2.02.23. Democracy

The state of the various dimensions of reality, which is determined by politics in countries with a declared democratic system, seems to be “blasphemous” in Poland today, if you mention to the phenomena served by players active in the political arenas from the well-known Mickiewicz ballad. Significantly, this is the case: the game of individual and organization interests, close feudal relations, the views of people convinced that publishing comments in digital media equals direct democracy, the fears of those social groups who, for various reasons, are easy subject to simplified visions of the planet and fear change.

All this results in exuberant populism, polarization of views, cultural wars, attempts to establish authoritarianism and colonization of individual states. It is rather common. besides where 1 might believe democracy is firmly established and long ago.

If individual would so like to take a deeper thought on the issues cited above and is besides looking for tools-categories that explain the disturbing phenomena of the modern world, it would be good to look at the author's books, which specializes in past and explanation of political thought, and with peculiar attention explores the problem of democracy and populism. For example, Jan-Werner Müller, presently a prof. of political discipline at Princeton University, responds to this demand. 4 of his books were published in the Polish translation: What is populism? (2017), Against democracy. The political ideas of the 20th century in Europe (2017), Fear and freedom. For another liberalism (2021) and more late – Democracy rules (December 2022). The second will be discussed further (in Polish Tomasz Sawczuk, Foundation for Liberal Culture).

The chessboard on the cover of Müller's book beats into the eyes and its in the context of its title means. It clearly indicates that we are dealing with a game. Natural should so be questions about who players are, who designates them, who they represent, who supports players, which means winning 1 or the other, how winners build relationships with their supporters, as well as with losers. Above all, it seems crucial to ask whether the game respects its hard rules according to what both chess and democracy require.

The basis for the reflections presented in the book are events observed in America under Trump's presidency, British Brexit, as well as actions of Hungarian, Turkish, Polish and Brazilian leaders. The names of Orbán, Erdoğan, Kaczyński, Morawiecki, Bolsonaro, Modi, Netanjahu or Putin, seen as a clear pattern for the above mentioned. It follows that democracy is undoubtedly in crisis, and hence the question of what's next... Müller’s work is announced by his Polish editor, Jarosław Kuisz in Preface entitled War and Democracy. He writes:

Liberal Democrats recalled the old fact that the system, which inactive so magnetically affects people from different parts of the globe, is indeed a fragile project. And that is what this book deals with. [...]
For respective years, Jan-Werner Müller has been conducting a circumstantial "conceptual crusade", namely, in the 21st century, in the face of the spread of populism and its associated polarisation, he recalls what the basic terms of a democratic dictionary mean in general.
The most interesting thing for the author is that, although many people present defy the ideology of liberalism – almost all politicians want to appear as democrats, even at the price of apparent lies. [...] The latest book Müller focuses [...] on the problem of keeping democracy alive in the context of technological and social change of the first decades of the 21st century.
The attacks on liberalism conducted from morning to evening made democracy itself questionable. Limiting political opponents' freedom of expression in the public media, utilizing common state resources for 1 political camp only, resorting during the electoral run to monitoring competitors through fresh technologies (such as the Pegasus programme) and respective another phenomena allows, unfortunately, to question the correctness of holding elections in Poland.
"Democracy rules" is an crucial book, due to the fact that it reminds us of the importance of democratic infrastructure, the request for democratic institutions that warrant the anticipation of fair elections and the existence of diverse opinions. What is not little important, however, is Müller dealing with illusions about the anticipation of building a direct democracy, which would happen after a possible collapse of the wave of national populism. [...]
Social media brings many citizens the illusion that they are participating in direct democracy, that they are spending time on something important. Nothing more wrong, we seem to say Müller – without real democratic institutions we will at most stone in virtual clouds.
This book is mostly devoted to realizing where liberal democracy is today, where it is in problem and where, despite everything, its supporters can get hope (Democracy rules, pp. 9-11).

In Müller's book curious between Introduction a Code will find 3 importantly titled parts: Democracy pretends to be..., Real democracy... and New Open.

Introduction opens an absolutely essential point for the author's overall consideration. “It seems to all that democracy is in crisis – but how many of us are certain what democracy is?” (Democracy rules, p. 15). Yeah.

We will further find an chance to think about what the word crisis means in general and what the crisis is about in the context under discussion, and what is related to the notion of the people – peculiarly applicable to the situation of political exclusion and division of people for better and worse sortings. Here, for example, "Jarosław Kaczyński's attack on those Poles who, according to him, have betrayal in genes" (Jw., p. 36). The notions of populism, nationalism, fascism, Nazism, racism... specified an investigation of the Kuish in his Preface calls the "specific conceptual crusade" conducted by Müller not very skillful. The thing is, crusades have a alternatively negative attitude. However, the fact that we usage the same words does not necessarily mean that we mean the same thing and above all, that we do not necessarily follow the same visions of reality. Wittgenstein's expression that “the borders of my language set limits to my world” is inactive in force. In 1 of the contemporary novels we will read that “people do not live in the country, they live in the language” (Jaume Cabré, I confess, translated Anna Sawicka, Marginy Publishing House, p. 27)...

Inquiring and agreeing on the meaning of the words utilized to describe reality is in any case a fundamental issue erstwhile it comes to common affairs. Its omission causes “the tongue of thought for us” to bring fundamental problems to “a hard speech”. This phenomenon was explained in his own time precisely – although, unfortunately, not without ideological confusion directed against contemporary cultural-language tendencies – by French philosopher Chantal Delsol, in the book Hate to the world. Totalitarianism and post-modernity (interviewed by Marek Chojnacki, Pax Publishing Institute, Warsaw 2017). In a chapter whose title is simply a insignificant paraphrase from Schiller – “The language that thinks for you” – she wrote:

Dying speech it appears everywhere, in any case wherever there is simply a public sphere and public opinion. Autocratic authorities must deceive public opinion, but democratic authorities must seduce it. And here, and there, the same means apply for this intent – and so much so that the boundary between seduction and deception is blurred. [...] all political authority (government or authority by influence) tries to oversee public opinion through language control. However, there are limits to the question of whether the thought is inactive free. [...]
No language takes reality directly; it always interprets it. [...] A dull speech It is primarily characterized by the usage indefinitely of the same words, which are rapidly analysed and shortly mean nothing. It is simply a language of stereotypes, a language full of tongues and empty formulas, characterized by excessive usage of words besides vague and besides general. Today, these are words specified as freedom, peace, equality, the right to this or that, the expression “for all” etc. [...] For deficiency of precision there are ready doctrines imposed on participants in public life (Hate for..., pp. 280-281).

In Müller's book, curious parties are invited in any case to reflect on what they truly mean by concepts that describe what democracy is and what it means to complicate the principles that are applicable to it. This raises questions:

What is truly essential for democracy? Is it about 1 trait or possibly more? Is it an election, a set of fundamental rights, specified as freedom of speech, or a more elusive issue of collective attitudes, specified as the tendency of citizens to treat each another with respect? (Democracy rules( p. 17).

In this work we will besides find analyses of many examples that show the degeneration of democracy. And most importantly, suggestions on how to decision from what is expected to be to what is ‘serious’. These include (1) the request to "good-bye" with a view to the inevitability of democracy, so with specified a imagination of the improvement of the world, which, any time ago, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, many seemed certain, at least in relation to the Western states, and (2) to reconcile themselves consequently with the perception of democracy in terms that Müller describes as "institutional uncertainty" with mention to specialist research. That's what he says:

This awkward expression contains deep truth: political results – above all the consequence of elections – must be uncertain. If individual wants to think that everything is clear in advance, they have at their disposal: North Korea, where authoritative candidates receive virtually 100 percent of the vote; similarly, another dictatorships specified as Azerbaijan, where in 2013, election results were accidentally published the day before the vote in the iPhone app; or Trump, who announced a triumph erstwhile he had a temporary advantage in counted votes and ordered the cessation of their counting [...].
Uncertainty is not the same as chaos or randomness due to the fact that it is necessarily institutionalized (the result of civilian wars may besides be uncertain, but specified wars are not institutionalized). Rules must enable and prevent conflict [...]. The procedures must give the losers the right to talk and the winnings the chance to put their program into effect, and not only let them to control places between the losers and the winnings, but besides let fresh winners and losers ((Democracy rules, pp. 129-130).

The ability to repair democracy links Müller with the request to "return to the first rules". He writes:

Let's go back to something basic, again. riduzione verso il principio: Democracy has a dual nature, or, in another words, 2 main centres. Firstly, it requires a circumstantial space (and time) for collective decision making – to express political will through lawmaking: the majority decides after the opposition has had the chance to talk out. On the another hand, there is simply a request for a space to continuously form opinions and political courts across society: anyone can talk at any time or any time.
Making decisions requires procedures... (Democracy rules, p. 158.

These “first principles” affect the monitoring of critical infrastructure, including the appropriate functioning of state institutions, as well as the functioning of political parties, including the necessity of internal-party democracy, as well as the organisation of primaries or referendums...

Müller's book is worth studying in any case, and even those who do not usually choose to read about political thought will request the tools offered in it to measure the surrounding reality – tools free from purely emotional esteem. The book can besides give impulses to those who are active in various attempts to conduct reliable civic education. This 1 usually starts at home, but no uncertainty finds 1 or another continuation at school. So it seems that the people liable for the form of education in our country, after reading Müller's book, would be easier to realize that it is good to get out of the present as part of specified education, to consider and analyse a specific, well-known context in which circumstantial processes are taking place, which can be observed on an ongoing basis. And that there is simply a request for a solid reflection on the thought of the function of digital technology in shaping democratic relations. All this, in order to support the reasoning and knowing of the surrounding world, alternatively than simply labeling various phenomena.