If the force of a human collective has traditionally been coordinated from the leader's personalism, in the case of political power, progress has been made in a process of depersonalization of force in order to legally institutionalize it, to give it an acceptable envelope. However, it should be borne in mind that although it is intended to seek protection in legal rationality to make it tolerable, power cannot evade the support of physical force or its violent nature, because even the same Law that gives it coherence, to say Derrida, it's authorized force. The government is an instrument of domination that allows power to be deployed in real terms, because this is an entity empty of material content that needs to be filled in order to be present. If in the case of the tribe in the early days, the cacique is the non-institutionalized personal force, social advances have brought the institution with them. In such a way that today power is expressed as a government action of a society that rests on institutional foundations. The question that now arises is who has the power to exercise power or, going one step further, who is entitled to do so. In substance, legitimacy is the method to follow for access to the ownership of political power, which inevitably continues to be personalistic. At this point, contractualism, since Hobbes,it has been building the precise framework to make the exercise of the function of governing from minorities a tolerated fact. And, in opposition to the thesis of divine will, the Law has been in charge of granting a certain quality mark to simple intellectual arguments lacking authentic rational support. In this way, the principles of legitimacy have served as instruments of justification of power, tailored to the dominant interests at each historical moment and has allowed the establishment of the right to command and the obligation to obey, without the possibility of a dispute. What we find today is that, after absolutism, the bourgeoisie, as the dominant power in the advanced societies of the time, established its criterion of legitimacy on the economic basis, but wrapped it in a legal sense, dominating the political. With which the real power, sustained until then in the physical strength of the old caste of the warriors - later ennobled -, passes to the class of the new merchants - now vulgarized.
The innovation experienced in the legitimacy process opened the doors in the exercise of political power so that skill and intelligence would replace the supposed inherited virtues, and the nobility based on inheritance disappeared from the panorama of the justifications of power. However, the legitimacy argument is still not consistent because, despite the advance towards rationality, it remains on the elitist principle. There has only been a change of rulers, contemplated within the process of circulation of the elites envisaged by Pareto, which has not affected the substance of the matter. The legitimacy of the ballot box has been sought as a kind of consensus of the masses, actually arranged to give solidity to elitism, but without granting them the power to govern themselves. To this end, the appeal of the idea of democracy has been dusted off, intact in the collective mind for centuries, but adapted to the circumstances. Perhaps because the values of freedom, equality and justice exert a deep emotional sensation in the masses, when they understand that their rulers will take their permanent demands into consideration and on that background they will exercise governance in more just terms.
The argument of democratic legitimacy that deludes the masses insofar as they intuit that their will counts in the government process, since they are given to select their rulers from a predetermined group, has not gone from being a formula to designate the elders. creditors of political empathy, but this does not imply in any way intervening in the exercise of power. The question at this point has been to redirect the exercise of democracy to practice the right to vote, in accordance with the rules that govern the so-called representative democracy. So the idea of democracy has followed the same path as the values that support it. Freedom has been incompatible with the submission demanded by the elites, becoming a right to move within the cage established by the laws. Observing equality, it turns out that it has not exceeded the terms of the founding legend of society, diverted from the side of the interests of the elites. Justice has become a particular sentiment dependent on the will of the interpreter of the laws and that of the dealer who claims to exercise it in terms of fairness to impress the skeptics. Therefore, it is foreseeable that what seemed to be close to a dialogue with power as a just society assumption 5, has not gone from being a monologue of power adorned with the term democracy. The electoral process obeys the formal pretension of granting the legitimacy of the ruler to a group framed in the elite category, while democracy, in principle, is the possibility of establishing the government of the masses that make up a politically organized society. Although in representative democracy there were all the components that would allow us to speak of real democracy -which turns out to be impossible from the beginning of representation-, the fundamental idea is missing: the self-government of the members of society in conditions of equality.
Along with other embellishments in the form of rights and freedoms, constitution theorists, with the approval of politicians, insist that sovereignty resides with the people, but the curious thing is that it is the politically relevant groups in each society under the government who rule. the baton of the conductor of the orchestra, that is, capitalism. The balance is none other than the trivialization of genuine democracy as a strategy imposed by the capitalist system, in order to appease the feeling of self-government of the masses with a substitute. Under such conditions, is it possible to speak of democratic legitimacy?
In the event that democracy were full, the question of the legitimacy of the elected would be guaranteed, but it cannot be understood that a society is governed democratically by the fact that elections are held periodically and Dahl's five criteria are met, because it would be insufficient. In the citizenry there is an electoral sense, but there is a lack of democratic awareness. So its support is a simple act of tolerance with the imposed system, which in the absence of a better option is abided by with resignation. In the electoral model of advanced countries, the role entrusted to the citizen is that of a simple spectator; since politics, which should be a matter for everyone and not for a few, is reserved exclusively for the political class. With this, it has been forgotten that democracy, even in the terms in which it has been developing, entails intervention in decision-making, which in turn implies commitment, however in these societies the abandonment of the individual's political capacity is promoted; in such a way that that political animal of Aristotelian stamp is on the way to extinction,by dint of turning him into a simple spectator of the media circus. Thus, the citizen has become a number assigned to a certain State, which contributes to the extent of its economic possibilities to its support and little else.As a consequence, citizenship becomes an abstract concept designed to totalize the human collective, that does not express the condition of a real citizen, since it is recomposed as an entity without political capacity. Which in turn results in the individual being a vote lacking relevance, because electoral democracy is understood in terms of the masses. Likewise, there is a pattern of rights and freedoms, bureaucratically guaranteed, oriented towards general security and the course of collective existence, but its content does not look at politics either, but is projected towards civil society.In such a state of alienation, politics, as it has almost always been, is reserved for the caste, ready to place barriers of ignorance in front of the rest, to preserve its privilege. Therefore, in a democracy of elites, it has been reduced to a spectacle served by deference of the media, animated by debates that do not lead to anything positive, and that are kept away from citizens for the benefit of rhetorical professionals. As the news is continuously manipulated, deriving it to the field of what is to be advertised, ignorance of the political background is supplemented by manipulation, taking matters to the field of appearance. Once the decisive electoral process is over, the march of democracy has two faces; one, as a collective entertainment, creating a virtual world based on opinions,representations or surveys carried out by politicians, in order to make the citizen believe that deep down they participate in decision-making, and a more solemn one, based on the rhetoric of parliamentary debate, where most of the issues are previously agreed upon. In practice, the political sentiment of individuality leads to an opinion, empathy or disagreement with the political elites, thus the possibility of a consensual democracyempathize with or disagree with political elites, thereby making the possibility of a consensual democracyempathize with or disagree with political elites, thereby making the possibility of a consensual democracyit has not gone from being an alternative, until now unfeasible, to representative democracy.
The different electoral systems, classified as instruments for the realization of democracy, offer certain peculiarities with respect to their precedents, in order to accommodate the exercise of power to the changes demanded by the new times. If at that point it was necessary to speak of monarchs, instead the parties take over. In this way, democracy develops around partitocracy, that is, the government of society by a political group or another that markets with a tendency of governability, so that citizens give it their trust in the form of a vote, characterized by their propensity to favor primarily a part of the citizenry, capitalist companies or seeking to take the conciliatory path. With the implementation of the party system, it is worth noting, on the one hand,that there has been a certain political advance, with respect to the old hereditary elites, because although until near times the aristocracy ruled, at whose head a visible head was placed, now, in accordance with the times, a new elite is located that has come in calling political class. The change in situation responds to the fact that, if with the previous system the rulers imposed themselves by virtue of the right of blood, currently they are taking care of the interests of the party. If in the old days the government was reserved for a select few, the new trend is to open it to the masses under control, with which anyone - framed in a party - can come to govern. On the other hand, it is necessary to point out another advance against the imposed personalism, it is the temporary nature of the position, since it allows changing the form so that the fund remains in full force.
Objectively considered, electoral democracy in representative terms does not go beyond being a sustained fix in the tolerance of citizenship. So it cannot be sold as a principle of legitimacy. Since the authentic legitimacy can only be built from the consensus in equality of parts. An electoral process, limited in terms of options and directed by propaganda, is not fully legitimizing because, even though persuasion mediates, manipulation is at the center. On the other hand, it has been raised in terms of elites vs. masses, in a certain way softening the relationship for the interests of capitalism that has promoted the tolerance of the latter.It is about inviting the mass of citizens to create replacement elites so that they can decide the government issues that directly affect them from the priority of the interests of the group they sponsor. It is not easy to understand that taking as a reference egalitarian approaches typical of universal suffrage, inequality ends up being imposed. Consequently, neither tolerance nor the propagation of redirection of wills are sufficient arguments to present the party victory in an electoral process as legitimacy to exercise power, because the authentic citizen consensus in terms of equality is lacking.Neither tolerance nor the propagation of a redirection of wills are sufficient arguments to present the party victory in an electoral process as legitimacy to exercise power, because the authentic citizen consensus in terms of equality is lacking.Neither tolerance nor the propagation of a redirection of wills are sufficient arguments to present the party victory in an electoral process as legitimacy to exercise power, because the authentic citizen consensus in terms of equality is lacking.
Bibliography
- Ackerman, B. "Social justice in the liberal State." Dahl, R. "Democracy and its critics." Derrida, J., "Force of law. The mystical foundation of authority ”. Ferrero, G.,“ Power. The Invisible Geniuses of the City. Lisphart, A., "Democracy in plural societies" and "Models of democracies." Macpherson, CB, "The life and times of liberal democracy." Pareto, V., "Treaty of general sociology". Rousseau, JJ, "The social contract." Schumpeter, J., "Imperialism. Social classes."
Author: Antonio Lorca Siero - May 2016
Derrida, J., “Force of law. The mystical foundation of authority ”.
For Ferrero, G., «Power. The Invisible Geniuses of the City ”, legitimacy must be understood as an argument that is invoked to justify the exercise of personal power.
Relying on historical evidence, Pareto, V., "A Treatise on General Sociology" points out, the masses have always been led by elites given their inability to govern themselves.
According to Rousseau, JJ, “The social contract”, although man was born free, lives everywhere in chains 5 Ackerman, B. “Social justice in the liberal State”, says that it is the dialogue, and not the monologue, the that allows the only legitimate way to establish a just society.
In this way, democracy has been, as Macpherson, CB. Points out, “The life and times of liberal democracy”, a mechanism to elect and authorize governments between two or more groups of party elites to govern until the next election.
Dahl, R. "Democracy and its critics", establishes five criteria for achieving democracy: effective participation, equal voting rights, informed understanding, control of the political agenda and inclusiveness.
See Lisphart, A., "Democracy in plural societies" and "Models of democracies."
It shows certain similarities with social class, understood by Schumpeter, J., "Imperialism. Social classes", as a conglomerate of individuals who become aware of their identity as a whole, closing ranks between them and placing barriers against the outside.
Download the original file
