064/ 201 27 26
MYTH ABOUT DEMOCRACY AND CIVIL SOCIETY,
AS THE UNIVERSAL RECIPE FOR SOCIAL CONSENT
Myths. Legends or stories with religious connotation, which are numerous in various traditions. However, this concept, as same as many others, trough often wrong and unauthentic usage received a wrong and unauthentic meaning. The most passionate advocates of democracy and globalism have labelled those who oppose them, from the Christian and traditional point of view, as mythomaniacs – those who are obsessed with myths.
In that sense, mythomania is declared as an attempt of “destructive” and “anti-progressive” forces, obsessed with “fairy tales”, folk traditions and conservative teachings integrated into them, to impact on the contemporary social-political issues. Hence, that kind of attitude without arguments, depict myths as fictional.
Interesting thing is that it is democracy, as a concept as well as a system, has all markers of such “myth”. Maybe that idea looks strange from the point of contemporary society, in which democracy is considered as dogma. But even that dogmatism is backing the arguments of those who are opposing democracy, with its weapon. Consequently, who ever has the nerve to express a negative attitude towards democracy, knows that he will be “burned” and labelled in very recognisable manners.
Many advocates of democracy are willing to admit that their beloved concept is not ideal, but allegedly “it is the best we have”. Furthermore, for all negative sides, which are dominating in democracy, they find an excuse such as: “It is the infant illness” or “the real democracy is yet to come to takeover this pseudo-democracy”; or they will attach all the negative effects to the “destructive”, antidemocratic and “pro-fascistic” forces, eventhough these do not have any impact on governing. This “mythomaniac” rhetoric says inaf about the passionate democrats and their system; in who’s rightness is forbidden to doubt.
The proof that this really is “myth-maniacal” effort of creating fake paradise on Earth is the terminology used in defining the formally political concept of democracy. We must carefully analyse the word democracy as we could get to it real meaning. It is said that the word democracy means the government of the people. The question is what people, and of what quality? From the time of ancient Greece, word “demos”, which is the core of the word we are analysing, is used to describe a crowd or a mob and not just ordinary people. That is why old Greek philosophers considered democracy as something negative. In the Holy Bible, word “demos” depicts infidel mob that renounced God. This is what the late Nebojsa M. Krstic, the distinctive Serbian orthodox author had to say about this:
“It is very important to know that the Greek noun “demos” appeared only four times in the New Testament, each time in the most negative context (Acts 12,22; 17,5; 19,30.33). Demos is as unconcious crowd that is idolising the notorious antichristian emperor Iridous Agripas I, the possessed antichrist who, to please the Jews, slaughtered Christians, imprisoned St. Apostle Peter and executed St. Apostle Jacob, the son of Zevedevius (Acts 12,20.23). Demos are the mob that was manipulated by the Judaists at Salonica to assault the honourable Christian Jason, a friend of the St. Apostle Paul (Dap 17,5). Demos is also the angry mob easily manipulated by the usurious demagogues, lead by the goldsmith from Ephes called Dimitrious who hates our Lord Jesus Christ and all Christians with demonic hatred (Acts 9,23.40).”
The practical concept of democracy is not different at all. Under the “democratic regime” we consider today a multi-party parliament as it`s political expression and liberal capitalism as its economic expression. One of the main myth-maniacal democratic phrases is “the right on differences” or “tolerance”. Consequently, we have a bunch of political parties, which are all offering different solutions for all problems. In that situation, democracy does not protect the citizens of particular social-political unit from the manipulation and abuses, used by democratic partisans to seize power, or to stay in power. That says enough about the freedom and rights, that democracy allegedly guaranties, and without which the advocates of democracy do not recognise the existence of the constitutional order in the society in question.
What can we say about the electronic IDs, as one of the latest inventions of the democratic world? The implementation of these will enable every civil servant to become a judge to any citizen, by using his power to reach any file, at any time, without authority approvement, and to draw its own subjective conclusions. Isn’t this an attempt of the lords of democracy to imprison human kind in some sort of electronic concentration camp?
The democratic fairy tales about freedoms and rights are becoming ridiculous when we look at the products of the totalitarian globalisation. The globalisation that is, as same as democracy, more and more mythologising its ancestors and fundaments. The democratic “myth” about freedom and rights could not have any other outcome because none of them was conditioned with any obligations, from the very beginning. Without these conditions, the concept of freedom is contradictory, because it is giving the right to one group to fight against the freedom and rights of others. This is the lesson from the history of democracy, from the guillotine to the “humanitarian” bombs of NATO murderers.
Let us get back to the parliamentarism and political parties. The democracy “teaches” the voters that they have a choice between different political options. To the extent, this is true, if we consider an existence of different parties and their constant clashes as different options. If one takes a more analytical approach to the issue, it will be noticed that there is only one option, the democratic option, either a liberal-democratic or a socialistic-democratic. Despite the strong intolerance among the actors of the democratic partisan political life, it is obvious that the differences between particular party platforms are more in the shades than in essence. We should also mention the fact that most of the public does not even read these platforms and base their votes on some absurd details (e.g. who has better suit, or nicer teeth…). That says enough about the “quality” of democracy and its self-proclaimed “providing the right on political differences”. Who ever dares to step out of the circle of the “tolerated right” will get the worst labels and often be abused at all times without the right to present the defending arguments to the democratic public. From the above mentioned comes the conclusion that true democracy is very close to communism. Both systems are decorated with totalitarianism and a certain ammount of pluralism. The only thing is that the communism has the internal pluralism, represented by the struggle of different fractions inside of the party; and on the other hand, in democracy there is a struggle between different parties, where all differences are illusional. In both systems the critics of it`s policies are not welcome.
We mentioned the “quality” of democracy. We deliberately put it in the inverted comas, because democracy and parliamentarism are advocating quantity, and not quality, as a measure of justice. For democracy, the only relevant question is who gets the majority of votes, and completely neglects the question are those voters, and to what extent, qualified in the area affected by those votes. Hence, three votes from bakers are more important than one vote of the economist, when deciding on certain economy issues; because the government elected on the principle of so called egalitarian voting right is dealing with all social issues. Instead of giving exclusive right to vote to the people qualified in particular area, democracy gives everybody right to decide on everything, which is absurd considering that it is not possible for a individual to be qualified for everything. From the above said it is obvious that democracy is not contributing to qualitative decision-making. Furthermore, what could we say for the possibility for democratic government to be elected by less than 30% of votes, and in some cases even less (considering that in some cases they do not even need the half of the enrolled voters to come out and vote). The question is, what kind of “government of the people” is that? And what kind of comment can we have about the numerous “Nongovernmental Organizations” which have a special place in the creating of public opinion in every democratic society, eventhough nobody elected them! To make the anty-national character of democracy even more drastic, those organisations are being the champions of the passionate struggle against their own people in their own country. But they are not alone in their alliance with the global centres of power against the fringes of self-conscience and sovereignty of Christian and state-creating nations. It is a public secret that numerous political parties are financed or even created by those centres of power and consequently obligated to act on their orders. All these facts are irreversible arguments of anti-people character of democracy.
Instead of acknowledging organic economic differentiation of society, divided in different professional groups (classes), democracy considers relevant only political differentiation, that is parties which are the competition one to each other in their struggle for power, and as such they are deadly enemies. That is only contributing to the conflict in the people, what is more than destructive to the ideal of national unison.
If we take a look at capitalism, as the economic expression of democracy, its worst period is considered to be the second half of the nineteen century and cruel exploitation of workers. But this period, undoubtedly destructive, is not even as half bad as contemporary global policies of democratic, international economy centres of power that are dictating the conditions to smaller countries, which are obligated to act as commanded (e.g. dictation on what companies, and on what conditions must be privatised). Next step could be, literally, dictating what family will have what for lunch or dinner. Yet, there is a slight dose of optimism in the above made claims, considering that the totalitarian globalisation, in it`s effort to shape a man as a depersonalised individual and brainwashed consumer, on its way has every organic community that man, by it`s God given nature, is part of. Among such protective communities an important role is (or at least should be) on the family, as the main cell of the nation.
All the destructiveness of democracy, which we have mentioned above, is coming from its antichristian character that can be noticed in the definition of the formal and terminological notion of democracy, which we already mentioned. If the eighteen century was the western uprising against the roman clergy, the nineteen and twenty century were uprising against God, that is the alliance with the devil of the contemporary democratic Europe and America. That is how the Saint Episcope Nikolay of Serbia saw this negative spiritual evolution of democratic Europe.
And really, in democracy the majority of counted votes is declared as the truth, while the real Truth is proclaimed to be one of countless “congregations” that exist in the society. Because of this humanistic rejection of God and placing a sinful man in His place, numerous negative effects of democracy were unavoidable.
And so, as much as a modern man will strive to see the true nature of democracy in the extent in which he is trying to liberate him self from the political dogmas of the era. The same applies to the concious or unconcious goals of the defenders and advocates of democracy. The obvious truth is that democracy and civil society can not be universal recipes for social consent. Furthermore, for the people, and government that care about its own people, democracy should not be socially desirable because with it they can not achieve any progress. The arguments for this are the past two hundred years of practising democracy. If we count all the wars and atrocities that were crated or actively supported by the democratic regimes, or even more important, if we consider the extent of moral decline and lack of purposeness in the lives of today’s citizens of democratic regimes, which are the result of democratic secularisation of society, it is easy to draw a conclusion that the claim of democracy as any kind of successful recipe for social consent is only a myth (by the democratic interpretation of this concept).
Marko B. Dimitrijevich
(The paper for the International Conference: “THE TEMPORARY AND ETERNAL: The socio-cultural scenarios of the contemporary myth”; Veliky Novgorod; September 28.(11. October) – September 29.(12. October) 2005.)
/Translated from Serbian by Nemanja S. Mrdjenovich/