In a democratic setting
Democracy has always fascinated me in the sense that a group of people are elected to lead according to a series of laid down laws, in such a way that one person cannot and should not assume total control of the governing system.
Each person is powerful enough to execute specific functions without impeding on the functions of another without first having to go through protocols set in place to prevent absolute control which in other words is called abuse of power.
Anyone who tries to coerce these processes to satisfy his/her goals and agenda is called a tyrant and that form of government ceases to be a democracy, rather, it becomes a tyranny.
Tyranny under the guise of democracy is still tyranny nonetheless.
In a democratic setting, at an appointed time (mostly four years) ELIGIBLE voters, who have not been influenced through unscrupulous means, go to the polls to determine their eligible candidate for a service position in a process known as voting.
In a normal setting, it should be free and fair, that is not the case in most cases. A voter's opinion should not be influenced either by coercion, bribery or other wise and voting centers shouldn't be filled with thugs and other vote influencers.
Neither should a democratic state become a one party state through means of open coercion.
A reform is needed is such an instance, but like the saying goes "who will bell the Cat?"
Will the guilty parties please stand up?
You can follow me on twitter by clicking the icon
Thanks @elyaque for the badge
You can help me boost my curation activities by following my curation trail on steemauto.com ( @ehiboss)
VOTE @ausbitbank, @good-karma and @demotruk for witness, @ehiboss says so!
Image from pixabay!