It’s interesting to see that most people defend democracy while they know quite well that the winning parties are the ones with most of the money and the strongest organizational capital. Most citizens today are aware that these parties are indoctrinating them with their repetitive presence through posters and slogans, yet we still vote for them.
Democracy was the elite answer to the French Revolution. It was introduced to keep the angry mob satisfied with the illusion that they were in control. At the time, the new regime proved their own dishonesty by their increasing suppressive character, releasing the public anger once again a few decades later. Things have calmed down since then, but does that justify our obsessive idealization of the democratic system?
Surely, the destiny of our species has long been bigger than the individuals who courageously put themselves in centre of the battle fields, hasn’t it? Then what is it we believe to attain when we collectively put our cross on the piece of paper that was given to us by the people whose names are written on it?
In a recent text, subconscious stakes, I tried to show the importance of deepening our self-knowledge in decision-making processes. Politicians, in their public debate, exercise the opposite. Their stake is their party, but if you take an entire political program, it’s unlikely that all members fully agree with it. Regardless of inner disagreements, they’re trained to defend it. They have to stand for a static cloud of ideas, while, particularly in these versatile times, change of personal preference is only natural. There has to be subconscious friction which troubles decision makers’ views.
I think my point here is that the movements of the tides are not in our command. To be honest, I believe that the big political fields can be steered only by those who deeply choose for the new direction. And they will have their impact whether they are part of the theater or not. If we want to feel in control, we should do our best to stay close to our dearest motivations and use whatever talent we have to push in that direction. Not just our vote. That part wasn’t even credible in the eighteenth century.