conflicts pertaining to the abuse of power of Presidents.
In South Africa, a vote of no confidence will be debated against President Zuma. One of the accusations is that the president used taxpayers' money to fund the construction of his R200 million residence.
In Thailand, 10 000 protesters gathered to demonstrate against Yingluck Shinawatra's government. She is accused of corruption and of being a puppet of her brother, Thaksin Shinawatra.
In Egypt, judges and prosecutors are strkking in Alexandria in protest of President Mohammed Mursi's decree that places him above the law. In what he says to be an attempt to protect the revolution, he issued an order that prevents any court from overturning his decisions - which makes it so he can rule unchecked until the new constitution is drafted. He claims the courts were about to disband the assembly that is writing the Egyptian constitution and wanted to prevent it. However, Egyptians fear the real agenda is not about protecting the revolution or new constitution, but to simply increase the president's powers.
It is becoming more and more clear that representative democracy never actually is representative and leads to catastroika. During campaigns people's perceptions and feelings about the candidates are manipulated in the candidates' favours - yet, when it comes to actual ruling - the reality of the situation is revealed: they never actually cared about the country or the people, they only cared about their own position, status and bank accounts.
Democracy today is far removed from what it was at its onset in the Greek citystates where the democratic form of government was direct democracy. In direct democracy there is no middle-man - no 'guy at the top' that is supposedly protecting the interests of millions. People rule directly. It is claimed that today it would be unpractical to have direct democracy - that the size of the countries is too big, that people don't have the time to go and debate policy-issues. However, considering the technology available today, these objetions are meaningless. If any time was a good time to have a successful form of direct democracy, it is now. We have phones, faxes - and most importantly: internet. Millions can cast their vote on an issue without a problem. We do it every day on sites such as YouTube and Facebook where we share what we like and what we don't like - there is no reason similar technology can be applied for more meaningful activities, such as participating in political life - activities which actually affect people's lives instead of just provide entertainment.
This is why the Equal Money System suggests the implementation of direct democracy so as to remove the need for people to rise up on the streets in protest of their governments where they are met by police, tear gas and rubber (at least if they're lucky) bullets. Direct democracy removes the need to place trust in another only for it to be betrayed afterwards - where it is truly the people who are ruling themselves.