Electing masters or representatives?
Since everything is so peaceful and blissful, let me indulge in this issue a bit more. The older generations elected their representatives to look after them, to give them a better life. Actually during those days, they don't care if the people elected would assume a greater role as their masters. When living conditions were bad, they were only concerned about basic needs. A good material life was all they want. And they got it. And their elected representatives gave them what they want and still remained as elected representatives. Now the newer generations have everything and wanted more. They want their elected representatives to be elected representatives and not their masters. They are beginning to question the formula or the relationship between their elected representatives and how it resembles a master/serf pattern. One thinks he is there to be the master and the other accepts that but not very happy that it should be this way. And they are getting quite edgy. When a relationship is unnatural, not what it should be, it is unbalanced. It needs to return to what it should be or else more screws will be needed to tighten and hold the unnatural balance in place. The problem is when it is too tight, it might break. The people and elected representatives must be made aware, told and retold, that the relationship is a temporary one, one built on the consent and trust of the people, that the elected representatives will be there to look after the interests of the people as the people think fit. Not one where the elected representatives think that they have become the masters and decide what is fit for the people. Master/serf relationship has no place in modern democracy.