" ... And I will not miss the words corrupted by use," said a song of Tahures Zurdos . It is true that our life is full of fine words and sound that both manipulate and use the same for a hole that for a disjointed, we have been prostituted and hollow. Perhaps we could say that love, art, freedom, solidarity and justice. Or, why not that other word pretty, democracy. live happily ever after in a social and "democratic" law, but at other times during the Franco regime, we lived in a "democracy" organic, the Chinese, however, live in a republic "democratic" popular. Just as all people are themselves as "good people", all modern countries like to define themselves as "democratic." The word has been sparse, has become an attractive package that is often used as trim to hide the stark reality of power. Is it possible to better define the term to serve us something?
If we look at the etymology, democracy means "power of the People." And if we take this really seriously, paradoxically, it is normal to give us laughter, as Mafalda , possessed by a whirlwind of cynicism has ruled But when the People? Is not this really a contradiction in terms? Is not the fact the people of the governed?
Our "myth of origins" of democracy refers to ancient Athens , where certainly there was a highly participatory society. All "citizens" and not just the oligarchs, could intervene directly in public affairs that affect them through participation in the assembly and could run for public office . Our society has reached a degree of functional specialization and complexity that would be effectively impossible to maintain such direct involvement. So therefore somewhat enviable looks like a model. But who were the "citizens" who could participate in public affairs? A clear minority of the population, since women, slaves and metics (foreign immigrants) were excluded from citizenship. Could it be that they (they) were not Pueblo? Were not these people may Village than anyone, since they were excluded from, control of power? Beyond this, if you have participated in any meeting, be observed as they also flutters the power, more or less explicitly, or they can be manipulated by different forms of power or pressure. The The same goes, of course, public office, though a priori are available to "all" "citizens."
And if we refer to our modern democracies ? Currently women are entitled to vote and it is assumed that there are no slaves. Yes, we have several millions of foreign immigrants who are affected by the decisions of power, but have no ability to intervene in public affairs, finding himself become the subject of political debate rather than the subject of this discussion. But hey, we could say that at least the "citizenship" now covers the majority of the population. What is specific participation? Well, we do not have direct democracy. If any institution that tries to recreate in a more well testimonial (and say "testimonial" to seek a soft word not scandalize anyone.)
Indeed, as mentioned above, it would be impossible for us to participate directly in all decisions that affect us, because our society is too complex. Thus, by necessity, "delegate" a caste of "political" professionals who are actually wield political power. The theology of our political system tells us that the rules are "legitimate" because we have done. But one need not be very smart to realize that this is merely an idealized representation. Obviously, the rules other people have made on the basis of very diverse interests.
This reality is a manifestation of a general pattern identified by the sociologist Robert Mitchell, the iron Act oligarchy, which is to say that even in organizations that we call "democratic", in practice, the end always ends a minority rule. This happens in both the state and in the associations, political parties, unions or any grouping, at least when they reach a certain size.
some extent, this group of "political" operates as a true class leader, they are all social conditions of existence are very similar and therefore are aware of it or not, have common interests and some common ideology secreted by these interests, beyond the divisions tribal apparently separate. This is nothing new in the past as the various noble houses could be facing each other, but not stopped being a "class."
course, it is not logical or predictable that this group is going to legislate or rule against their class interests and here we already have a major limitation of the "people power." Of course, the "people" amorphous even if it is disorganized, has a certain capacity to influence public affairs. In basic terms this finding tanpoco seems a historical novelty. Roman policy also had to take into account the instincts of the people and so did the Polynesian chiefs or any other political system described by the historiography or ethnography. All the leaders seek to maintain a balance between their class interests and the need to keep the people happy and peaceful. Beyond repression and violence that is sometimes used excessive so, all power needs at least entitled to remain in day to day and that legitimate means at least a passive acceptance of governance.
As has always happened historically, the people can influence the course of the battles of the ruling class, but can only do so within established rules about preventing substantial changes. If a Polynesian chief acts as a Tyrant, is killed by the people and replaced by a Polynesian chief, but the system itself cazicazgo, and some assumptions on underlying this form of domination are generally uncontroversial. We, more "civilized" than the Polynesians, we can decide together every four years if it rules the PSOE or the PP, tribal groups who like emphasize their differences dressed with feathers of different colors. Well, all that the election is very good, and explain why, but in reality does not imply that laws are made by the people or the people whom it governs.
In fact, we know that there are other forms of pressure are more effective and influential than the mere consideration of the feelings of the crowd. Has the Village who has decided the last labor reform and recent welfare cuts? As the polls say, most people seem to disagree. In fact, our leaders were elected in recent elections had expressly promised that they would not to make labor reforms and welfare cuts regressive; few months before lowering the salaries of public sector workers had agreed on moderate wage increases, and in the context of economic crisis. And yet, at any given time, carry out certain policies "unpopular", changing his mind abruptly.
The Government has given the lurch just because it has been under pressure from powerful forces. I do not intend to exempt it from moral and political responsibility, each club that hold your candle. But sobering for the naive claim that in our country the people rule. " I have already told
discouraged. All that I'm counting This entry is the pessimistic view of the cynical and sorry. A certain amount of cynicism can be just fine. It frees us from the vice of naivety. However, the cynical and the naive have a common flaw: they both covered only a part of reality. His vision is so partial and fragmented which can lead to counterproductive behavior. Mr. Mitchell, a brilliant sociologist, after compounding the iron law of oligarchy we have mentioned, ended up becoming a supporter of fascism. It seems that even thought that if democratic institutions are not really ends up being more popular that amorphous mass adoration that feels for the charismatic leader shift, the truth ends up confusing. Certainly, if any inhabitant of our little democratic state thinks that ultimately democracy is a lie and therefore everything goes well and nothing matters, I invite you to live a stint as a subject people in the democratic republic of China. You are going to remove all the stupid fast.
We live in another time that Robert Mitchells and we also have the risk that we really confused, but this risk manifests itself differently. Cynicism serves as an excuse for bloated again justified our idiocy (naive concern for our immediate interests and those of our family ignoring public life that really affect us) and ultimately to let everything go as it is. The roar of the politicians, because everyone steals a lot, stealing are all day, watching us let off steam with superiority and finally got used and everything that happens seems "normal." And if we can steal us, too, of course, do not they politicians? Or try to stick to their power to get cut. Thus, every time we get less people and increasingly we become more peat or mass. What may have died in our social life of democracy and the possibilities grow demagoguery.
One thing is to realize that people actually not rule never quite another we degrade ourselves in this way. To break this impasse, we have to stop literally believe in democracy as a situation or state of things and look at it differently. We will see in the next chapter of this exciting telenovela.
If we look at the etymology, democracy means "power of the People." And if we take this really seriously, paradoxically, it is normal to give us laughter, as Mafalda , possessed by a whirlwind of cynicism has ruled But when the People? Is not this really a contradiction in terms? Is not the fact the people of the governed?
Our "myth of origins" of democracy refers to ancient Athens , where certainly there was a highly participatory society. All "citizens" and not just the oligarchs, could intervene directly in public affairs that affect them through participation in the assembly and could run for public office . Our society has reached a degree of functional specialization and complexity that would be effectively impossible to maintain such direct involvement. So therefore somewhat enviable looks like a model. But who were the "citizens" who could participate in public affairs? A clear minority of the population, since women, slaves and metics (foreign immigrants) were excluded from citizenship. Could it be that they (they) were not Pueblo? Were not these people may Village than anyone, since they were excluded from, control of power? Beyond this, if you have participated in any meeting, be observed as they also flutters the power, more or less explicitly, or they can be manipulated by different forms of power or pressure. The The same goes, of course, public office, though a priori are available to "all" "citizens."
And if we refer to our modern democracies ? Currently women are entitled to vote and it is assumed that there are no slaves. Yes, we have several millions of foreign immigrants who are affected by the decisions of power, but have no ability to intervene in public affairs, finding himself become the subject of political debate rather than the subject of this discussion. But hey, we could say that at least the "citizenship" now covers the majority of the population. What is specific participation? Well, we do not have direct democracy. If any institution that tries to recreate in a more well testimonial (and say "testimonial" to seek a soft word not scandalize anyone.)
Indeed, as mentioned above, it would be impossible for us to participate directly in all decisions that affect us, because our society is too complex. Thus, by necessity, "delegate" a caste of "political" professionals who are actually wield political power. The theology of our political system tells us that the rules are "legitimate" because we have done. But one need not be very smart to realize that this is merely an idealized representation. Obviously, the rules other people have made on the basis of very diverse interests.
This reality is a manifestation of a general pattern identified by the sociologist Robert Mitchell, the iron Act oligarchy, which is to say that even in organizations that we call "democratic", in practice, the end always ends a minority rule. This happens in both the state and in the associations, political parties, unions or any grouping, at least when they reach a certain size.
some extent, this group of "political" operates as a true class leader, they are all social conditions of existence are very similar and therefore are aware of it or not, have common interests and some common ideology secreted by these interests, beyond the divisions tribal apparently separate. This is nothing new in the past as the various noble houses could be facing each other, but not stopped being a "class."
course, it is not logical or predictable that this group is going to legislate or rule against their class interests and here we already have a major limitation of the "people power." Of course, the "people" amorphous even if it is disorganized, has a certain capacity to influence public affairs. In basic terms this finding tanpoco seems a historical novelty. Roman policy also had to take into account the instincts of the people and so did the Polynesian chiefs or any other political system described by the historiography or ethnography. All the leaders seek to maintain a balance between their class interests and the need to keep the people happy and peaceful. Beyond repression and violence that is sometimes used excessive so, all power needs at least entitled to remain in day to day and that legitimate means at least a passive acceptance of governance.
As has always happened historically, the people can influence the course of the battles of the ruling class, but can only do so within established rules about preventing substantial changes. If a Polynesian chief acts as a Tyrant, is killed by the people and replaced by a Polynesian chief, but the system itself cazicazgo, and some assumptions on underlying this form of domination are generally uncontroversial. We, more "civilized" than the Polynesians, we can decide together every four years if it rules the PSOE or the PP, tribal groups who like emphasize their differences dressed with feathers of different colors. Well, all that the election is very good, and explain why, but in reality does not imply that laws are made by the people or the people whom it governs.
In fact, we know that there are other forms of pressure are more effective and influential than the mere consideration of the feelings of the crowd. Has the Village who has decided the last labor reform and recent welfare cuts? As the polls say, most people seem to disagree. In fact, our leaders were elected in recent elections had expressly promised that they would not to make labor reforms and welfare cuts regressive; few months before lowering the salaries of public sector workers had agreed on moderate wage increases, and in the context of economic crisis. And yet, at any given time, carry out certain policies "unpopular", changing his mind abruptly.
The Government has given the lurch just because it has been under pressure from powerful forces. I do not intend to exempt it from moral and political responsibility, each club that hold your candle. But sobering for the naive claim that in our country the people rule. " I have already told
discouraged. All that I'm counting This entry is the pessimistic view of the cynical and sorry. A certain amount of cynicism can be just fine. It frees us from the vice of naivety. However, the cynical and the naive have a common flaw: they both covered only a part of reality. His vision is so partial and fragmented which can lead to counterproductive behavior. Mr. Mitchell, a brilliant sociologist, after compounding the iron law of oligarchy we have mentioned, ended up becoming a supporter of fascism. It seems that even thought that if democratic institutions are not really ends up being more popular that amorphous mass adoration that feels for the charismatic leader shift, the truth ends up confusing. Certainly, if any inhabitant of our little democratic state thinks that ultimately democracy is a lie and therefore everything goes well and nothing matters, I invite you to live a stint as a subject people in the democratic republic of China. You are going to remove all the stupid fast.
We live in another time that Robert Mitchells and we also have the risk that we really confused, but this risk manifests itself differently. Cynicism serves as an excuse for bloated again justified our idiocy (naive concern for our immediate interests and those of our family ignoring public life that really affect us) and ultimately to let everything go as it is. The roar of the politicians, because everyone steals a lot, stealing are all day, watching us let off steam with superiority and finally got used and everything that happens seems "normal." And if we can steal us, too, of course, do not they politicians? Or try to stick to their power to get cut. Thus, every time we get less people and increasingly we become more peat or mass. What may have died in our social life of democracy and the possibilities grow demagoguery.
One thing is to realize that people actually not rule never quite another we degrade ourselves in this way. To break this impasse, we have to stop literally believe in democracy as a situation or state of things and look at it differently. We will see in the next chapter of this exciting telenovela.
0 comments:
Post a Comment