After watching Ursula van der Leyen addressing the Union, I am starting to get really tired of hearing her proposed solutions without being clear of what she sees is the problem. Especially around the concept of democracy. I hear a lot of people are confused by the word democracy. It’s been confused with “our western system”, its “design” and “execution”. And being used in ways wherever it's convenient to suggest measures are set in place for the good of “democracy” to defend and suggest that it's for the people.
I am especially confused by the returning and repeated rhetoric:
"Our democracy is under attack!"
Democracy in its core understanding is: the will of the people.
Therefore I ask, what is attacking democracy?
I say WHAT because nobody is naming a who, What are the attacks on democracy?
and by whom?
It's not from the people as a group which is as diverse in religion, culture and beliefs as ever. If they were attacking anyone, it's each other, companies or institutions.
Not democracy.
Because they ARE democracy.
So then what? It's suggested that the currently elected United States of America as an administration is attacking democracy. Other countries like Russia are attacking democracy, and disinformation is attacking democracy, as well as news deserts which is where legacy media news doesn’t reach.
Stating at as an Attack, (even without naming an attacker) it suggests a defence or even counter attack reaction. The word "fight" has been named at least 10 times in Ursula's speech alone.
So if democracy is under attack, who is defending or organizing a counter attack?
To whom and to what? and in what shape?
And mostly: Is THAT democracy, is that the will of the people?
Subscribe to Random writings around futures that are shaped by Governance Models, DAO's and imagination activism.
<100 subscribers
I like clarity in statements and words and intentions, especially from the people that represent so many, and its policies are affecting even more. So bear with me if I overanalyze this.
The attack on democracy is an empty phrase therefore.
Why do I bother?
Leaders that fight for our freedom are not exactly what we want?
I believe that if you can't recognize the real problem and externalize fault on unnamed enemies you are very far from finding a solution.
I am very confused about what Ursula's definition of the problem is, in fact there are so many problems she addresses that are contradictory so I started to look at the solutions she proposes instead, so it might lead to what she feels is the real problem to address.
The solutions that Ursula suggests for this problem of our democracy being under attack, are measures to "protect" democracy.
And these measures are: Censorship, regulations, controlled money transitions, reducing privacy, top down ways to ensure these regulations are met, preparing technology (drones) to fight, and go to war. Media resilience: to provide grants to uptill then, independent media, in specific Euro-sceptic countries (Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Croatia (source)
Join private sector businesses in the European AI Giga Factories that is based on the technology developed by Big tech industry that will provide AI to Small European startups, controlling independent entrepreneurs and coders that start a business and the European Democracy Shield. And many more…
To try to make sense of it here an exploration of connecting some dots…
—
In general if you conclude you are under attack, there are several ways to deal with it. You eliminate or moderate the sources of where you feel the attack is coming from, You hide or run or shield, or you prepare a counter attack. Or all of the above.
You first need to determine who and what is attacking you, and then systematically study all the threats and reduce them.
If I didn't know any better, these measures are directed at the people. and specifically reducing the freedom and privacy of the people, therefore its suggested that the supposed solution to protect democracy is controlling the behaviour of people. Which therefore implies that what Ursula determines the enemy of democracy is: the people.
Other measures that are empowering, are directed at big technology (and the companies that create them) Institutions and setting in place new bodies of institutions and regulators and Military. Which suggests that our institutions and their structures and technologic companies are definitely NOT the enemy of democracy.
For me this is completely upside down.
The enemy of democracy by definition can NOT be people.
and the solution can not be creating stronger entities that are that: entities, they are not people or individuals. and have other interest, responsibilities, agendas and accountabilities.
The Attack on democracy seems real though,
It doesn't come from the people.
It is an attack on free will and free thought of the people. THAT is an attack on democracy.
Free thought seems to go right in line with the popular narrative that now everybody is polarized and is fighting for their ideologies and very much against each other.
But that is NOT free thought. Free thought is independent thought and the mind space to have it. The dependence on devices and the overload of (directed/personalized) information. is not permitting free thought that is needed for a true democracy. Even our imaginations are controlled since 80% of movies and books have future scenarios, and 99 % of those paint a similar reality. Culture and Art is not free, it is regulated and education is subject to teaching certain ideologies.
The enemy of democracy only, is reducing freedoms of people and a bad management of representation and executions.
with freedoms to be restored are first: freedom of speech. Always.
Reduce dependence. dependence on technology, specifically devices. Dependence on devices, creates a dependence on technologic companies and their policies. Who here knows how to build and construct a communication device. Whether it be a radio, or a phone? How our software that our communications or elections depends on? How the hardware works, how to create the device 100% custom? In a true democracy individual power is the cornerstone, knowledge is power and yet, we as people should be “protected” and trust the energy companies, phone and food companies that we have constructed our society to depend on. THAT is an attack on free thinking.
Journalism and civic science and open communication in safe third places where IRL interactions can be held without fights, where there is space for personal connection which is the natural source of empathy.
Dependency of technologic devices is an important one.
Because what people perceive that they themselves are the problem of democracy besides confusion, is polarizing ideologies.
Polarizing ideologies that are being controlled and fed by the media in all its shapes. That reach us through our devices.
Massively external ideologies can even change over a span of 1 day, from electric cars are good, to teslas are evil. And actions are triggered and executed almost instantly.
That is NOT independent thought.
That is people who rather fight than create and build. AND that feel under attack constantly, without a clear named enemy since this can vary per week. Much like Ursula's speech , no named enemy and what is under attack is the ideology > this is much like how people feel.
They are taught to identify with their ideology, and that when it's under attack it means an attack on themselves as individuals. We are not our ideologies, and we are made to believe we are under attack. By everything. Even by our own human nature or our own planet!
The huge power of the essence of democracy is the same as what Ursula thinks is the enemy. It's the people, us.
And if the people don't support an institution that contributes partially or wholly a genocide. We would just not support it.
If we don't support a digital currency with all its imposed limitations we can just: not support it.
And I don't mean protesting on the streets, or writing some tweets, or even this article.
I mean building and creating new systems, master technology.
Use all tools of democracy, not just the passive ones and not just vote once every 4 years and hope for the best.
And I mean: civil disobedience, a last resort of democracy when institutions are not representing the people anymore.
creation is more powerful than fighting against other people that have the same problems that you do.
That is our paradigm, democracy is us.
And we would be smart not to believe that us the people
are the problem of democracy to be “Solved”.
I could on a bit more about democracy and how I feel its been largly misused as a word in political topics and the media.
If we use democracy as a synonym for the western system, or even more specifically the United states system or worse like the European system. Which is even more abstracted from direct rule by the people than the original nation states. I don't feel its correct, it has been used as means to overthrow foreign governments to oppose “democracy” in those countries and liberate them all for the sake of democracy. It would be more transparent to say that we impose our western system of democratic representation on other countries. Because I have not seen any referendum for the people in countries before governments are overthrown. There is no listening to the population so they can create their own way to install and execute their democracy based on their culture and way of living. High local participation, family relations and connections or tribal customs of community have never been part of a design of democracy that represents these people, the people of that land and rooted culture, culture that has many thousands years more history than the United States as a very young country.
So when we say, the United states liberated and brought democracy to these countries. I would like to hear that we brought the western system of governance to that country so we don’t confuse our system as something that is the will of the people in that other culture. It seems like a highly arrogant and colonial attitude.
And now democracy is under attack. If we would use words more accurately, its not democracy that is under attack, its the current system as it is that is crumbling. Its crumbling rightly from all sides because it stopped being the rule of the people with civil liberties and human rights. So to keep calling it democracy is a hypocrisy that I feel is just used at this moment to justify taking civil liberties away, so we can “save” the rule of the will of the people, which in itself is a contradiction.
In fact, it's a true expression of democracy that there are so many voices of the people that cry for reform of our systems. So in that sense it’s democracy that is thriving. “Protecting “ people by monitoring and minimizing their speech, prohibiting words and encouraging violent and aggressive social pressure and expression of ideologies does not make people feel protected.
This article will not make any difference since when words are being used to symbolize the same things that is the opposite, they hardly turn back to their original meaning. And who cares? Its just a word.
Words are important, it’s the only thing in written and spoken form where we can create an understanding between humans. When words start to lose their meaning or in fact will become the opposite, our communications as humans are lost. I would not start to advocate for all the words that have lost meaning in this way. There are many… .But democracy is close to my heart after studying, practicing and designing governance models which always start with a deep dive into the actual system that we want to change.
Share Dialog
nikoline_nik
Support dialog
All comments (0)