In the West we have always made an erroneous analogy by believing that the people who govern us are like a father who cares for his citizens as he cares for his own children with the same affection and devotion. The benevolence of this father forces his children to obey him under all circumstances because his directives have as their main objective the good for all the people he takes care of. Undoubtedly, this is an almost universal view of the ruler, the idea that people with power act or are motivated by the interest of parental care is a fact that is corroborated not only today but throughout human history. In "Du Contract Social" Rousseau stated that the parents acted for the good of the child, that is to say, guided by the protection of their children, but he affirms that the rulers rule for the pleasure of the command and never allow themselves to be guided by the affections towards anyone, that is why they feel no more love for anyone but themselves and not even for their descendants, after all.

What do the parents of their children really want, that they be subject to them all their lives or that they acquire the necessary powers to be self-sufficient? Certainly the latter, if those in power do so with the aim of improving society, they will do everything possible to create the means for the people to be able to govern themselves and no longer need their guardianship, that is, they will do everything possible to put an end to the state itself. This is exactly the purpose of the government of the people: that the ruling elite and the governed converge, the people coming to govern themselves directly without intermediaries or institutions to govern them. In short, this is what democracy means, it is the meaning most attached to democracy, a system of governance that defends the sovereignty of the people and the right of the people to elect and control their rulers.

However, today, the so-called democratic systems propose and even in many cases impose economic measures, immigration laws, unrealistic promises, etc. All in order to attract more followers no matter how derisory the proposal is, the rulers do not intend to rule for the people, they want to rule to stay in power and corrupt themselves. It is for this reason that there are few proposals to deepen democratization in order to build more participatory societies, and when it is attempted to do so with the purest hand of demagogy by making people believe they are living in the most democratic and participatory society in history, demagogy is not democracy, demagogy is to deceive people so that they can comply with everything their governing parents say to the letter. If the "democratic" countries really want to talk about democracy they should follow the example of Switzerland and its referendum systems. However, democracy is presented to people as something already given and established and not as a project that must be carried out; this shows the lack of ideological foundation of our current political systems since, whether they are called democratic or otherwise, their objectives are the same: material improvement in the organization and systematic production, forgetting any project of political improvement.

This leads me to wonder whether a democratic ideal can really be achieved in its ultimate utopia, whether people can really take power from the state and govern themselves. Looking at history and our present day, the answer would tip the balance in the negative rather than the positive direction. With regard to democracy, if you look at the brightest minds that have ever existed, you see a great deal of contempt for democracy, and not for social status but for the level of intelligence and wisdom, they did not and do not really believe in the ability of the majority to govern all people.

Demagoguery is something inevitable and inherent in the democratic system, as Plato put it in his Republic, demagogues were concurrent not only in the present day where the majority of politicians comply with this characteristic but also in the very poles of Greece. The mass, by its very status as a mass, does not think, does not question, does not discern and is therefore easily deceived by messages full of emotion, basic, full of distortions, attacks, ad hominen arguments, etc. Human beings always opt for their own individual benefit, it is inherent in them, so it would be logical to think that the mass always opts for their own good, but what if they do not know what really benefits them? what happens when they do not have a basic understanding of auditing, politics, macroeconomics etc.? If we look at history, we will see that there are millions of examples that provide answers to the questions already asked, where a population has opted for its own destruction or for the destruction of neighbouring nations. And we still don't seem to have learned much from history since those examples are clearly visible in today's world.

And what should be done about it? We might think that if the current structures or systems that oppress our sovereignty were to disappear we could find a solution, but I do not really believe that we have the capacity to govern ourselves, since then it would become another repressive order very similar to the previous one in order to maintain order'. This is evident in the few but not very few occasions on which the masses have the opportunity to express their bewilderment, these messages are usually full of irrationalities, inconsistencies and vicissitudes, thus calling into question their ability to govern themselves; a clear but paradigmatic example is the current rise of the left in many parts of the world that seems to be returning with strength to the vows again through a class struggle taken to a merely cultural and ideosynchronous plane, something new? no, same thing as 200 years ago.

However, not everything is negative, let's look at the bright side, there are several reasons to hope that in the not too distant future we could progressively assume the fullness of sovereignty if we work honestly and constructively, of course. The first thing is that we always look at people's mistakes and ignore people's good deeds or attributes, it's natural and very human. However, we never give adequate recognition to the masses when this collective makes a wise decision for people, we forget that kings, presidents, intellectuals, philosophers also make mistakes and very serious to the point of being catastrophic, after all it was Hitler's book by Mein Kampf that managed to indoctrinate so many people with its theory of the Aryan Race. Certainly we must be critical because through it we achieve improvement, progress and even perfection, which is why we should not be so critical of democracy, we know that there are mistakes, but not mistakes that cannot be solved. When there is a problem within the systems or a bad choice, we always see the people and their capacity for self-government as the culprits, yet we observe those mistakes and even worse of autocratic governments and we do not judge them as serious as democratic systems, much less conclude from an intellectual point of view that they are equal to or even worse than collective systems.

The second thing is that we are constantly growing beings, that is, we are always improving. Since the Enlightenment we have managed to expand education to levels never seen before, and although there has not been much progress, there is no denying that it has existed. Women, proletarians, peasants, all those who were once excluded from education today have a place in education systems. There has been a progressive improvement with respect to the masses as long as governments do not take control of popular institutions and impart their doctrines in a clear indirect way. We must remember that democracy is not then a system based on the election of all mandates, democracy includes the rule of law, separation of powers and respect for the freedom of minorities. The people who agreed, then, have proven to be able to have the same intellectual and cultural capacity as anyone else who previously could access knowledge and education because of the monopoly of education.

In more than two centuries it has been possible to instruct absurd numbers of individuals and improve their living conditions through education, thus improving the intellect and the ability of most of the earth's citizens to obtain information. The UN itself, in its Agenda 2030, calls for an end to literacy. Never before have we been so close to achieving it. What would be achieved if all members of society were to make intellectual efforts to build a future based on an integral and universal education? If this were the goal, I would not doubt that a better, more organized society capable of self-government could be built. The contempt for the formation of citizens and the mental brutality to which the majority is subjected thanks to the propaganda media and the maintenance of the current status quo are symptoms of how our current social system is far from being democratic in the form and aims it pursues. However, this may change.

In the present times of postmodernism, full of relativism and feelings, these two visions of mine, full of hope, may not have had a space to form themselves. Democracy is no stranger to authoritarianism, many dictators have come to power through the same popular vote. Karl Popper said that he saw that the difference between a free society and a totalitarian state was the latter's claim to ahistoricity. By this Popper was referring to the fact that the ethos was a rigid and closed system because he assumed that knowledge and truth flowed from top to bottom like a pyramid, the elites and the rulers at the top. Therefore it is the elite who always lead according to their doctrines and belief systems, which for them are perfect perseums.

We are always in search of that which we cannot find, it is inhospitable in the human being to always seek happiness even though it can never be achieved in its entirety, happiness is not a state, it is an episode. The same happens with the search for a final utopia, the ideal society is one in which the government is presided over, since all will be self-sufficient, governed by the laws and by the voluntary cooperation of all people, based on the principles of freedom and truth. We can then accept by consensus established in history that the human being is a changing and constantly evolving being. The true utopia, therefore, will not be the one that is never finished or is already established, it will be the one that is always subject to criticism, improvement and evolution. There is no such thing as a perfect system by definition, there are imperfect systems, because human beings are not perfect beings, that is why the current and future systems will need the whole of society to submit to self-criticism and mistrust of new institutions and governments.

Today, again, what is called democracy is nothing more than a mockery, it is a gene mutated in a loud way. Democracy means that we accept the truth and the superiority of our political system without a glimmer of in-depth debate on the issue. Politicians and the mass media overwhelmingly defend the status quo and any referendum, any modification of the constitutional system is perceived as a threat to stability, never as a possibility of progress.

Unlike what today is considered a "democratic state", a true system of government seeks to mutate and transform itself by deepening the ways in which people intervene in sovereignty to the point of self-government and beyond. The ideal system of government has as its firmest foundation the education of the people and the encouragement of divergence, since it assumes that in the plurality of voices the truth is manifested and when we really understand this as a collective we will realize that we can really achieve a system of self-government without the need for politicians to lie to us and force us to pay their wages.

---

_{Posted from my blog with SteemPress : Here}

---