A/HRC/21/45 have a functioning democracy. Censorship, whether conducted by States or by press conglomerates, distorts reality and undermines democracy. Who is financing the media and what gets broadcasted or released are important issues in understanding the degree of press freedom, also to what extent big media smother out the independent press. Self-censorship as a result of intimidation or social pressures, sometimes referred to as ―political correctness‖, constitutes a serious obstacle to the proper functioning of democracy. It is important to hear the views of all persons, including the ―silent majority‖, and to give ear to the weaker voices. There is little hope for an international democratic order as long as democracy is lacking at the national level. Therefore, it is imperative to focus attention on education and access to information, including via the Internet, to enable persons to develop freely their own opinions. Direct or indirect censorship, whether through State or private sector agencies, undermines opinion-building and constitutes an obstacle for the individual and society at large to exercise civic responsibilities, including the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs. 46. The Human Rights Committee has stated: ―Freedom of opinion and freedom of expression are indispensable conditions for the full development of the person. They are essential for any society. They constitute the foundation stone for every free and democratic society. The two freedoms are closely related, with freedom of expression providing the vehicle for the exchange and development of opinions. Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the realization of the principles of transparency and accountability that are, in turn, essential for the promotion and protection of human rights.‖ 23 Some pressure groups, lobbies and professional public relations companies may hijack political decision-making and leave large parts of the population effectively disenfranchised. 47. While the outward face of democracy may be a multiparty system and regular elections, some observers contend that there is a substantial difference between the right to vote and the right to choose policies. If the choice of candidates for election does not correspond to the desires of the people, then a pro forma election among candidates who have been put up by political machines does not further the credibility or legitimacy of such ―democracies‖. This is not democracy but ―partitocracy‖ (Sartori). Similarly, if the only choices possible are between candidate A and candidate B, whose programmes are often very similar, and the people do not have an opportunity to vote for a candidate C with a different programme, then the pro forma election of A or B does not satisfy the essence of what democratic government should be. In such cases, the two-party system avers itself to be only twice as democratic as the one-party system. Even in multiparty systems, it often occurs that the number of representatives in parliament does not correspond proportionally to the votes cast, and in some cases a party does not succeed in having a single representative in parliament, although proportionally it would have been entitled to some representation. 48. Another obstacle to the right to choose freely is the combination of policies that make up the cocktail of any party platform. Should the citizen be obliged to choose between two ―package deals‖, one represented by party A and the other by party B? In many cases, the electorate may agree with as little as 30 per cent of the programme of party A, 30 per cent of the programme of party B, and find no candidate at all to espouse 40 per cent of his or her wishes. In such or similar cases confidence in the electoral process is undermined and results in high levels of electoral absenteeism in many countries. Indeed, democracy requires real choices as well as transparent and accountable governance and administration in all sectors of society. In other cases, party machines fail to advance a 23 16 General comment No. 34 (2011) on the freedoms of opinion and expression, paras. 2 and 3.