There are many explanations as to why democracy is at risk, but I think it is undeniable that democracy is indeed at risk.
Put in its simplest terms, the autocrats (China, Russia, Turkey et al) want to see their once powerful and extensive empires re-established and want world dominance. The oligarchs want absolute control over the market place and will do a deal with anyone (including China, Russia, Turkey and the Devil himself) so long as it serves their purpose. Various strategies are suggested to destroy the morale of the world’s populations, the most popular theory to date is that the covid19 pandemic (so called plandemic) is a construct designed as a weapon of subjugation, and it is widely claimed that the goal is a single world government, the destruction of sovereign states and the complete subjugation of the world’s population to the New World Order, variously predicted to occur by 2030 to 2050. Some go so far as to claim that the goal of the NWO is to reduce the world’s population from 7 billion today to some 500 million by 2050 through devices such as planned pandemics and forced vaccinations. Democracy, in whatever form, stands in the way of these ambitions.
Chaos reigns in the once mighty United States of America where some 10 to 15% of the population are running riot, and if the reports are at all credible, are holding the vast majority of the population hostage, with the willing connivance of the liberal press, largely owned and run by and doing the bidding of the oligarchs.
Democracy is not merely at risk, it is under global attack.
It is fruitless to speculate further on the motives for this global attack other than to say that it is credible that the socialist world and the oligarchs, and even some religions, do not want a world populated by sovereign Citizens with minds of their own in Sovereign States with popularly elected governments, who and which are going to undermine and oppose these machinations at every available opportunity. So, such an attack is perfectly credible. There are those who assert that the present turmoil is part of a communist strategy set in motion almost two centuries ago, to undermine the stability and viability of liberal democracy. As pointed out in a paper by W. H. Chamberlin, “Communist Basic Tactics: Rule or Ruin”, the strategy is exactly that, Rule or Ruin. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/126565.
Wikipedia spells it out thus: World domination (also called global domination or world conquest or cosmocracy) is a hypothetical power structure, either achieved or aspired to, in which a single political authority holds the power over all or virtually all the inhabitants of the planet Earth. Various individuals or regimes have tried to achieve this goal throughout history, without ever attaining it. The theme has been often used in works of fiction, particularly in political fiction, as well as in conspiracy theories (which may posit that some person or group has already secretly achieved this goal), particularly those fearing the development of a “New World Order” involving a world government of a totalitarian nature. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_domination.
When thinking about the NWO, you might think of the United Nations, the World Health Organisation, the World Economic Forum and so on.
Even the BBC, the epitome of journalistic caution, published an article in BBC Future, titled “The grim fate that could be ‘worse than extinction‘ ” reporting that, with the possible abuse of Artificial Intelligence, a totalitarian future is quite possible in the next century. As pointed out, “Over the last few years, we’ve seen the rise of filter bubbles and people getting shunted by various algorithms into believing various conspiracy theories, or even if they’re not conspiracy theories, into believing only parts of the truth, …… You can imagine things getting much worse, especially with deep fakes and things like that, until it’s increasingly harder for us to, as a society, decide these are the facts of the matter, this is what we have to do about it, and then take collective action” (Haydn Belfield, academic project manager at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge.)
In a “world in chains” scenario, a global totalitarian government uses a novel technology to lock a majority of the world into perpetual suffering. If it sounds grim, you’d be right. But is it likely? Researchers and philosophers are beginning to ponder how it might come about – and, more importantly, what we can do to avoid it. (ibid)
The DDF does not have to support any of these ‘theories’ in order to do what it does best, that is, as its name suggests, support Direct Democracy for Sovereign Citizens in Sovereign Nations, that stand in world forums with equal rights to all others in those forums. Every policy of the DDF equally supports the rights of every individual. We do not espouse absolute equality but we do support equality of opportunity and the fulfilment of the aspirations of all citizens to the fullest potential of their intellects and ability.
In short and to be brief, the DDF do not support the aspirations of any world order, but instead support the well-being of South Africans, as Sovereign Citizens of a Sovereign Nation-State placing the interests of South Africa first in its dealings with the world at large. If globalisation becomes inevitable, we would argue for a structure like that of the Swiss Cantons, but at an international level, at worse, and at best, rather suggest a collective of sovereign nations cooperating but not subjugated by any central authority, requiring parliamentary approval in each and every member nation for adoption of any international treaty or strategy or law. We believe that if the European Union were structured in that manner, Brexit would not even be an issue in Britain. The UK would be perfectly happy with all the benefits of an EU but without the encumbrance of a comitology and of autocratic government. The DDF principle that ‘no man should be governed by a law which he does not approve’, is one underpinning the DDF proposed Senate and the DDF proposed Electoral Reform Policies. The senate proposal sets an 80% threshold for the approval of laws or regulation. If you can only get a 50%+1 approval for a proposal, thus alienating the other 50% or so of society, go back, do it again, and again, and again, until the vast majority of society can live with the result.
The DDF will support and join hands with any who support these objectives.