In the pressing struggle to rule, right wing associates prefer to move away from the centre of universal and global relations to tribal dominance. In so doing they prefer to dictate the terms of engagement and declare self-rule rather than cooperate and be part of a collective.
So a ruling government could be democratically elected from one of the parties making up the political spectrum. And under the FPP electoral system, a single party could win the majority of votes to rule outright.
For example, Liberal Democracy is the rule of the business private sector promoting material development of a monetary economy without social responsibilities; Conservative Democracy is usually the rule of the majority culture to ensure maintenance and preservation of tribal and ethnic lifestyle; Social Democracy is where Labour organises ways of improving life for the worker and his/her family.
Liberal and Conservative democracies promote the individual over the community and any old dictator could rise by tapping onto that tribal and patriotic connection to the far right, at the same time Labour may have the appeal of radicals at the far left.
Recently in the US, a resolution was sought to bridge the gap between Conservatives and Democrats. It was thought to find a common ground between the private business sector and workers seeking equality or equity. These are no ordinary issues; they are not only opposing developments but each claim to have a valid right under democratic representation.
Yes, people not only have a right to vote, but also on anything they want. And no doubt the only resolution that man came up with was to reverse the outcome of the election in order to have outright rule!
The dichotomise rule continues to neglect the poor among workers and divide society on status. Therefore Democracy may provide the vote and rule, but cannot bridge differences for a stable organisation. And dictators are left to do their own thing.
In New Zealand and Germany, the MMP electoral system attempts to bridge this ideological gap by forming coalition partners usually on similar and compatible policies. Liberal and Conservatives are natural partners forming a strong representation of market and tribal rule; Labour and Green on Climate Change and Equity. But the smaller parties can now climb on the shoulders of their big allies to be seen and heard.
Since policy coverage is extended by coalition agreements, more people are expected to be represented. However in reality, opposing parties do not. The right wing coalition may expand benefits for the private business sector at the expense of workers and beneficiaries. In that, raising housing prices and maintaining high rents for landlords' profits have the opposite effect on tenants and their families - Homelessness.
So, how then can you find common ground on irreconcilable differences is a bit of an oxymoron! We can try reductionism on reasonable submissions of understanding that one party wants profits for the private business sector, the other party wants to raise wages for the workers. If they both agree to make some sacrifices, then they are now on the way to negotiating the reduction course. But since when have we witnessed a potential autocrat giving up their position when they usually go for civil war to the bitter end?
In the normal cause of contradictions, one party's gain is another party's loss. But the reduction cause expects both parties to make small sacrifices for their relative gains. The private sector could agree to lower the cost of rent to relieve workers and their families from homelessness. At the same time, the capital gains tax is removed from ownership.
The poor state of negotiations is when sacrifices are made but one party loses out. The private sector had not only removed the burden of CGT from their profits, they have also continued to maintain high rent. Sacrifices are made but no relative gains returned.
When the reduction course take both parties to a state of nothingness; that's considered fairly even on both sides, but negotiation had failed to produce an outcome.
For the sake of society, Democracy has to have a binding value for stable organisation. But at the same time, political ideologies have irreconcilable differences. That is why reductionism inheres a logical submission of understanding to negotiate in good faith for relative gains outcome. At the same time, collective cooperation on universal terms is more stable than unilateral dictatorship.
That is why it's argued in here that Democracy is not an outright rule of the majority but rather the peoples' rule to do what is right for society. In the US common ground agreement, members from the opposition crossed the floor to vote for what is right. When one party dictates the terms of engagement, people in opposing parties are not represented and therefore not a rule by general people.
Democracy therefore is not an outright majority rule, it is rather a rule by the people irrespective of political opinions and cultural sentiments; a logical submission of understanding.