Why Governments Keep Raising Taxes Despite Public Outrage?

 

It’s disheartening, really.

In democracies, governments often act with impunity, knowing that the public’s only recourse is to wait for elections every few years. This is both a strength and a flaw of democratic systems.

Compare this with nations like China or Vietnam, where public backlash holds a unique weight. These countries operate under one-party systems, where citizens don’t have the luxury of voting for a new leader every few years. If the public becomes deeply dissatisfied, their only options are to rise up in rebellion or overthrow the existing government.

For this reason, governments in such systems are hyper-aware of their citizens' moods. They know that maintaining public satisfaction is essential for their survival, and even a small protest can lead to swift government action. For example, in China, even if only 100 citizens protest, the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) often takes immediate steps to address the issue. This responsiveness stems from necessity, not benevolence.

In contrast, democracies rely on elections as a "pressure valve." Every four or five years, citizens can vote out a government they’re unhappy with. This system prevents revolutions but also traps people in a cycle of waiting. Between elections, the public is left to endure poor governance in silence, often restrained by strict laws and law enforcement powers.

But what happens when every political option is equally bad? That’s the Achilles’ heel of democracy. When all parties are indifferent or out of touch with the people's struggles, elections become meaningless. This creates a sense of hopelessness, where no matter who wins, the public’s quality of life remains stagnant or worsens.

Countries like India and the UK are experiencing this grim reality. The leadership options are so uninspiring that democracy starts to feel like a cruel joke. Without viable alternatives or the possibility of rebellion, governments are free to focus on distractions rather than solutions, keeping the populace pacified with divisive rhetoric or fearmongering.

In the 21st century, we’re witnessing a troubling shift. Democracies are increasingly morphing into oligarchies, controlled by a few elites. Meanwhile, some authoritarian regimes are evolving into meritocracies, ensuring public satisfaction through competent governance. This paradox highlights the complexity of modern governance and the blurred lines between democracy and dictatorship.

Democracies thrive on the promise of choice, but when all choices lead to the same outcome, the system falters. Without effective leadership or meaningful alternatives, people are left powerless, enduring bad governance while clinging to the hope of change. Meanwhile, authoritarian regimes are proving that responsiveness and competence can win public favor, even in the absence of freedom. The question remains: Can democracies adapt to avoid becoming stagnant oligarchies, or will they continue to crumble under the weight of their own weaknesses? The future of governance depends on how well these systems evolve to meet the needs of their people.