“Ideology Bias versus Economic and Scientific Pragmatism, Individuals and societies are made of Economic choices“

In recent years, democracy has been facing significant challenges as political systems have become increasingly polarized and ideologically driven. What began as a system designed to represent the people and ensure fairness has, in many cases, shifted into a system dominated by concentrated power and influence, where elite interests often override those of the majority. This transformation is largely due to the rise of extreme politicization, ideologization, and lobbying in society, which has led to the degradation of democratic principles. Instead of serving as a platform for collective decision-making and public accountability, democracy in many places has morphed into forms of oligarchy or kleptocracy, where economic conglomerates work in concert with legislators to prioritize profit over the welfare of society. Understanding how and why this shift has occurred is essential if democratic societies are to protect themselves from further deterioration, while being fairly solid, resilient and unbiased to implement the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability.

Oligarchy and Kleptocracy in Democratic Systems

Political lobbyism, intended as a mechanism for citizens to have a voice in government, has instead provided a pathway for large corporations and special interest groups to exert disproportionate influence. Through extensive funding of political campaigns, contributions to thinktanks, and direct lobbying efforts, these entities are able to sway legislation in their favour. As a result, rather than representing the interests of the people, many politicians find themselves beholden to the very industries that finance their campaigns. This convergence of economic and political power transforms democracy into an oligarchic system where only the wealthy and well-connected have a seat at the table. The increasing influence of lobbying and special interests has led to policies that favour short-term profit and corporate growth over long-term societal well-being. Environmental regulations, labour rights, and social welfare programs often become entangled in this struggle, as companies lobby to limit regulations that would affect their profits, even when these policies are crucial for the general population. This shift from a government that serves the people to one that serves the economic elite resembles a kleptocratic model: power is wielded not in service to the people, but rather for the benefit of a select few who exploit state resources to further their private wealth.

The Consequences of Extreme Politicization and Ideologization

The current political climate is characterized by extreme ideologization, with parties often entrenched in rigid ideological positions that leave little room for compromise or pragmatic solutions. In many cases, these ideologies are supported and funded by powerful interest groups that seek to advance policies favourable to their economic or political agendas. This creates a vicious loophole where biased ideological purity becomes prioritized over effective governance. The resulting policies often lack accountability and disregard the actual needs of the people, leading to widespread societal disillusionment with democracy itself. Furthermore, extreme ideologization distracts from the real issues that society faces. Rather than addressing economic inequalities, environmental degradation, or social welfare, governments become embroiled in ideological battles that serve to divide the public. This divisive atmosphere allows powerful lobbies to operate behind the scenes, shaping policies without public scrutiny. Ideological inflexibility also discourages meaningful reforms, as leaders are unwilling to acknowledge flaws within their own systems, resulting in stagnation and inefficiency.

Politicians and demagogues create social and economic conflicts in order to justify their existence

Politicians often leverage ideology to create and amplify polarization, fostering social divisions that justify their own existence as “solvers” of the very problems they exacerbate. By promoting ideological narratives, politicians establish an “us versus them” mentality, dividing society along lines of party, belief, and social identity. This deliberate polarization serves to distract the public from concrete issues—such as economic instability, public service failures, and wealth inequality—that politicians and parties are often unwilling or unable to address meaningfully. Social and economic problems, which are frequently outcomes of ineffective or self-serving policies, are then recast by politicians as ideological conflicts, fueling resentment and, in many cases, leading to heightened social tensions, crime, and other societal problems. These divisions are then strategically amplified by the mass media, which profits from the sensationalism of political conflict and keeps the public engaged, yet often misinformed. Rather than critically analyzing and addressing the root causes of societal issues, complicit media channels reinforce partisan narratives and inflame emotions, framing ideological battles in a way that captures public attention and maintains the status quo. This creates a vicious cycle, where the public, influenced by ideologically driven reporting, becomes divided into factions that align with demagogues who promise solutions but in reality, perpetuate the very issues they claim to address. The result is a “herd mentality,” where citizens are shepherded into voting for leaders who capitalize on divisive rhetoric and present themselves as the only hope for resolving the very conflicts they have fueled. Consequently, these demagogues maintain their influence by perpetuating a doomloophole of social, economic, and ideological strife, leaving real issues unresolved. This toxic dynamic stifles genuine progress and hinders society’s ability to confront its most pressing challenges, ultimately sustaining an environment where politicians and the media thrive, but the public suffers.

The Need for Clear Separation between State Institutions and Government

Max Weber, a prominent sociologist and political theorist, emphasized the importance of a clear separation between the state as an institution and those who govern it. According to Weber, the state’s role should be to serve the public interest, acting as a neutral institution that provides universal services such as healthcare, education, transportation, and environmental protection. It should allocate resources in a cost-effective manner and address negative externalities arising from economic activities without becoming entangled in ideological conflicts or corruption. Unfortunately, this foundational stone of a neutral State and Institutions has become increasingly obscured by the clouds. Rather than regulating markets lightly and objectively to protect public welfare, many politicians find themselves in positions where they must serve the interests of those who fund their campaigns or risk losing financial and political support. This not only undermines the public trust in democratic institutions but also damages economic prosperity in the long run, as unchecked exploitation leads to environmental degradation, worker exploitation, and social unrest. To restore democracy to its foundational principles, it is essential to depoliticize and re-centre government functions around serving the public rather than private interests. Those in government should focus on regulating economic activities responsibly to ensure that industries operate in a manner that minimizes harm and maximizes societal benefit. This means implementing checks on lobbyist influence, enforcing transparency, and restoring the state’s role as a provider of universal services without ideological or private influence.

Politicians and political lobbyism organizations are redundant non-efficient costly figures

In a truly effective and impartial democracy, the concept of traditional political parties and career politicians is increasingly becoming redundant. Political parties often serve to promote ideological agendas rather than working objectively in the best interests of society, and this structure ultimately diverts the focus of governance from social and economic pragmatism to political and ideological conflicts. Instead, government functions would be better served by treating governance as a profession—one where technically skilled experts are employed to manage specific departments based on their knowledge and expertise. For example, those overseeing healthcare budgets should ideally be professionals with medical or public health degrees, complemented by economic training, so they can make balanced decisions that take into account both medical needs and fiscal constraints. Similarly, departments handling welfare programs would benefit from the insights of sociologists and economists who understand the nuanced relationship between economic conditions and social welfare. This approach removes the influence of ideology and factional interests, and it reframes government work as a form of specialized service delivery. Rather than aligning with political factions, these technically qualified personnel would focus on balancing resources with tax revenues in a manner that maximizes public benefit. Such a system would ensure that government interactions with the economy are limited to necessary regulation and intervention to correct negative externalities. For instance, environmental departments could manage industry standards for pollution, not from an ideological standpoint but from one grounded in scientific and economic analysis. A governance model led by technically proficient, nonpartisan public servants, accountable for delivering essential services like education, healthcare, defence, energy, and transportation, would streamline government functions, increase cost-effectiveness, and reduce the influence of political corruption and ideology. This would transform governance into a truly public-focused service, leaving behind the traditional model of partisan politics and ushering in an era of efficient, equitable, and accountable administration.

Ideology Bias versus Economic and Scientific Pragmatism, Individuals and societies are made of Economic choices

Political ideologies, by their very nature, are often detrimental to society because they impose a narrow, biased lens that distorts our perception of how the world, nature, society, the economy, and technology actually function. Ideologies prioritize rigid beliefs and doctrines over empirical evidence and pragmatic solutions, which can lead to policies that are misaligned with the real needs of society and disconnected from scientific understanding. Rather than responding to tangible realities, ideologies promote a particular worldview that often excludes alternative perspectives and solutions, ultimately hindering progress. In reality, societies are not driven primarily by political choices but by economic choices, as is evident even in the etymology of the term. The Greek word oikos, meaning “household” or “family,” is the root of oikonomia—the origin of the word “economy”—which translates to the management of household finances. The Greeks believed that the virtues required to lead the polis (city-state) were derived from the virtues of managing one’s household finances well. This perspective reveals a fundamental truth: societies are built on economic choices, where individuals, families, and communities make decisions based on resource allocation, sustenance, and stability. This foundational concept demonstrates that societies operate more effectively when governed by principles of practical management and stewardship rather than by rigid political ideologies. Economic and social policies should therefore focus on sustainable management of resources and equitable distribution, drawing on fields like economics, environmental science, and sociology. If decision-making were based on knowledge, evidence, and expertise rather than ideology, governance would more accurately reflect society’s real needs. By eliminating political ideology from the structure of governance and focusing on pragmatic, science-based approaches to management, society could avoid the divisive, inefficient, and often harmful effects of ideologically driven policies, generating a more adaptable, unified, and prosperous economy and society.

The Future Toward a Fair and Accountable Democracy

Inspiring and making democracy effective as demos kratos, people’s power, requires a concerted effort to eliminate the undue influence of lobbying and political ideology on public policy. The State must be positioned as a neutral Institution that is insulated from the personal ambitions and private interests of those in power. By focusing on providing essential services, protecting the environment, and managing resources responsibly, a government can better meet the needs of its citizens and generate a more equitable and prosperous society. Separating economic power from political influence is crucial for achieving a fair democracy. Laws limiting and prohibiting lobbying practices need to be strengthened, and campaign finance reform must be prioritized to ensure that public representatives are accountable to the people rather than to private interests. As Max Weber advocated, the State should serve as an impartial entity focused on public welfare, with those in government working solely to uphold the common good. Only by re-establishing these boundaries can democratic systems remain resilient against the threat of oligarchy and kleptocracy, ensuring that they serve all citizens rather than a privileged few.