Games of Democratic Power: Legality, Morality and the Silent Will

AI-assisted translation from the Greek. Greek original

Democracy as we understand it is not simply the direct expression of society’s will, but a complex system of procedures, rules and legislative constructions. Elections, quotas, seats and rules of participation all make up a power game that often separates official legitimation from genuine social consent. The question of abstention, blank and invalid ballots, and the distribution of seats among small parties reveals not merely statistical or numerical issues but also a profound moral and existential inequality.

In practical terms, seats in Greek elections are allocated on the basis of valid ballots, while blank and invalid ballots are recorded only statistically. Abstention is not even included in the official proportion of seats. This means that a party’s share of 40% of valid ballots, in an election with 50% turnout, translates into just 20% actual social support. The same applies to all the other parties. The result is that a small percentage of citizens can decide for the majority, while the rest remain silent or invisible in the official results.

This difference between numerical legality and moral authority is fundamental. While the system appears to turn the will of the minority into lawful power, it does not reflect real social strength. Abstention, which in the most recent elections reached around 47% of registered voters, together with blank and invalid ballots, reveals a silent protest that nevertheless remains politically invisible. Society shows that its representation includes neither the choice it made nor the choice it did not make — that is, silence and the refusal to participate are equally important, but are not institutionally recognised.

More importantly, the system does not merely legitimise the leading party. It also produces other parties with small shares of seats — parties that receive 1.5%, 3%, 6% or 10% of registered voters. In practice, these parties do not substantively represent the people, but add mouths to the game, giving the illusion of democratic participation. This condition creates a deeper moral problem: the decisions made by these small parties appear to carry the same authority as those of the leading party, when in reality their social base is limited. Equality in representation is only apparent — a structured falsehood the system uses to project legitimacy.

The moral inequality becomes apparent when we ask: does a decision by a party that actually represents 20% of society carry the same moral authority as one by a party that represents 1.5%? The same applies to all the others. The legislative process appears fair, but in reality it legitimises decisions that carry no social weight. The result is that the democratic process becomes a game in which numbers produce lawful power without genuine social consent. This is the deeper moral scandal you are pointing to: laws and rules were not made to serve the people, but to create legitimised procedures, regardless of who actually supports them.

The silent protest of citizens who abstain or cast blank or invalid ballots is not mere inertia. It is a conscious choice not to recognise the deceitful game. Citizens see that, even if they vote, decisions will continue to be made by a small minority, and the remaining participants add no genuine representation, only apparent legitimacy. Here, abstention becomes a form of political expression showing that the moral authority of power is not recognised.

The consequence of this system is twofold. First, it reduces citizens’ trust in institutions, since citizens understand that their participation changes essentially nothing. Second, it strengthens the concentration of power in small minorities, which appear numerically but not morally legitimised. Through this accounting approach, democracy appears to function while in substance bypassing the moral dimension of social consent.

What makes the game particularly deceitful is legitimation through false weightings: the system presents decisions by small minorities as equivalent to decisions that would have a broader social base, while the actual numbers and the silence of the majority are disregarded. The leading party, with 20% actual support, and the others, with percentages carrying minimal social weight, decide for everyone else, creating a moral deficit that remains invisible amid the system’s apparent stability.

The moral dimension is crucial. It is not enough to look at who won, but at who has the right to decide for everyone else. The system does not recognise the social reality of abstention and small percentages, and thus transforms a minority into power. The result is that legality and moral authority diverge dangerously. Abstention, blank ballots and small percentages are not merely numerical phenomena: they reveal a challenge to the framework itself.

Democracy as practised today is at once numerical and existential: the arithmetic appears to work, society sees a system that “works”, but the existential and moral dimension reveals that the real will remains silent or excluded. The games of democratic power concern not only who gets elected, but also how society is represented in substance, and what moral authority belongs to the power produced by lawful yet deceitful procedures.

Taken together, the full picture is this: democracy is a legitimised procedure in which small minorities can decide for everyone, while the remaining participants function as “symbolic representatives”, without real social strength. The silence of abstention and the calculated participation of small parties reveal the moral deficit and show that society’s actual will does not coincide with official legitimation. Democracy appears to function, but in reality it plays a deceitful game in which arithmetic replaces morality, and symbolic voices legitimise decisions with no real social base.