EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
If activists want more control over themselves, if they want to have the opportunity to express their interests, they must fight for less control of politics over citizens. They must fight for control of their own lives, not for centralized control over society.
In the context of the events in the country over the past week, culminating in the resignation of the Borisov Cabinet, the interest of the Bulgarian people in the political process has grown significantly. Many people are expressing their dissatisfaction and, although the specific reasons for participating in one or another movement vary between activists, it can be said that there is a common motive behind their activity. This is dissatisfaction with the way politics treats the issues they consider important. People feel that the democratic system, which is supposed to protect their interests, is not working. They feel disconnected from the decision-making process for managing various public issues.
Reflection and debate about the organization of society are good things. The freedom to challenge the authority of dominant ideas and the freedom to propose new ideas in themselves put pressure on repressive ideologies, which usually seek to eliminate or reduce opposition to their regime. Ultimately, the state of a society always reflects the prevailing ideology at the time, and what happens in it is a result of it.
A dominant idea among protesters in Bulgaria is that of greater citizen control. To achieve this, they want direct participation in the political process. The idea of greater citizen control is appealing - everyone wants to have more influence on political processes. But the essential question is control over what and whom? If the problem of the democratic system is its inability to reflect the interests of citizens and therefore it is always in reality an oligarchic system in which some people have control over others, how will supposed citizen control in the context of the democratic political process actually change anything?
If activists want more control over themselves, if they want to have the opportunity to express their interests, they must fight for less control of politics over citizens. They must fight for control of their own lives, not for centralized control over society. They must reclaim the individual freedom that they inevitably lose in the democratic process. They must break away from the false paradigm of left and right. They must support principles, not people and parties.
Living by the principles of one’s own freedom and respect for the freedom of others is a positive example of self-control. Creating a culture in which the citizen fundamentally opposes policies that undermine freedom, regardless of who is implementing the policy and whose freedom is being violated, is the path to consistent opposition to tyranny. A culture of using politics to achieve personal goals and satisfy one’s own whims is the path to tyranny. If the pressure to use the political process to resolve complex social issues decreases, then the influence of this process will also decrease. Then the citizen will achieve his emancipation.
A very well-synthesized position, indeed. I would be interested to hear suggestions on how such a transition to higher civic emancipation could be promoted, sold to the general public, and carried out.
The article is not bad, really, on the contrary. Calls are heard on the street that range from communists to fascists, and they are the most noticeable, even if they are from minorities.
I only have 1 problem with the article, for which I have no solution, and I don't know if anyone has found one. In a book it's great, when your freedom is great, to start that of the next ones, but in life they overlap. And then what do we do?
Somehow, the approach of "selling" freedom as an ideal to people is too "ugly". I think that with such articles and a positive example from each individual's own life of respect for their fellow citizens and elementary self-control of instincts to take away the freedom of others is the right strategy.
I won't comment on liberalization. It's been discussed and commented on enough in Europe and the world. Moreover, it has been "in power" for quite some time now and results can be seen.
If I'm calling, it's about a fundamental contradiction in the article that strikes me:
"If activists want more control for themselves, if they want to have the opportunity to express their interest, they should fight for less control of politics over citizens. They should fight for management of their own lives, not for centralized control over society."
And further down
"The culture of using politics to achieve personal goals and satisfy one's own whims is the path to tyranny."
Graf, if you mean that there is a contradiction between a culture of using the state to obtain one's own benefits, which by definition is at the expense of other people's benefits, and a society in which people interact with each other voluntarily - work, produce, help, donate, etc. without coercion - there is a contradiction. In the article I contrast the two types of culture and say that demanding from the state is a vicious practice that leads to tyranny, not to freedom and prosperity.