Communication and the border between Democracy and Ochlocracy
Welcome back to “Reflections”, the column where I express my thoughts over different topics based on current events.
Don’t forget to support my work and contribute to make it better through feedbacks.
Now let’s start.
Communication is crucial in our ultra-connected society, it can be the best ally as the worst enemy of politicians, administrators, companies, but even common people. Although its importance few are capable of manage it and even fewer understand its real power.
In a recent article, the famous British magazine “The Economist” reported that “…a laboratory mouse lasts longer than a typical Italian administration…”; eventhough the article focused on Italian’s constitutional reform, that political parties are still discussing in these days, nonetheless the affirmation is undoubtedly true although the eventuality must be ascribed to different causes:
1. The form of government, set as a parliamentary republic, isn’t an incentive to stability
2. The ambiguous nature of electoral law which prefers proportional voting rather than majoritarian one without rejecting it at all, in fact it is a mixed law (63% proportional – 37% majoritarian).
But these are only the “technical reasons”, there must be something else.
I identify this “else” into “communication”.
In every democratic Country political forces are divided between majority, which governs, and minority, also known as opposition, whose rule is to promote their instances harmonising them with those of the party at the government; in short, opposition is constructive rather than disruptive. But it isn’t what happens in our times, at least in Italy but I bet wherever there are multiple political forces too.
The role of opposition has been transformed into an empty controversy in which slogans, rather than arguments, and stadium choirs rather than care the prosperity of nation, have taken the whole scene and the wicked use of social networks amplify this phenomenon leading to a [in]natural polarisation which, although takes place into the digital world, isn’t without consequences in the real one; among its multiple effects, it brings socio-political instability covered, this is the true absurdity, as “exercise of democratic prerogatives”. No party, no political force, no movement, is exempt from this phenomenon neither majority nor minority, neither left nor right. And it is expanding also to daily life.
In addition to instability this eventuality is leading also to Ochlocracy or «the government of masses» which represents a serious threat to national security and stability, as Aristotle pointed out about 2500 years ago in his treaty «Πολιτικά» (Politiká).
This kind of disorder forbids to create a long term prospective, loosing opportunities for economic growth and development.
So how can we overcome the problem?
Even leaving a part for a moment the «Technical questions» above mentioned, the solution isn’t simple and we should act in different directions simultaneously:
1. Attempts to improve the quality of communication: social network are the best instrument to spread, not only political instances, but also democracy itself; if used wisely they can boost the participation of common people to political life promoting transparency and constructive dialogue, but to achieve this goal both politicians and people must acquire awareness about the «power of internet» largely underestimated;
2. Opposition must come back to its original rule of advisor and controller of majority’s work, avoiding easy fights and abandoning ideological positions preferring pragmatic solutions because they have to govern (although not directly), not to satisfy the anger of disgruntled people; democracy, that one authentic, has been created for every citizen regardless of who he/she voted for;
3. People should understand that its rule as a decision-maker is limited to the period of elections, it shouldn’t pretend to operate as an actor after them, “direct democracy” has never brought nowhere but more instability; this doesn’t mean that people don’t have to control their governors, but it has to avoid useless interferences most of the times based on partial interests and misinformation, and consequently misinterpretation, about the occurring events.
I know my reasoning sounds like a moralist or idealist one, but there is nothing more distant from reality, what I preach is an harmonious and well-ordered political system capable even to face challenges brought by modern times and technologies, but at the same time capable to create and manage, in a sort of autopoietic system, the true democracy as a delicate balance between the different roles of many gears of a mechanism.
Democracy is a trip not the final destination.
