Real Velona

The recent news coming out of the US, with the new administration doing a complete backflip on some of the scandals they were poised to expose, has left me deeply uncomfortable. It’s yet another example of what feels like an increasingly pervasive pattern of cover-ups that span the globe and touch virtually every domain of public life.

My sense is that this phenomenon has been intensifying over the last two decades. I can’t tell if this is simply me getting older and more aware of how things have always worked, or whether we’re genuinely witnessing a deterioration in transparency and accountability. But it certainly feels like the latter.

I find myself doubting so many recent scandals and the way they’ve been handled—the systematic cover-ups by governments, the destruction of evidence, the active suppression of public officials who dare to speak out. What strikes me most is how many people seem to accept the common narratives that get pushed through identical talking points by mainstream media and politicians. This synchronisation now stretches across major Western countries, particularly the Five Eyes nations, but also throughout the broader Western alliance.

We seem to be operating in lockstep. The policies are nearly identical across borders, the narratives we’re fed are the same. When people notice these patterns, do their research, and find that things don’t add up, they voice their concerns and begin exploring alternative explanations. What I’ve observed, both in others and occasionally in myself, is that this curiosity is met with ridicule.

So people begin to self-censor. They learn to identify the areas where their beliefs don’t align with established narratives and simply stay quiet.

There’s another cohort of people who can sense that something is off but don’t want to stir the pot or get too caught up in issues that don’t directly affect their daily lives. There’s a feeling that any action they might take would be futile anyway, given their perceived lack of influence to change anything meaningful.

This dynamic has crystallized into well-established common narratives for most major issues, where anyone exploring alternative perspectives gets ostracized and ridiculed. It’s become almost impossible to have substantive discussions about complex topics because very few people are actually well-researched. Even well-meaning individuals default to “sorry, I just don’t know enough about that topic to explore my viewpoint with you in detail.”

We find ourselves in a peculiar situation where people hold opinions that are poorly researched but very strongly held. This is an unhealthy place for any society to be.

Lessons from Greece

My parents are of Greek background, and during my many visits to Greece, I’m always struck by how informed the general public is and how much robust public discourse exists across many areas of the political sphere. I believe this stems from their relatively recent experience under dictatorship, which only ended in the 1970s.

Greece escaped that dictatorship through a pivotal student uprising that remains seared in the nation’s collective memory. The Athens Polytechnic uprising occurred in November 1973 as a massive student demonstration of popular rejection of the Greek military junta of 1967–1974. The students’ strike at Athens Polytechnic on November 14, 1973, escalated to an open revolt against the US-backed military junta. Around 40 students were killed by the security forces, but their sacrifice wasn’t in vain—the regime collapsed in 1974, paving the way for the restoration of democracy in the country.

This brutal suppression of peaceful protesters created a lasting impact on Greek political consciousness. Even today, more than 25,000 people march peacefully through central Athens each year to mark the anniversary of the uprising, demonstrating how deeply this event shaped Greek attitudes towards government accountability. This experience may have instilled in modern Greeks a deeper appreciation for the importance of staying engaged with how their government operates. But Greece also has a long democratic tradition dating back to antiquity, which perhaps makes them more naturally suspicious of concentrated power.

This makes me wonder: where do we go from here?

The Fundamental Question

Do we believe our public officials are doing the right thing by their constituents? I guess the real question is: do they serve us, or do they rule us?

The recent election in the US felt like something of a counter-reaction against this phenomenon, and I was hoping it would mark the beginning of a new counter-movement. However, I’m starting to believe that our current form of democracy isn’t serving us anymore.

The ancient Greeks themselves evolved away from pure democracy to a more sophisticated system that was more resilient to corruption. While the term “demarchy” was coined by modern political scientist John Burnheim, the concept itself has ancient roots. In the Athenian democracy, most officials were chosen by lot (sortition) rather than election. The Council of Five Hundred (Boule), which served as a kind of executive committee of the assembly, was chosen by lot among citizens of 30 years and over who volunteered for the position. Even the jury system relied on random selection—more than 500 jurors were chosen by lot from a pool of male citizens older than 30.

This system had several advantages. First, it was remarkably difficult to bribe or influence, since no one knew who would be chosen. Second, it ensured that ordinary citizens, not just the wealthy or well-connected, could participate in governance. Third, it created a more representative cross-section of society in government. As political theorist Aristotle noted, the jury system “contributed most to the strength of democracy” because it gave ordinary citizens real power.

The beauty of this system was that it didn’t rely on the wisdom of the masses or the charisma of politicians—it simply randomised power enough to make corruption extremely difficult while maintaining democratic legitimacy.

I believe we should seriously explore moving to such a system. The question is: how bad would things need to get before we could garner public support for such a fundamental change?

What do you think? Are we witnessing an erosion of genuine democratic discourse, or is this simply how power has always operated? And if change is needed, what would it take to get there?