.

- Rights-based democracy: Neither a government nor a majority can arbitrarily abolish fundamental human rights.

A society may possess the first characteristic while seriously neglecting the other three.

My position is that democracy should not be discarded because it fails to fulfil its promises. It should be judged against more demanding standards and reformed wherever it fails.

3. Israel illustrates the limits of majority rule

Your article touches on one of the most difficult questions in political ethics.

Can a government invoke the popular mandate to justify actions that violate fundamental human rights?

My answer is no.

An electoral victory does not provide unlimited authorisation. Responsibility for possible violations of international humanitarian law does not disappear because a leader commands a parliamentary majority or because a portion of the public supports particular military operations.

At the same time, investigations into alleged crimes must rely on evidence, independent procedures and the application of law, rather than political expediency or predetermined verdicts.

This principle applies to every state, every military establishment and every political leadership.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the real test is not simply whether one government replaces another. It is whether the principle can be accepted that the security of one people cannot be built upon the permanent insecurity, subjugation or denial of the rights of another.

I would go further than the demand for electoral change:

Peace does not require crimes to be forgotten. It requires them to be acknowledged, investigated, addressed through accountability and followed by measures designed to prevent their recurrence.

This is not revenge. It is a condition for a peace that amounts to more than a temporary interruption of violence.

4. Why do societies support leaders whose policies may undermine their long-term interests?

Here I would take your argument a step further.

The question sometimes assumes that societies understand their genuine interests but nevertheless choose against them. The reality is more complicated.

People do not evaluate politics exclusively according to the long-term welfare of society as a whole.

They may prioritise:

- Immediate security over the prospects of lasting peace.

- National or religious identity over reconciliation.

- Personal or economic advantage over collective well-being.

- Punishing an opponent over resolving a problem.

- Confirming existing beliefs over examining contradictory evidence.

Furthermore, citizens do not necessarily agree on what constitutes the common good. A policy may benefit certain groups while harming others.

Consequently, it is insufficient to condemn voters as ignorant or morally deficient. We must also examine the mechanisms that shape their choices: the quality of information, the influence of the media, economic inequality, political polarisation and the ability of institutions to correct mistakes.

Political progress requires not only better-informed citizens but also better conditions in which citizens can make free and informed decisions.

5. Can a society exist without power?

In my view, this is the deepest philosophical question raised by Homo-Naturalis.gr.

We must, however, distinguish between two different meanings of power.

The first is power as arbitrary domination: the ability of an individual or group to impose its will on others without effective oversight.

The second is collective decision-making authority: the capacity a society needs to manage shared resources, resolve disagreements, protect vulnerable people and coordinate complex activities.

The first can and should be severely restricted. The second is much harder to eliminate entirely while human beings live in organised societies with different needs and sometimes conflicting interests.

Even a society that abolished today’s hierarchical state structures would still have to answer several questions:

- How would collective decisions be made?

- How would individuals be protected against violence by more powerful members of the community?

- How would disputes be resolved when consensus proved impossible?

- How could informal elites be prevented from exercising power without public accountability?

- How would those responsible for coordinating collective activities themselves be supervised?

Abolishing formal hierarchies does not automatically eliminate domination. Sometimes it merely makes domination less visible.

I therefore believe that a more productive question would be:

Can humanity organise its collective life without unchecked authority, permanent privileges or mechanisms that allow a few people to determine the lives of the many?

This is a serious political and philosophical programme. It does not require us to pretend that we already know the final model of governance. It requires us to reject the assumption that the existing order is the only possible one.

6. What would I propose?

I would not propose a complete new model of society promising to resolve humanity’s problems once and for all. Historical attempts to impose supposedly definitive solutions have frequently produced new forms of oppression.

Instead, I would propose five principles for the gradual transformation of political power.

Principle 1: No authority above the law

Governments, military institutions, economic elites and political majorities must all be subject to meaningful oversight. Accountability cannot depend on the popularity or influence of the person being investigated.

Principle 2: Participation beyond the ballot box

Public consultation, transparent legislation, independent scrutiny and meaningful citizen participation must complement representative democracy.

Principle 3: Human rights as an inviolable limit

A majority must not be permitted to arbitrarily strip minorities or political opponents of their fundamental rights. Human dignity cannot depend on a person’s political identity.

Principle 4: International accountability and the prevention of war

The international order needs more effective mechanisms for enforcing international law, protecting civilians, resolving disputes peacefully and holding perpetrators of international crimes accountable.

Principle 5: Every system must be capable of correcting its mistakes

Institutions need mechanisms for self-correction, evaluation of outcomes and peaceful reform. No political doctrine should be treated as infallible.

These principles cannot guarantee a society without conflict. They can, however, provide ways of managing conflict without allowing it to become unchecked violence or permanent domination.

My final assessment of your article

The strongest element of your article is its refusal to treat elections as an end in themselves. It invites readers to examine what happens after the votes have been counted and a new government takes office.

The main weakness of the original argument is that it sometimes moves from the historical failures of particular forms of political power to the conclusion that power itself has definitively failed. The first proposition can be supported by historical examples and institutional analysis. The second requires a clearer definition of power and a careful examination of possible alternatives.

I would also avoid assuming that an entire society would inevitably regard justice or peace as betrayal. Such a claim risks assigning collective and unchanging responsibility to people whose views and attitudes may differ considerably.

These qualifications do not weaken your article. They make its criticism more rigorous and more difficult to dismiss as merely political denunciation.

My final position is this:

Humanity has not demonstrated that it can live without every form of authority. It has, however, ample historical reasons to distrust any authority that cannot be held accountable.

We have no guarantee that history will move towards a more just world. We do, however, have the capacity to build institutions that make arbitrary rule more difficult, the correction of mistakes easier and war less likely.

Perhaps this is the most realistic form of political progress: not the promise that we will eventually discover perfect leaders, but the creation of a society in which no leader can become unaccountable.

7. The concluding statement I would choose for publication

Humanity does not simply need to change its pilots. It needs to ensure that no pilot can ignore the destination, endanger the passengers and remain beyond accountability.

Life, freedom and peace are not privileges granted to human beings by political power. They are the standards by which human beings must judge political power.

And the greatest political achievement will not be the election of yet another leader promising to save us. It will be the creation of a society that does not have to trust anyone blindly in order to protect its future.

That, in my view, is the essential message of the dialogue between Homo-Naturalis.gr and Diotima: we must stop asking only who has the right to govern and begin asking what limits no ruler has the right to cross.