- a.1 – ∙Reboot of Democracy (synopsis): How and why to change the contrast strategies of the Establishment of Politics
- I.a.2 – Reboot of Democracy: an alternative government to restore Democracy
- I.a.3 – How is it possible to restore Democracy (the need to abandon the current “opposition” to Social-Democracy policy)
- a.4 – The restoration of real democratic Politics
The question is that
today we continue to circle around the problem
without centering it in its essence.
That is, today we continue to talk of abuses by those who govern, trying to find a way to force these rulers to govern in the “right” way.
This document illustrates
how the strategies with which
the “dissidents” are trying to change things
are totally unsuccessful
(in decades of activity they not only have not produced any change, but have somehow favored a worsening of the situation).
In essence, the problem is that
it is impossible to achieve change
by operating from within a system
that is now compromised in its foundations
The only way to maintain a centralized government, exercised top-down, would be to completely abandon Democracy, moving to a radically different regime (which I personally do not wish for).
In other words, currently the “dissidents” (conservatives) naively
try to solve the problem with the same approach,
with the same methods and tools
that created the problem
<see my article “Towards a Democracy Reboot (synopsis)”>
The fact is that instead
if we want to restore a real Democracy
it is necessary,
already in the implementation of the change,
to rely on the rules of Democracy
That is, as illustrated in this text, it is necessary to define a process of recovery of real Democracy:
● stopping opposing pseudo-democratic authoritarian regimes on the level of “Politics” – polemics and protests, attempts to be heard, etc … – which does not bring any advantage: playing the game of authoritarian governments, does nothing but lead to a worsening of things.
● that operates, bottom-up, in a “constructive mode” in which one gets out of the dimension of “opposition”, and begins to rebuild real Democracy without waiting for the permission and support of the institutions.
This can easily be done directly by the People restoring a dimension of real Democracy even only from the small, from the local. This allows:
– to improve things immediately with “Popular Initiatives” (Crowd-sourcing)
– to develop a “de facto power” capable of contrasting the current institutional policy: by achieving Government successes in a local dimension, an effective power is obtained that is automatically placed in contrast with the institutional one.
– to ensure that “dissident” Citizens increase their awareness of how things are going to change.
– to obtain the support of an increasing number of those Citizens who today support Social Democracy (among the planned Initiatives there are also forms of free information ”developed by the Crowd).
There can be no doubt that we are making a mistake in trying to bring Democracy back to its real functioning: in decades the various forms of opposition have seen nothing but a continuous worsening of things.
The basic problem is that we continue to “fight” for Democracy without first clarifying our ideas about what Democracy really is in its essence.
The basic contradiction of dissident strategies is that they think they can change things by forcing the rulers to develop a process of change.
But that is inherently contradictory: the Rulers have transformed Democracy “by the People” into an authoritarian regime to pursue their interests (fame, money, development of ideologies in which they firmly believe, etc …) and there is therefore no reason why they should give up the position of power obtained up to now.
More specifically, therefore, opposition strategies do not work because:
1) when you want the Rulers to listen to the reasons of the Citizens, although these are well documented and motivated, the Rulers do not listen because they have no reason to do so.
2) when tests of “force” are used against the institutions (such as the so-called protest, or in the streets, or through legal causes), one is a loser from the start because
– the Rulers have at their disposal the “armed arms” of the police and the judiciary.
– the Rulers also have mainstream media in their hands, with which they are able to put most of the population against any form of dissident thought. <see my Article”An elementary (reassuring) approach of “dissident information“>
3) when we talk about the need to find “right” leaders (sovereigns), for democracy there is actually a clear underlying contradiction for at least two reasons:
– Democracy is set to function thanks to the Sovereignty of the Citizens (the Sovereign is “the one who is above all, and no one can tell him what to do”: if the Sovereign is not able to exercise effective government, the whole system collapses, which be it a Monarchy or a Democracy).
– the Ruler-Sovereign, in any form of regime, is “right” according to his convictions and/or interests (even if he truly desires the good of the people, he is unable to know the interests – the needs – of his Citizens).
Note the experience tells us how in an undemocratic regime (such as a company) even if initially there is a capable Leader, subsequent “generations” are never up to the first leader (they become increasingly incapable, if not corrupt).
The fact is that the right Government is not something that can be based on the modalities used now for the government of the modern States: general planning (programs that last for years, and which apply to all local areas of a nation), top-down decisions , etc …
The right Government, on the other hand, is what allows local issues to work in everyday life.
It must be realized that optimal Government largely concerns local issues (Democracy was born with this in mind).
The important issues for a human community are indeed local ones.
The non-locality (supra-locality) of most government actions is in fact an invention of the current Social Democracy: on closer inspection, supra-local issues can be managed in a “local way” (we are talking, for example, of large infrastructures):
– the supra-local solutions managed in the current way – that is paid by the citizens, in an unconscious way, regardless of their real needs – can be replaced by structures and services for which the citizen pays only for the use of them (see example of toll highways).
– “investment” decisions in supra-local solutions can very well be taken by inter-local committees created for the occasion by local administrations (which in this dimension are managed directly by citizens, as is still the case in many provincial towns USA).
In these two cases, wasting money is avoided, and the effectiveness of structures and services is improved because citizens participate more directly in their definition (or can verify the actual quality of expenses). <see my text “Federalism 2.0: Direct Democracy at the inter-local level (governance by Delegations)“>
Bringing the issues of government (solutions for satisfying citizens’ needs) back to a level in which citizens can somehow participate in it means supporting a meta-rule that even a part of the market is taking into consideration:
the definition of needs satisfaction solutions
can only be effective when the holders of these needs
participate in some way (directly) in the design of the solutions
And citizens of course, when it comes to complex issues, can resort to experts as the rulers do today.
So a basic problem inherent in the research by the current Dissident Thought for better Leaders is an approach that is at least naive, since doing so does not take into account that Democracy is set to work when it is the Citizens who fill the role of “Leader” (of the Sovereigns). And therefore the current Leaders, however honest and capable they are, are not the right people to rule Democracy.
It should be noted that the experience of the last two centuries shows us how in a Democracy or Citizens somehow deal personally with the issues of government that concern them; or when they delegate even a part of their power to Representatives, the latter end up using that portion of power to increase their personal power. <see my text “Having even a small amount of power in a system allows you to increase that power“>
If you really want to change something for the better using the strategies adopted today by dissident thought, then it is necessary to definitively abandon Democracy. Maybe in that case the “regime” begins to work (not for people like me, but it is possible that People are happy).
Examples of mistakes made by “dissidents”
There are many cases of the basic errors set out above (mistakes made for decades that have done nothing but contribute to the worsening of things.
Let’s see a couple of examples here.
The case of the failure of dissident information
A significant example of such errors is that of the world of information, in which there has been a strong opposition to the “Deep state”, only to realize that
1) the result has been nothing other than a strengthening of the regime that they wanted to change, so much so that now the Deep State has assumed absolute power.
Another result of that approach is that today
2) we are witnessing a sensational about-face of some of the journalists who appeared to be the most committed to countering the Institution (such as Laura Ingrahm, Tucker Carlson), who suddenly joined – voluntarily – the general censorship imposed by the Deep state on fraud of the 2020 US presidential election (they started talking about everything that was not the most important issue of the moment, the obvious electoral fraud).
Whether such reporters behave this way to keep their super-salaries, or because they were never convinced of what they said, is irrelevant: it is creepy to see people considered to be heroes totally yielding to the established power they criticized. until the previous day.
The case of the failure of the political opposition
In the world of politics we see the same thing happening: Movements that claimed they wanted to increase citizens’ participation in government decisions in order to neutralize top-down authoritarian politics, suddenly switched to supporting government positions that they previously wanted to change.
This shows us how
most Citizens who say they want to change things by criticizing or attacking the System have no solid idea of what needs to be done
I am referring not only to those who joined Movements that aimed to change things by operating within the institutions (or to protest in the streets without activating constructive initiatives), but also, for example, to journalists such as those of Fox News who after years to fiercely criticize the institutions, they suddenly stop doing it when it is no longer appropriate for them to do so.
Ultimately, as illustrated in the concluding chapter “How is it possible to develop an effective change action” (and in many other texts of mine)
today there is a need to replace the critical, contrasting approach with a constructive one.
∙The meta-rules that govern the life of the human being
The basic contradiction, or if we want the schizophrenia (inability to see things as they actually are) of the current dissident thought derives from the fact that in it we reason at an ideological level, in the world of ideas – abstract – and not confront with the reality of the facts (which could be done, for example, by evaluating the results of the previous historical experiences of the method being implemented).
That is, in the world of ideas as we are currently confined (the “bubble” of Ideologies, Ideas produced by some human being which, on closer inspection, lack an experiential proof that has actually given positive results) we end up ignoring meta-rules that are the basis of the life of the human being (and therefore of the functioning of the human community). <see my text about Ideology on “Introduction o Direct Democracy“>
These “rules” of functioning of the human being (at the individual level, and at the level of social relations) are those principles indicated by the forms of ancient wisdom (which were the basis of all the “Philosophies” of the Ancients: from the Philosophies expressed in formal way such as those of the Vedas, Buddhism and Taoism, and the local forms of wisdom of each Village of the Globe).
These “Philosophies of life” today are defined as psychological sciences, and are used for the recovery of individuals with psychological disorders, but also for the improvement of the abilities of the “normal” person who wants to improve his ability to have relationships with others (family , community of people he frequents), or the performance in his profession.
These rules are the result of an observation of human communities lasting millennia, which have allowed us to understand what are the fundamental principles that have allowed human beings to develop a good quality of life within their community (and, against, observing the malfunctioning companies, it was possible to identify the incorrect applications of these principles).
The current problem with these meta-rules is that
which has accustomed man
to reasoning in an abstract, “theoretical” way
DOES NOT ALLOW HIM
TO BE CONFIDENTIAL WITH CONCEPTS
THAT ARE NOT DEFINABLE WITH RATIONAL,
That is, today we prefer to see a society based on abstract sciences such as Economics, losing sight of the human side of the functioning of human communities.
These meta-rules, or fundamental principles of human life are:
● the Principle of the need to orient the ends of the human community towards purely human purposes (for example, “the pursuit of Happiness”)
● the Principle of the Citizen’s responsibility with respect to the functioning of the community in which he lives
● the Principle of the need to orient the ends of the human community towards purely human purposes
This principle is expressed – for example in the founding acts of the first modern Democracy, in the USA – as
the goal of Democracy is the essence of human life: Happiness
This Principle indicates – according to the existential “Philosophies” of the past, and according to the founders of US Democracy – that the human society that functions optimally is one that is based primarily on human internal well-being.
That is, this Principle indicates that, in a Society based on the sovereignty of Citizens – where Citizens have the Power to choose how to be governed, as it is in Democracy – all other qualities of Society, such as material well-being, are a derivation of this interior quality: only when this condition exists in the society of inner well-being of individuals is it possible to make choices that lead to an improvement in living conditions (see below).
● the Principle of responsibility
(This is also the principle by which children were raised until a few years ago). That is
only an individual who has responsibility for himself
is able to develop
a quality existence for himself and for the community
in which he lives
Responsibility towards oneself is precisely the quality that distinguishes the adult individual from the child. That is, a responsible adult is the one who takes responsibility for his own life, not delegating this responsibility to others.
In the inversion of values operated by the current culture, the de-responsibility of the individual has a primary task: today citizens feel de-responsible for the choices of government. And they are therefore inclined to depend on the decisions of others.
It is necessary to consider how the question of the responsibility of the human being is closely linked to the question of the freedom of the same. Or
without freedom of choice
there can be no real responsibility of individuals
In other words, those who are not free to choose will never be made responsible for their choices.
The Principle of responsibility is expressed for example in Catholic “thought”, with the Idea of free will: man is free to choose what to do in life, but is then punished when his choices are wrong.
Without the application of these meta-principles
that govern the life of the human being,
there cannot be a real civil Society,
a real Democracy.
Today not only are the meta-principles that are the basis of the existence of the human being as an individual and as a social being not taken into account. But
when we talk about Democracy,
we do not take into account
the fundamental Principles of Democracy
That is basically, today
it is “as if” we were talking about Democracy
without knowing what we are talking about
The primary question to develop a debate on how we can recover a Democracy that is truly capable of satisfying people’s needs is therefore to answer the question “what is democracy in essence?“
And also to the question “what are the principles that must be followed to make Democracy work, or what are the principles to be recovered to return to a real Democracy?”
Remembering, above all, that Democracy is a rational system (based on rational logics) in which if the operating principles are not respected, unexpected results are obtained (problems are generated), let’s see what these principles of functioning of democracy are .
■ Democracy works only when citizens are directly interested in government actions (democracy “by the people”)
This is because:
– the essential purpose of Democracy is to satisfy the needs of citizens: and only the holders of the needs are able to organize and efficiently maintain the solutions that satisfy their needs <see “Innovation is intrinsically (historically) bottom-up”>).
– when even a little Power is delegated (to the Representatives), they use this delegated power to gradually increase their effective power, coming to make it independent of the will of those on behalf of whom should act (this is often justified, in the conscience of the politicians, by the idea of being right of doing it “for the good of the citizens”). <see my text “The question of representation in modern Democracy“>
■ in order for citizens to make effective decisions, they must have a civic awareness of what their rights are. And they need to know how things are going in reality.
It is therefore necessary to recreate a solid Citizen Culture: there is no awareness without knowledge. <see “The problem of the loss of the original culture” >
The Cultural Revolution developed by the Liberals operated in recent decades to produce a cancellation of the previous culture, on which Democracy was based <see “Handling the masses – the civilization of ideologies: from the community of man to the mass society”>
<see “The cultural matter”>
– make the information reliable again: the information available today is in the great majority false information, created with the strategies of the unique thought of cultural Marxism). <<see my Article”An elementary (reassuring) approach of “dissident information“>
<see “Why is Democracy vanishing?”>
The document ”What are the Working Principles of Democracy?” <see> illustrates how the fundamental principles underlying Democracy are divided into two groups: ● Natural Rights (these are rights recognized as morally universal by both Liberalism and Socialism – in this case only on paper). And ● the Institutional Principles: those rights that are “less universal”, but which have nevertheless been deemed necessary for Democracy (this is basically the concept expressed as a fundamental factor of Democracy in constitutions: the Sovereignty of the Citizen).
And it illustrates how there is a correlation between (1) Liberty, (2) Property and (3) Citizen’s Sovereignty:
(1) Freedom is the quality of life of the Citizen in Democracy (and in the living conditions of the traditional human community).
(2) Property is the material factor that allows the Citizen to realize his own in full Freedom: there can be no real Freedom of the Citizen if he does not have the tools, the material means (the Properties to produce what he needs to live ).
(3) Citizen’s Sovereignty is the institutional (political) instrument necessary for the Citizen to be able to maintain his Freedom, and to be able to effectively protect and manage his Property.