“Puppet or President? Decoding the Puppetry of Presidential Power
In the ever-evolving landscape of democratic politics, a recurring theme emerges – the ostensible leader isn’t always the one truly in control. The case of Joe Biden’s American presidency serves as a stark reminder of this reality, shedding light on a phenomenon that transcends borders and impacts nations around the world. It reveals a shadowy truth: the President is not necessarily the President; the power often resides with those who manipulate the strings from behind the scenes.
Let’s delve deeper into the curious case of Joe Biden. A man whose physical and cognitive state raises serious questions about his ability to govern. His struggles are evident – from an inability to distinguish between his hand and foot to the confusion that plagues him when he steps onto a podium. These are not isolated incidents but indicative of a deeper issue. It forces us to ponder whether, under normal circumstances, he would even be allowed to assume the role of head of state.
The fact that he holds the highest office in the land, considering his condition, raises eyebrows. It’s as if the distinction between a leader and a puppet is becoming increasingly blurred. How can a nation that boasts itself as the most powerful in the world tolerate a leader who, by all appearances, seems to suffer from dementia?
The answer is that Joe Biden is not the true President; rather, those who manoeuvred him into the White House wield the real power. The people who stand behind him, orchestrating the political symphony and directing the administration’s moves, are the ones in charge. Their motivation is simple – as long as their desires are met under Joe Biden’s tenure, he will continue to occupy the presidential seat.
This scenario is not unique to the United States; it resonates in South Africa as well. Here, we witness a President, Ramaphosa, embroiled in controversy and accused of breaking laws. Yet, the institutions that should hold him accountable appear paralyzed. Why? The answer lies in those who pull the strings behind the presidential façade. They are the ones effectively running the show, holding the presidency in their grip.
Rob Herzov’s public admission that he and his family played a pivotal role in appointing Cyril Ramaphosa as head of South Africa serves as a stark example of this phenomenon. Few questions were raised about the authority they held, and this omission is telling. It underscores the notion that true power lies not with the elected leader but with the influential groups operating from the shadows.
It’s essential to recognize that when leaders like Ramaphosa claim to be “elected,” it is a dubious assertion. Instead, it implies that those who appointed him are benefitting from his presidency. Their motives might not align with the well-being of the nation or its citizens; their priorities lie in self-interest and self-preservation.
Calls for the public to “wake up” made by people like Hersov are not altruistic appeals for enlightenment but calculated efforts to divert attention from the real issue. The problem is not with the figurehead President, but with those who finance the ascent to power. As long as these influential actors gain from a sitting head of state’s administration, they will ensure the President’s continued rule, irrespective of competence or public suffering.
Conversely, leaders who genuinely serve the people, drive positive change, and combat corruption face swift and unrelenting opposition from the same influential entities. The key determinant here is whether their actions benefit those who control the levers of power.
In summary, both the American and South African contexts reveal a recurring pattern – the real power often lies with those who engineer a leader’s rise to power. They manipulate the system to suit their interests, shaping the people’s choices, and relying on advertising and propaganda to maintain their control.
The implications of this phenomenon extend beyond individual leaders; they impact the very core of democratic governance. We are witnessing a situation where the façade of democracy is carefully maintained, but the strings are pulled by a select few, often hidden from public scrutiny.
For the American presidency, this realization prompts us to question the nature of democracy itself. When a president’s cognitive and physical capabilities are in doubt, it raises a fundamental question: Is this truly a government “by the people, for the people”? Or is it, in reality, a government by and for a select few who manipulate the system for their ends?
Similarly, in South Africa, the acknowledgement that those in power are not necessarily elected by the people but appointed by influential groups redefines the very essence of democracy. It underscores the need for greater transparency, accountability, and a reevaluation of the power structures that shape the nation’s destiny.
It is important to understand that the power of these shadowy figures extends beyond national borders. They are the architects of not just individual presidencies, but also of international policies and agendas. They can shape the course of nations, and their influence can be far-reaching, impacting economies, foreign relations, and the lives of everyday citizens.
In conclusion, the veil of democracy is thin, and it is our responsibility as vigilant citizens to look beyond it and question the true sources of power. Only by shedding light on these hidden forces can we hope to regain the essence of genuine democracy and ensure that our elected leaders truly represent our interests, not those who lurk in the shadows, manipulating the strings of power.
