Profile: The Autocratic Democracy

In order to have a legitimate “opposition”, isn’t it necessary to have a “government” in the first place?

When a totalitarian regime faces a crisis, it always manages to re-invent itself. When a population wakes up one morning and realizes that the majority of it cannot afford bread, and suddenly recognizes that what was supposed to be a “state” economy, a local currency, a central bank with a treasury reserve had been transferred to overseas bank accounts, it becomes necessary for the regime to offer concessions and compromises. That is how a general elections and a parliament with seats, podiums and a little bell is born. This is when the long-lasting emergency laws are finally lifted. And people rejoice. They forget that they were robbed, humiliated and neglected and dash frantically to the closest voting box. “I am a Citizen, and I vote. Long live democracy”.

Democracy implies that: “Public figures who are not involved in the decision making process are not held accountable and are free from responsibility. Whoever does not govern is not subject to questioning”.

The early results were not very promising. After all, not too long ago, that same voter was detained and (…) , when he tried to embrace a political ideology and join a party, (back when he could afford to eat, he really considered political activism), and this voting citizen was neither accustomed nor trained to deal with the tricks and games of the sneaky politicians. But it does not matter, as long as the first step was taken, eventually the “process” is going to grow and improve.

Fast forward 17 years later, and the situation is beyond surreal. The products of the once-promising, ever-evolving (dissolving!) democratic process was not similar to those who proceeded it, THEY WERE THE SAME. Literally the exact same. The same opportunistic regime parasites and mercenaries who doubled as “policy-makers” then, sneaks from the backdoor now, and assumes the similar (secondary) role that instigated the reforms in the first place!! Same exact names, same exact roles, just new titles. And this time it is all legal and they have a law to prove it (of course, it is a law that they themselves passed, but this is how democracy works, right?). Even Benjamin, who never expects anything to change anyway, thinks that is TOO much.(Note: could not resist the Orwellian reference)

Democracy implies that: “The authority figure and the decision-maker is not a god. If the governor was a god, it would be called a “theocracy”. Since the governor is not a god he is subject to misjudgments and his decision making must be questioned.

So, in order for all the elements of the democratic process to be visible, there is a need for a national, intelligent, and objective opposition. The opposition is going to enlighten and educate the population, it is going to fight against oppression, it is going to take stands, organize (peaceful) demonstrations and assure transparency....But "opposition" against who? Against a government that is going to last for 12-14 months at the most, or against a prime minister who is as interchangeable as an oil filter? Or should the opposition challenge a historically incompetent parliament that is a mere extension of the "instantaneous" governments. Who forms that opposition? Is it going to be from inside that same incompetent parliament or is it going to be lead by the “educated elite” whose main concern is either to be promoted to the “parasite” level and get a piece of the pie, or is more than satisfiedwith a royal invitation to attend the opening ceremonies of the new parliament cycle?

Democracy implies that: “In a “young” democratic process, major decisions could be still influenced (made) by an individual major authority figure. The governor gains such a status from the inherited longevity of his previous autocratic system. The familiarity, respect and the track record achieve a level of political and social status that is hard to overcome, and continues to have a dominant effect over the constitutional process and its reforms”.

Unfortunately, the process continues to regress steadily. The situation needs to be addressed beyond formality conferences, Dead Sea forums (go figure), or “national” meetings held under outdated and void clichés like “one for all and all for one”. Until a complete re-evaluation process, that will not shy away from addressing “the elephant in the room”, is arranged, all those blabbering about a government-opposition clashe, national political agendas, political parties, political reforms and political developments, can take a break and recognize that it is all insignificant and IRRELEVANT.