How Institutions Can Shape Direct Democratic Transactions

We often see a binary discourse on issues related to politics and governance and offer seats of convenience and assume that maybe, hard truths cannot be adequately dealt, because if hard truths are often exposed, institutions would cripple. However, the misuse of Immanuel Kant’s ideas is not a justification for the lack of scientific enquiry that think-tanks and political pundits assume. Therefore, an institution, whether private or public, if really have to attain Kant’s vision (which I assume failed or mixed democracies cannot do, like the US, the UK and others), they really need to shape the balanced existence between the indirect and direct chains of what polities really are. So, during the Brexit debate in 2016, we used to hear Far-Right former UKIP leader Nigel Farage embracing the idea of a ‘direct democracy’ and implied the European Project as autocratic, funnily. Although Farage is flawed in his Euroskeptic conversation, he is not wrong when it comes to the issue of generic salvation that the UK needs from the European Union. Even — from all political spectrums, leaders have some reasonable arguments, which people ignore, and baffle most on something which I call as pitiable and unreasonable void of rhetoric. Simple communication studies can prove why people divide their conversational inquiries into the binary political/ethical complex, which has been historic. Even during the Machiavellian times in Florence, people had similar issues. Hitler’s rise in Germany is often owed and connected with the issue of binary conversationalist approach, which is risky and provides no conclusive analysis about how societies develop themselves. However, estimates can show certain inferences, which I propose via the article as follows:

  • That extreme judgementalism defies the very ethical nature of political and individual scepticism. We do need not to give in everything that comes in through, and that is how a correct and reasonable form of ‘revolutionary’ development is possible to happen. However, focusing on ideological purity is apathetic and anti-civilization because nobody can change the course of civilization without balancing our redemptions and at the same time, without decluttering the conversational and presumed fears that innocent individuals do have. Refer to End of Partisanship in Global and Internal Politics: Why & How;
  • Societies generally frustrate the idea of discourse and confidence-building measures. Take the 19th Century Europe, the 20th Century Europe and now the current EU and CoE establishment for example. Peace above individual rights was the priority of the 19th century, with its own limitations, 20th Century was all about healing European nations with the shedding away of the aristocratic establishments of continental European communities, wherein even 50 years before Hitler and Mussolini, European countries have been bitter foes of one another and this Century shows that after following a Kelsenian and Kantian philosophy of peace and European liberalism — as equally endorsed earlier by the US and the UK, we are facing meaninglessness in our own developed establishments. Why Europe suffered the worst in these times? Well — they did not mature so well like the US and could not become resistant and efficient like India, Israel and Republic of Korea. But still why? America, despite its ‘imperialist’ measures, did lead the world when it was necessary. FDR, Truman, Obama and Reagan are remarkable examples of world leaders from the Capitol who did not learn how to dilute and internalize more opportunities to keep a balance between science and identity. India did — not just because of the Secular rhetoric, but because despite the Kashmir issue, the regional and social problems, its people developed their own form of resistance, ingrained a sense of openness and trust, which often India’s EAM Dr Jaishankar called as India’s Secularization — which had a stark difference with Europe. In India and the US, we have had a generation of discourses despite our constraints and problems and fought them as times passed and shaped the polities. I see 21st Century’s European Project not as a total failure because if we see the commitments and measures led by the new von Der Leyen Commission, in stark non-concordance with the Council of European Union under Charles Michel, it is clear that Euroscepticism sometimes helps out the European project to find and revisit its own political and legal identity in the world. While China, India, MENA bloc countries, AU countries and even ASEAN is trying to relive its own diplomatic and institutional identity, I think it is possible that Europe provides its liberal yet precautionary and better identity, which does not mean the end of the project, but a new stage, where diplomacy would balance European identity way easily. Emmanuel Macron, Mark Rutte and Angela Merkel (inherently I include the role of Boris Johnson too as a bad cop) will surely make some significant changes in the system and the project. Thus, discourse never ends. Rhetorics always must be called out and new tools and weapons of engagement must be endorsed;

Do you know why people like violence? It is because it feels good. Humans find violence deeply satisfying. But remove the satisfaction, and the act becomes hollow — Alan J Turing.

Civilizations live and die for their own hunger of satisfaction; we need to endorse people to change their ways of discourse and confidence-building measures.

The Role of Indirect Democratic Institutions to Gauge More Direct Democratic Transactions

Direct democracy is not a reality in general. We have some meagre examples of direct democracy like Referendums, but a democratic representation must not be limited to the scope of electoral activity only, neither can we remove the role of electoral participation in direct democratic infrastructures. However, referendums are not too ideal, and neither they provide a comprehensive mannerism of solutions, whether Brexit or the disintegration of the USSR. Thus, I would like to suggest how more interactions can be formed:

  1. Imagine you are in a digital or physical social space, which is cluttered. Information is being transacted rapidly. Since we know that not all systems are ideal, it is important to object, but beyond objecting, we must avoid correlating events and connect them without any systemic necessity. Indirect democratic institutions have trust issues with folks, but reserving and appropriately internalizing the issue helps us in 2 ways — (a) it resolves our problem if possible (although depends), and (b) avoid more lame chatting. It is as simple that we aware ourselves and do not connect our literacy and awareness with ideological obscurantism, and identity biases, we can prevent ourselves from certain issues of interaction;
  2. Do not believe in subjective portals. If you receive information of similar context, do judge them, question them and do not assume them correct or absolute until a proper and relevant argumentation is established.
  3. Be witty in communication. It is okay if people interact with inflammatory manner, which would not be appropriate for you if you feel that. However, use your wit, and if the person does not communicate properly, then leave him. Leaving hate speech astray and ignored at a communitarian level (not individual, because it is not possible), empowers avoidance of noise. People can ignore a communication, or respond to nullify or negate the effect of the inflammatory content shared, whether, by verbal communication, social media chatting or anything.
  4. It is good to be excited and alarmed. However, we must internalize how to react, because if masses do not generate that capability to encourage people to avoid further issues, they can entrap themselves to any distraction. I know it is against the dopamine rush of social media and populist means of communication adopted by companies and political leaders, but at a communitarian level, this is perhaps the best way to avoid hassles;
  5. Create a culture of constructive and open-minded dissent. As said, humiliation is not the way to express dissent. Expressing anxiety is okay, but if people fail to embrace a manner of expressing and internalizing what is dissented, we cannot stop polarization of masses in terms of their perception and opinions. Decency is important, but your decency can be based on the stimulus-response of the querier who you meet;
  6. Do not be weak to any contradicting or dissenting or distracting information or conservation. Weakening your response machinery to any development does not empower you to discover and understand the problem you are in often.

These methods are not exhaustive but are of great assistance.

Founder and CEO, Internationalism™ | Founder & Chairperson, ISAIL | AI-Law Futurist | YouTuber | Researcher | Poet

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store