Search This Blog

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Democracy ... Whose Freak?

Democracy is a term which is often used to reflect institutionalisation of freedom. However, when the term democracy is spoken neither it nor freedom has been given a definition, which is able to magnify the grounding conceptual activity. In this sense, the term democracy often describes a social state or social order. Politicians talk democracy either to refer to an existing social order or to a state of abstraction. This state of abstraction always implied one of two matters; a) germinating an existing social organisation to meet some pre-defined conditions, which are embedded in some social, political and economical layout, or b) a confiscation of a ruling system. People, usually, use the term democracy when they refer to an existing social and political organisation which they consider democratic. The term is, commonly, used to compare existing organisations: some organisations are democratic and some are not, or, some are democratic and some are evolving to be – these are, normally, the conclusions of such a comparison. People cannot be democratic but systems can. Democracy itself is a system which is intended to be a rumination of the conceptual freedom. As freedom is a conceptual subject, it is often perceived differently over time and due to different societal and political states. Therefore, democracy, which is a system, differs imputable to different interpretations of freedom. Reaching this point, democracy in the sense mentioned above is negotiated, negotiation in this context may expand to cover hard arguments and even conflicts and struggles, between the ruling system - the state, and the public. Hence, the public often negotiate their legal pace of rights and choices. Moreover, the public negotiate their own roles, that is, the public go into social processes which shape the form of the negotiation between the public and the state. These social processes are founded upon many aspects of the society, such as, social classes, distribution of wealth, public awareness, rates of consumption, and the identities, which are available for individuals to take on their parts. These aspects, in essence, are interrelated. Furthermore, the state itself plays an important role in constituting all of these aspects. The resultant relationships of the interrelationships of these aspects frame the equality or inequality of rights within a society. It follows that the public, firstly, form a standing point, which is shaped by social processes, the state intervenes in these social process though. The public, then, negotiate their pace of rights and choices with the state. So, when a group within a society whose principles and thoughts are challenged by the rest of the public and the state, it is more likely to be suppressed directly or indirectly. However, power is a key subject in all of the social processes. It does not matter how many members are within this group, it does matter how powerful they are. In the former case of this resultant suppression they are not in power at all, at this period of time. All of the former con-functioning issues collaboratively constitute the act of democratisation, an act which reflects power positions within a society. In this sense, democracy is not as same as mobocracy – a political system in which a mob is the source of control. Democracy is a system which is limited by formulations and regulations of an implementation of an ideology which is represented by the most powerful group or organisation within a society. So, when democracy is spoken it always reflects this most powerful organisation, which, in turn, reflects enforcement of an ideology. Thus, democracy in this manner is not a reflection of freedom but a reflection of a social system which serves a powerful dominating organisation.
Democracy, as a societal system, is shaped by power. A powerful dominating organisation within a society, which is a representative of an ideology, exercises power on the society itself to shape the public opinion. Domination in this manner takes many forms, soft and violent ones. Thus, directing the public to some social constructions which , in turn, lead to implementing the organisation's vision of democracy. The state is not an independent establishment. Following any democratic approach, even fake ones, the state is the outcome of the negotiation mentioned former. Thus, it is an outcome which facilitates realising the ideology of that power organisation.

No comments: