"Elite" contempt for democracy

I am grateful to Mr. Ivan Milenković for taking the time to write a response to my text "Fall by force and injustice" for the previous issue of "Vremena" (published in "Vremena" no. 1785). I am also grateful that he gave me the opportunity to further explain both the individual terms and the ideas behind them.

Mr. Milenković reproaches me for opposing autocracy and liberal conception of society to "authentic democracy" (which, according to him, "means nothing"), that is, for placing autocracy and liberalism "on the same side of the scale of values" "as if they were not opposed ideas and practices". Yes, these are opposing systems and ideologies in many respects, which I emphasized in the parenthesis that follows the previous statement in my text, but which Mr. Milenkovic chooses to ignore. However, the fact that these systems are opposed on some key issues of social and state organization does not mean that they have no similarities on some other issues and does not mean that they do not have a common enemy. The differences between the ideology and system of the United States and Saudi Arabia are extremely large, so for decades this did not prevent them from being allies and having common enemies. It is possible to be undemocratic in different ways, a mainstream liberalism is one of them, although (as I often point out) it is not disputed that liberalism had its emancipatory role in certain historical periods and contexts. To the extent that it became the ideology of big capital, it also became more and more repressive.

It is a well-known fact in political philosophy that liberalism stands in between authentic democracy (which is sometimes called "radical") and, on the other hand, autocracy, aristocracy, etc. What some philosophers of liberalism called "radical" democracy, I call "authentic". At a time when they were more honest, they said it themselves. If Mr. If Milenkovic is interested in being informed about this, I will be happy to suggest both primary sources and (numerous) academic studies dealing with this topic. Maybe then the concept of "authentic democracy" will mean something to him.

In the part where Mr. Milenković asks about what is "terrible" that some of the supporters of the protests and their goals have become party activists - I condemned this in the context of what I called political "vulture", i.e. precisely because of what students and a large part of citizens do not trust in the existing political parties, in the sincerity and commitment of their leaders to act in the general interest. If the expectation of sincere and dedicated engagement (and not a simple buying and selling of functions and influence) is "idealism" which, according to Mr. Milenković borders on "(inadmissible) naivety" - cool. That's exactly it. idealism, which borders on "inadmissible naivety", brought hundreds of thousands of people to the squares all over Serbia and launched enormous democratic potential and energy.

In the following, Mr. Milenkovic claims that I advocate the overthrow of autocratic rule, but that I would like to replace "one authoritarian form" with "another". This nonsense is not supported by anything. Unless Mr. Milenković does not equate (authentic) democracy with authoritarianism. (Aside from the fact that, seemingly unconsciously, he confuses autocracy and authoritarianism, which are not the same.) I contrast autocracy with democracy. The problem is that Mr. Milenkovic seems to operate with a conceptual apparatus where there is only liberalism (as the only form of "democracy"), while everything that goes beyond the framework of the liberal paradigm is autocracy and authoritarianism.

In the following text, Mr. Milenković continues to manipulate the method of radical simplification, combined with malice. He wonders "what is it that recommends a moral person for political struggle" and states that "just because someone is morally pure does not mean that he will be good in the political arena". Manipulation here concerns the imputation of something that is not in my text, in order to argue with it, i.e. that Mr. Milenković created the conditions to argue with himself. In his opinion, I am allegedly advocating some idealistic politics or abstract morality of politicians. Neither is the case. I simply think that it is not a good idea to give political positions to those who have already shown themselves to be incompetent, prone to corruption, nepotism, etc. This is not idealism, but, it seems to me, common sense. And that is the context in which I am critical of most of the existing parties. Mr. Milenković invents some "moral purity" in order to oppose it, I guess part politics (I hope that he does not want to argue that corruption is a normal state and that he would not change anything). But that is again the part where he argues with his own "scarecrows", separate from my text and my views. (Through the entire text, by the way, a strange malice and arrogance permeates.)

The continuation of the text brings a tirade that is not related to my article (except that it completely distorts the meaning of one paragraph in that article). Mr. Milenković seems to be using the supposed "answer" to my text only as an excuse to give himself a break, writing whatever comes to his mind, so he mentions the patriarch, the phalanx, Big Brother, a bunch of parsley, etc.

In the last segment Mr. However, Milenković returns to my text and reproaches me for criticizing the "elite". For him, "the elite is simply the locomotive of a society". Which and what kind elite? Is it about the formal "elite", simply those who occupy certain positions, or about those who have certain qualities, independent of their positions and levers of power? Are they ruling elite in Serbia (or those before them) those locomotives that lead society forward? Or, perhaps, Mr. Milenković does not mean the existing but some imaginary, some, to use his conceptual apparatus, ideal and "pure" elites?

The saddest thing is that Mr. Milenković, who probably considers himself a supporter of (some) democracy, expresses open contempt for citizens, whom he discriminates on the basis of the professions they perform. He believes that "our key task" is to "create conditions (therefore, a republic) in which bakers, waiters, farmers and nurses will be able to participate in political life, and not push them where they don't belong". Who should create it? Maybe Mr. Milenković, who probably sees himself among the "elite"? Maybe the intellectual "elite", who despite the diplomas they have, have difficulty understanding and correctly interpreting the meaning of even relatively simple sentences?

Mr. Milenković seems to see "non-elite" citizens and workers as passive objects, not subjects of political processes. The self-proclaimed "we" will create a system in which "they" will then be able to participate (I assume, in the way that "we" determine), knowing "where they don't belong". This sentence Mr. Milenković is perhaps the best argument in support of what I talked about in my text and an indicator of why it is necessary to affirm democracy against not only autocracy but also the rule of (self-proclaimed) "elites".

Mr. Milenković is shocked by the idea that a baker could be involved in politics. What could qualify a baker or a waiter to be involved in politics? A citizen is qualified to engage in politics simply by being a citizen. Being a citizen is a political category. How to engage in politics, and at what level, is another question. In order for a citizen to engage in politics by performing some official (eg state) functions, as a representative of other citizens, he needs support, he needs to be delegated by other citizens, based on some of his/her personal qualities. They are qualifications, not some diploma, this or that occupation. In relatively free societies, citizens tend to choose the most "reputable" from their environment (whatever that means in the specific case), whom they believe are capable and responsible enough to perform a certain function, and can do it authentically enough. imagine. It doesn't matter what occupation, because no occupation is a necessary qualification for public office. Sometimes someone who works in the hospitality industry will perform better in a certain place, sometimes a teacher or karate instructor will perform better in another place. Here, it is necessary to distinguish between the granting of legitimacy for someone to perform a public job and the professional part of the civil service (such as the legal service, inspectors, advisers, etc.), who are expected to have the necessary professional knowledge and qualifications. Otherwise, there is no question of democracy, but of an "expertocracy", and actually, again, of an oligarchy. The idea that some "experts" should lead politics is as (un)democratic as the idea that it should be one man or one clan - because they supposedly "know".

At the same time, I do not idealize "ordinary" citizens at all, nor do I believe that they are by definition honorable, capable and responsible. Mischief and incompetence are transclass. I just refuse that someone, especially a self-proclaimed "elite" of dubious quality, proclaims itself as the best or only possible solution.

Also, I think it is perfectly legitimate to advocate for an oligarchy, where some elite the sector of the rich, the beautiful, the educated (or those who feel that way) rules, while the rest follow. With that, as well as with the attitude that it is best to have an enlightened absolutist, one can argue. It is legitimate to stand for oligarchy or autocracy, but then they should not be declared democracy.

The idea of ​​democracy is that all citizens have the right and real possibility to vote and be elected, to participate in political processes not only as extras but as their active subjects.

Yes, a baker, a doctor, an apothecary... and even Mr. Milenković, are qualified to engage in politics. Bakers or any other workers may not have much knowledge about the history of political ideas and institutions, but, on average, they probably don't pretend to have them and that they are God-given to engage in politics. At the same time, "ordinary" workers - when they fight for democratic (self) management - have shown themselves throughout history to be extremely capable of running institutions, production plants and performing public functions. And it was not rare to come across those "ordinary" workers, without academic titles, who were more educated than the social elites of their time, willing to learn and work. Schematic thinking proves to be wrong and harmful here as well.

I'm sorry that Mr. Milenkovic, in his advocacy for something that probably seems like democracy to him, is actually affirming very undemocratic ideas. He articulates (though perhaps doesn't share) all the contempt and disgust that a large part of the (quasi) "elite" feels for anyone they think is "below" their (imaginary) "level". They are terrified of democratization. For them, slogans about "democracy" serve only as a cover, wouldn't they become, if not "caliphs instead of Caliphs", then at least the council of grand viziers. Without much effort, talent or knowledge, but with an excess of vanity and desire for power.