Why Do Presidents Break Their Promises?

Why does the state continue to act the same after elections?

It is unforgivable if there is even one apparently critical area of policy that cannot be overturned by an election, because this makes all so-called elections illegitimate mockeries and shallow rituals.

Why do elected leaders so often betray their campaign promises? Every time, even the simplest of promises are not honored by leaders, resulting in a failure to serve the people, no matter how obvious the people’s message was. An obvious example is that every US president promises to withdraw from the Middle East and subsequently fails to do so. The problem lies with processes devised to deliberately obfuscate the democratic will, in order for it to be consistently and deliberately disrespected, no matter how voters voted.

When campaigning for office, candidates often have quite idiosyncratic views about the world, just like you and I, before taking the top job. Somehow, even their sincerest and dearest views are quickly transplanted and replaced by those of the intelligence agencies as soon as they are in power. Things they seemingly would have died for are quickly replaced by a tedious continuity. We witness the same foreign wars, assassinations, human rights abuses, and endless expansion of the intelligence and military apparatus of the state, regardless of any level of popular opposition.

The essential functions of a state, which drive all its frontline interactions with its own population and other states, are not controlled by elected individuals but by unelected executives. Such key posts continue to be held by these experts, driving every arm of the state. They get the final say in anything concerning them, regardless of who is elected. They are the state’s eyes and ears, as well as its arms, able to convince the elected leader of whatever they want him or her to see. This is why every president is, effectively, the same person.

The revelation of mass spying by Edward Snowden not only showed the hypocrisy of supposedly democratic states, but showed this state model is not designed to carry out the people’s will at all. Why does any regime hold elections in which it asks its people what they want, if the same regime is actively spying on them all and reading their communication?

Clearly, technology exists to allow the state to filter information and ascertain the population’s political wishes efficiently, but no step has been taken to use it for this noble task. Instead, inefficient and archaic means are employed, such as the use of representatives and the practice of elections. This is the deliberate obfuscation of the democratic will, to allow it to be misunderstood and disrespected. The state does not share the wishes of the people, as it has its own wishes.

Intelligence agencies would have no need for politicians, if they are devoted to defending democracy as they claim. In reality, politicians are still needed to convince the public they are involved, to issue false promises, and to take the blame for the state’s failings. Likewise, electioneers do not campaign for a constitution in which elections are unneeded, as such a constitution would leave them powerless.

As well as their spying, we also know our intelligence agencies are capable of death threats and torture, including targeting their own citizens. The impunity they are given would allow them to use the same methods on elected individuals. In January of this year, Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi even claimed the US forced him out using death threats as well as the country’s fake protest movement.

It is possible that every elected president of the US is subjected to death threats by intelligence agents, and the US president in turn sends death threats to the leaders of US-allied countries. A very large web of fake democracies could be built solely from death threats against elected individuals, backed by the capability to stoke violent protests in the targeted country or stage an assassination.

The then UK Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn, a radical, was spoken to by regime intelligence agency thugs in September 2018. The same month, he betrayed his previous positions and became a puppet in service to his lifelong ideological enemies. His previously skeptical voice joined a mindless choir of patriotic outrage against Russia, and fell in line with party rebels and opponents who wanted to insult and challenge the will of the people by accepting an second referendum on the issue of exiting the EU. Such failings do not speak badly of Corbyn’s character, as intelligence agents likely have methods that can break anyone.

If Corbyn had survived the relentless smear campaigns against him and became Prime Minister, he still would not have been safe. In 2015, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson himself was publishing views critical of UK foreign policy in the Middle East. As soon as he held the cabinet position of Foreign Secretary, such views vanished and he supported policies he had discredited. Not only did he accept the state’s policy of regime-change in Syria, but by 2017 he was more aggressive than all others and supported overriding the wishes of the UK Parliament in order to bomb the besieged nation.

Upon learning the will of the people, the intelligence agencies do not try to enforce that will but are in fact hostile, so it must be assumed that these agencies have a mission to counteract the wishes of the population. This can be observed in comments of intelligence agencies discrediting the result of the US 2016 election, likely because they believed Trump’s unstatesmanlike image undermined the US’s deteriorating international credibility. We can know, then, that denying the will of the people is one of their so-called national security goals. Their great resources and technology are not used to serve the people, as they use them instead against elected officials and in defiance of democracy.

Out-of-control intelligence agencies are potentially interfering in democracy heavily behind their veil of secrecy, spying on elected officials and issuing death threats to them regularly. Their hostile attitude to the population has been apparent ever since they invented programs allowing them to spy on and perceive the whole population’s wishes, but had no desire to fulfil such wishes. The state’s agents consistently view the will of the population as problematic, not sacrosanct, and that attitude exposes the vaunted democratic system as a complete fraud.

If ever you are elected to the highest office in the country, there will be no reason to think you have gained power over anything. It is more likely that others will gain power over you, and you will be enslaved to repeat the same policies you believed you could overturn. It is best to avoid being too affectionate or attached to a fallible political party, and be willing to accept analyses painfully critical of all present models of democracy.

L'Ordre is a social critic and a friend of the former club of religious students known as the Mont Order. The Mont Order advocated global unity through cultural and religious reconciliation, before breaking up and continuing its campaigns through friendly organizations. You can reach L'Ordre at lordrenet@gmail.com Read other articles by L'Ordre, or visit L'Ordre's website.