If the power was actually distributed there would be no political, social, economic.
Try to imagine a human community as simple as possible, practically a few families who share the fruits of their labor. Situation seemingly idyllic and unrealistic. Probably the dawn of civilization, such coexistence was possible only in an environment rich in natural resources and with no other settlements. Otherwise, if there were sufficient resources, they ended up fighting each other, if there had been plenty would come sooner or later other groups with the intention to appropriate and would have had to fight to defend their territory and resources. In any case come to be established as a result of actual or potential conflicts, new power relations in which there are those who enjoy more of the resources offered by nature and human work and who has to settle for less. Then there is the single strongest or the strongest group, which prevails over the other, it seems inevitable that there are disparities. In the early civilization of which we have information we already have situations of social stratification, with some having more privileges and access to resources. Probably such differences, which we assumed as a thought experiment, there have been increasing along with the increasing complexity of civilization. So, in different eras and regions, we see a clear concentration of power, so who is in a position of strength, is able to increase it further. Even the first regulations were asymmetric, served precisely to those who had power to keep it even more. There were those who had those rights and duties. It was as if, more or less explicitly, they say, we could easily crush you at any time, if you want to live (or survive) accepted this situation. Then
with Greek democracy, with the Roman law, the rules have sought to build on general principles of justice, ideals. The general trend, at least in recent centuries and beyond temporary fluctuations, has been to make rules, created as a concession from above, but rifacentesi an increasingly mature sense of justice, maybe starting from religious precepts. Gradually he developed a sort of contract between those in power and those who are governed.
But it is only with the revolutions that constitutions, laws are set as goal also to fairly distribute the power to tackle concentrations of power, which is really pursuing equality among citizens.
I would not go into on the legal and historical, but just try to imagine the human history as a struggle between the centralization of power and rules to limit it. Maybe it was not always so, but in theory it is today. The golden rule that 'the law is equal for all' states, intuitively, just that there are no more noble, real, people who are above the rules, but that all citizens are equal before the law. This principle seems a watershed between an era when the rules were issued from above, who imposed his rules to his subjects to one in which all citizens are equal before the law. Some, for a time, are delegated to make new rules, improve what we are, in the best way to organize society for all, but are no different from others. Some have more financial resources, this allows him to have a greater impact on society and ultimately, for this, even to increase further this economic superiority with more ease, but they have more rights.
So we are all subject to the same rules, but these rules have a different impact on each of us on the basis of their role, according to the power we have. The more power you have, and these rules affect us just because we have more means to escape them, but also to ensure that mutate in the direction that makes us more comfortable.
If owners can place the economic power of the rules, rather than restrict, accentuate its position, the legislature is failing in its function, but this is happening in many of the companies Western, more or less evident. If those who have more power between themselves to strengthen their positions, eliminating any limitation on their activities and putting them to who might oppose them, you are gradually removing the soul and meaning to democracy, while preserving its appearance. Legislative power is controlled, democracy, the power exercised by a vote of the people, but if the masses are not made properly aware of laws made to go against them, this power can not be exercised freely. So it is essential that there is freedom of information free information, but also free from economic conditions that might otherwise be interested not to know certain things, or make them known so deformed. This is why the concentrations of power are of enormous gravity, disrupt democracy from within, without you having full knowledge of this.
In Italy this process seems to have taken a dead-end, in which those who have the economic and political power (which already should not coincide in the same person for what we have said), also has control of most of the media information for which the masses are systematically informed in order to orient their positions in a way that is most convenient to those in power. So most people have a very limited perception of the causes of the difficulties test day, who should improve their conditions (or at least no worse) is perceived as a benefactor, champion of the common good, is not just considered that he himself may be the source of the deterioration. The systematic creation of a subculture nurtured by television has created and maintained a multitude of incapable of criticism, ready to believe everything he says the TV, their reality is that no one with whom they deal when they come out. They can not criticize those who are proposed to them as heroes. The cause of all that does not work, is sought out, from those who seek to thwart the power that is manipulating them, they are also enemies of all those who can be more easily identified as other and from time to time are held up by the campaigns orchestrated by those who hold all powers.
In the last century dictators have taken power by force of arms, now they take it by force information.
In any case, we have a power that being one of the powers, becomes the predominant one free (suddenly or gradually) and the other becomes absolute (that's loose, free).
Obviously the more power will become larger and more difficult to counter, so I think it should be always pursued the distribution of power as possible and created mechanisms that are able to stop the merger before they become major. The problem is like, the best way to achieve this result, but I do not think there can be no doubt that the march of history should be taken in this direction.
0 comments:
Post a Comment