In the democratic process it’s important to uphold the principles behind it. The majority triumphs over the minority, the people have final say in what is decided, transparency is key, and anyone living in a democracy has the same rights.

That is why the power of veto is about the worst thing that could be instated into a democratic system. It kills the whole majority rule principle, sometimes with good purpose, but usually without. It seems to me that veto was established in most democracies by presidents who faired legislation that would limit their power, or (in alliance organizations) nations who don’t want to be objected to decisions they don’t agree with.

Even though that violates the whole democratic process. When veto is exercised it creates a whole unique situation; though the majority chose X, the minority vetoed it and as such the minority became the de facto majority, and instead of X, which has the majority support, Y has been chosen, or in the worst scenario, nothing has been chosen.

Of course there is a provision in most republics that a presidential veto can be overthrown by a 2/3 vote of parliament. I’m glad such a provision exists in those governments, but it’s still a violation nonetheless. A majority is a majority, regardless if that majority is a 50.01% vote or one that has a support of 66.67%. Sure, the latter has more support, but the former has prevalence over the minority and as such essentially holds the same amount of support.

In a presidential system the power of veto is a bit less undemocratic than it is in another democratic system: that of a constitutional monarchy that follows the Westminster system, or a similar system. In this system the monarch basically holds veto powers, because he or she can withhold signing new laws (aka “giving Royal Assent”).

Now, I’m a monarchist myself, having been raised in a functional one¹, and as such I’m not against monarchs holding some executive powers. But where presidential veto at least holds some sort of democratic nature (as the president, in most countries, has been directly chosen by the people through vote), the royal veto is of the uttermost undemocratic nature.

Just like the veto powers of the United Nations Security Council permanent members.² I have said before³ that it’s idiotic that veto power is assigned to members of a council that is supposed to be empowering and “enforcing” diplomacy. I really mean it when I say it’s probably one of the dumbest political decisions ever made. It gives the permanent members so much power that it’s almost pointless for the Security Council members to bring anything controversial up for discussion. The Republic of China wants to join the United Nations? Even if every UN member supported the Republic of China’s cause, it doesn’t matter, because without a doubt any attempt would be immediately vetoed by the People’s Republic of China.

Kosovo wants to join, now that it is recognized by 43 countries worldwide — including some of the worlds most powerful nations and the majority of European Union member states. Yet the latter doesn’t matter, because whether Kosovo wants to join the United Nations or not, both Russia and the People’s Republic of China will veto it. (Well, probably Russia will veto it, and the People’s Republic of China will make an abstention vote — if they’re smart about it.)

This means that just because one country (out of 192 member states) does not support a membership application, it counts as all countries not supporting it. It adds another level of inequality to the issue, considering not all member states have this power, but just five — France, the People’s Republic of China, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Sure, these are powerful countries, but in a truly democratic process it shouldn’t matter. Does the vote of Canada, Japan or Australia weigh less than the vote of France, Russia or Great China? No it doesn’t in my opinion, but in UN terms it does.

In a truly democratic process, in one that respects the majority vote, the power of veto has no place. It creates situations in which one person or one nation can overrule anybody and anything. In its bare principle, the power of veto is a dictatorial power. Leaving no room for discussion, because “if I say so, it is so.”