Conditions for the exercise of democracy

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

As a result, good intentions to ensure the participation of the people in governing the country translate into completely stupid reasoning and projects, such as the draft law on the responsibility of power proposed by the AVN. In this article, we will expose all the false interpretations of democracy and tell you about the real conditions for its implementation.

"Every cook must learn to run the state."

V. I. Lenin

Consider the typical misconceptions on which the overwhelming majority base their primitive and flawed reasoning about democracy.

The approximate scheme of reasoning of the "democrats" (regardless of their suit, moreover) is based on their usual stereotypes of the Western, individualistic in nature, emotional worldview and looks like this.

1) the goal of society (government) is to respect the interests and improve the well-being of individuals

2) it is only the individuals themselves who can determine whether this goal is being met by direct voting

3) therefore, democracy is an opportunity for the majority to dictate their opinion by means of voting, free elections, etc.

In fact, this whole scheme is absurd. The thesis that the goals of society can be represented as the sum of the interests and desires of individuals is completely absurd. It was absurd even when humanity was earning its own food by hunting and gathering, and in the days of civilization it is even more absurd. The question of the survival of a society, community, tribe is not a question of a combination of individual interests, but a question of establishing interaction between members of society in order to solve certain common goals. The idea, which people thoughtlessly voiced and accepted for themselves, that the life of society is about everyone's attempts to achieve their individual interests, and that the problem is that some take more for themselves, leaving less to others, is just an illusion, and an illusion one hundred percent, in no way and under any circumstances can not correspond to reality. Consider some Dryopithecus, who were the distant ancestors of man. Driopithecus lived in the crowns of trees and could move freely there, eating bananas, etc. Driopithecus was not particularly dependent on other Dryopithecus in his desires, he could freely support his existence and realize his interests. Driopithecus did not want power over other Dryopithecus, did not want fame, he had no intention of having his own business and owning shares in factories. Today, a politician seeks to get a place in power, an artist or TV presenter will be painfully concerned about the problems of his popularity and his image, the scientist's head will be clogged with how to defend a dissertation, print an article, make a good report at a conference, etc., but is there any sense in all these aspirations, in all these interests, seemingly personal, if there is no society, if there is no complex system of interaction between people, built over many thousands of years and even millions of years? No, obviously. No society - no conferences, no TV shows, no politics. There is no literature and there is not even a need for yachts and three-story cottages. Thus, seemingly personal interests, aspirations are a reflection of social realities, there is the influence of certain paradigms and stereotypes of social consciousness that have arisen in the course of the long evolution of society. Since the time of the Dryopithecus, the ancestors of man faced various problems that forced them to unite, coordinate their actions, develop more and more complex models of their behavior, methods of achieving goals. Now a person cannot descend to the level of Dryopithecus. If he does this, 99% of the world's population will become extinct in a couple of weeks at the most. Consequently, today one of the main tasks of a person, which in no way can be canceled, is the performance of socially purposeful activities by him, and in general, without this activity, a person would not be a person. At the same time, it is obvious that only by consistently performing such activities, people can maintain the normal functioning of society as a whole. We all participate in a common project that has been going on for a long time and was not started by us, which we cannot stop, and we cannot change it arbitrarily. Where, then, does the myth of some primary private interests come from, for the satisfaction of which, allegedly, society is intended? Naturally, there can be no such interests, however, some people tend, especially in certain periods of the development of society (as was written in the 4-level concept), to appropriate certain social functions and to make their value absolute. Society is atomized and the established interaction in it disintegrates, everyone begins to pursue their own goal, their own interests, everyone begins to imagine that they are not dependent on anyone for their aspirations.

At the same time, people, being members of society, and, in fact, throwing off the moral burden of responsibility to society, shift, purely formally, this burden onto someone, on some abstract state or power, which should take care of the implementation of these socially significant functions. Could this lead to something good? Of course not. Such a position leads to two consequences - the collapse of the society itself, and the moral, intellectual, cultural degradation of citizens, hiding in increasingly primitive ways of satisfying their own "needs" and realizing their own "interests." What we, in general, can observe now in all Western societies, societies that borrow the Western model and Western values. What position should a sane person take? A sane person should not share his own interests, personal position and the interests of society. A sane person experiences satisfaction when doing something for the good of society and discomfort when the actions taken by him are unsuccessful and harm society. Unlike an egoist, who usually only cares about a purely narrow, one-sided view of the situation in terms of how promising this situation is in terms of gaining benefits for himself personally, a sane person considers the situation and his own actions in terms of solving socially significant problems in general, in terms of his contribution to overcoming the problems facing the country, the nation, society as a whole, while the need to act for the benefit of humanity is his personal, internal position, and an idea of what this benefit should be, within what schemes and under the help of what methods has been achieved - this is also his inner representation, a belief that exists regardless of whether others adhere to exactly the same position, whether the authorities adhere to such a position, etc.

Farther. What, from the point of view of pseudo-democrats, is the key element of democracy? From their point of view, democracy is an opportunity to loudly announce their opinion to everyone. But what after that? Is it important to announce the opinion? No, it's just important to implement it. Demorkats argue that since the opinion of the people is expressed, then it must be realized, and the authorities must certainly do this and fulfill them, if it were not for the authorities. This is hypocrisy. There are three points here. Firstly, the fact that the majority can be mistaken and have absurd ideas and desires based on illusions, far from being embodied in reality, is not a secret to anyone.

In 1991, the citizens of the Russian Federation unanimously believed in Yeltsin, who promised that he would fall on the rails if prices rise. In 1933, Hitler promised the Germans a thousand-year Reich, and their hegemony as a great nation, and also played on the mood of the masses. In 218 BC, the Romans were determined to immediately defeat Hannibal, who invaded Italy with a small army, and the advice of Fabius Maximus, who called for caution and defensive tactics, did not heed. It took the Roman army to suffer several crushing defeats, putting Rome on the brink of disaster before they changed their minds. Thus, the thesis that the people only make demands, and the authorities only fulfill them, is deliberate populism. The authorities should deal with the solution of those tasks that are relevant for the country at the moment. The task of the authorities, if necessary, is to ensure the priority of the interests of society over private interests, for example, to mobilize into the army in the event of a threat of war, to introduce the distribution of food ration cards in the event of a shortage of funds, etc., completely irrespective of what concrete inhabitants think about this …

Secondly, the situation should not look like people give an assignment and then wait for the results. On the other hand, the people are precisely none other than the executor of the very program, which should, in theory, bring the desired results. But, according to the logic of the pseudo-democrats, the people seem to have nothing to do with it, as when the program is being developed and specific measures for its implementation are prescribed, just as it has nothing to do with it when the results are determined and a verdict is made about the success or failure of this programs. Paradoxically, both the responsibility for the appointment of measures and the responsibility for the implementation rests entirely with the authorities.

Thirdly, from the individual opinions and wishes of citizen Petrov, citizen Ivanov, etc., nothing intelligible can be summed up at all. And the counting of votes, which is carried out during the voting, is nothing more than props and bullshit. If the opinions of citizens Ivanov, Petrov and Sidorov on the issue of the direction of the country's development differ, just as the opinions of the swan, crayfish and pike from Krylov's fable on the issue of the direction of movement of the cart differ, then nothing intelligible can be derived from the results of their expression of will. This allows the opinion of the aforementioned citizens to be manipulated as desired. In fact, for parties, the votes of voters are a kind of capital, having which, you can bargain with each other. Thus, in the conditions of the existing society, democracy, presented as a kind of magic means of summing and realizing the desires and will of citizens, is only a harmful illusion and nothing more. If we are talking about true democracy, then we must first find out the conditions for its implementation. Unlike formal democracy, which pseudo-democrats make a kind of sacred cow, which cannot be encroached upon, but which does not provide citizens with any real participation in the management of society, we must consider the conditions of such a democracy, which will be a de facto democracy, in which participation in the management of society will be real. What is the primary condition for actually participating in the governance of society? This condition is competence.

A person who poorly understands the essence of the tasks facing society, is poorly oriented in the essence of economic problems, for example, etc., cannot take any actual participation in management. You can give the people at least some formal authority, up to the authority to shoot ministers and presidents (and similar powers, by the way, were the people in 1917, and in other countries under similar conditions), but this will not give anything to the actual transfer of power into the hands of the people will not affect until the people understand at least the essence of the main issues of public policy. There can be no democracy in a society where citizens make decisions based on some subjective, emotional assessments, on superficial impressions, are led by illusions and populist slogans. The paradox of all the last Russian elections, since 1991, when Yeltsin was elected, is that the party in power or the candidate in power does not present, unlike other parties, any intelligible program and does not participate in pre-election discussions - but, at the same time, wins. This situation is absurd. In order for true democracy to be realized, so that not professional politicians, not persons who have mountains of bags of money behind their backs, etc., but people who actually possess both intelligence and responsibility to the country, of which there are not so few in Russia, a mechanism should be created that opens the way for everyone, regardless of belonging to clans and elites, but which tests people for competence, which makes them reasonably and accurately justify their own program, disclose ways to solve problems, to prove their case in an open discussion.

The second condition for the implementation of democracy is the connection between the people and the authorities. This is not such an artificial, formal connection, which is carried out through elections or which the supporters of the AVN propose to introduce, this connection should be comprehensive and constant, connected precisely with the fact that the people, in a normal, sane society, are engaged in solving socially significant problems, and must understand the meaning of these tasks, everyone should see the connection of their daily activities, those tasks that he solves personally, with the implementation of national tasks and projects. No task can be solved efficiently if its planning and execution control is carried out only from above. A country can develop successfully only in one case - when the main ideas, tasks of the current moment, the goals facing the nation are realized not only by leaders and officials, but also by all people, when everything is saturated with the spirit of transformations, when people are able to correlate on their own initiative their actions with the tasks facing the country, when they themselves are able to take the initiative, when they themselves, without waiting for any commands from above, are able to move the process in the right direction. History shows that great reforms are not carried out by administrators. They are conducted by people who are able to give the country new ideas, new landmarks, to captivate with the prospect of great achievements. It was this factor that played a decisive role in the impressive leaps that Russia unexpectedly made for everyone, for example, under Peter, or in the 1920s and 1930s. of the last century, stepping from backwardness to the level of the leading world powers of their time.

So, if the essence of the national tasks facing society is not clearly brought to the level of mass consciousness, there can be no democracy. And finally, the last, third condition, which should be considered especially and in greater detail. This condition is the most important condition for the implementation of any democracy, any mechanism designed to ensure the participation of citizens in governing the country, and this condition is constantly neglected by people who day and night talk about democracy and the need to give power to the people. Without fulfilling this condition, no democracy is ever possible! This condition is the need to come to a common opinion. The thesis shared by many that democracy is just when everyone has the right to their private opinion is harmful, and it is doubly harmful, combined with the thesis that the majority is right. As soon as any person begins to demonstrate a tendency to isolation, to avoid discussions and discussion of their position with opponents, to try to push their position alone, which is done by so many lovers of speculation about democracy,he is moving away from democracy. As soon as any group begins to profess the thesis that the majority is right, it moves away from democracy, towards corporate logic, the whole point of which is that you are right if you belong to our group, because then you are with the majority, which is right. Consider options for solving the problem when there are several points of view and you need to come to a common opinion. The first option is that these people sit down and negotiate. They can agree in a normal way only when they do not mean their own private interests, do not adhere to the thesis about the priority of private opinion over general opinion, etc., and when they understand that it is in the interests of everyone to solve and solve it as much as possible optimal.

At the end of the discussion, when a common opinion is reached, it will be possible to say that the principle of democracy has been implemented - everyone participated in the discussion, everyone contributed to the formation of a common opinion. The second option - these people shake each other's nerves and do not agree. As a result, then, when solving common problems, they each act at their own discretion, constantly interfering with each other and accusing each other of sabotaging the common cause, etc. This option is not democracy, it is anarchy. And the third option is when people bicker and do not agree, but for the sake of the interests of the common cause, the chief is appointed, who arbitrarily determines which point of view is correct and which is not. It is clear that even here it does not even smell of any kind of democracy, it is a dictatorship. Both last options are equally detrimental to society, and as history shows again, they tend to combine with each other and flow into each other. Under anarchy, a multi-dictatorship arises - the one who at a certain moment and in a given place is stronger, disposes of power and tramples on the rights of the weak. During periods of anarchy, local crime and arbitrariness flourish. This was the situation, for example, in Russia, in 1917-1920 or in the early 90s. At the same time, chaos is a faithful companion of the most brutal dictatorships and the most totalitarian regimes. Where the guarantee of unity is not a verified optimal solution, but a dictate based on arbitrariness, quite often some decisions are replaced by exactly opposite ones, yesterday's favorites today turn out to be enemies of the people, and even foreign policy is constantly changing course by 180 degrees.

In addition, in Russian history, starting from the time of Ivan the Terrible, it is not at all difficult to trace the constant alternation of periods of heyday of liberties and confusion with periods of strengthening of the vertical of power (another of which we are experiencing today). Thus, the inability of people to negotiate with each other, the priority of private interests they proclaim, puts the most solid barrier on the path of democracy and opens the way, on the one hand, to anarchy and turmoil, on the other, to the coming of bloody dictators to power, and no formal democratic procedures. who, for example, were definitely in Germany in 1933, cannot prevent this.