If Sartre is alive...

Passing by the EDSA monument as we (Carla and I) go back and forth Makati Shang brought me momentary reflection about the idea of political ideologies. On how they necessarily affect political decisions on states no matter how theoretical these paradigms may be. And it is especially accentuated by the domino effect that has hit MENA countries on its stand on democracy.

It started in Tunisia; spreading unto Egypt. And now into Libya. People are marching on streets. Lives are lost. Entire nation, basically, in chaos. All for the name of democracy and freedom.

But is it really what people perceive it to be?

It appears to me as if the entire world is heavily romanticizing the concept of democracy. If you are born in a 'democratic' country and has lived in the post-Cold War era for basically the rest of your life, chances are, you have heard of the common rhetorical cliche that is "this is a free country, I can do what I want" or something of that sort.

It never occurred to me how fallacious that statement can get until that MRT ride last February 26.

You see, "free countries" do not exist. Even in economics. An absolutely free economy is unheard of. By absolute freedom we mean the absence of government intervention. The only place in the world where the government doesn't interfere with its economy is Somalia (and that's primarily because their government is still on the rocks from all the tribal wars).

To take a chance on a more politically correct term, one should change "free country" to "democratic country". However, this can also be fallacious when attached with the notion of freedom.

Lexically defined, democracy, by principle is not about freedom. It is about the rule of the majority.

Democracy
(Merriam-Webster)

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

In democracy, freedom is a mere tool to open avenues for the people relate their concerns about how things should go. Freedom is part of the deal but it isn't the be-all-and-end-all notion pegging the entire ideology.

So, the problem with people of today is that they equate democracy to freedom. And this is how it gets bad. With this misconception, that democracy is tantamount to freedom, people abuse the said principle. You hear them shouting on streets everyday, complaining about the price of gas, expecting the government to do everything for them, blah blah blah yadda yadda.

The worst thing is, they take any other political ideology that isn't democracy to be ultimately negative.

Like Communism.
If we would look into it, Communism is actually the ideal idealism. Not Democracy.

Up until today, no country has ever reached the ideal Communist status. Said "communist" countries are basically Socialist. Communism is forever ideal because it will never be. The fulfillment of communism demands deconstruction of basic human behavior.

Communism = selflessness.
And an entire nation being selfless is really impossible. SERIOUSLY.

As a contrast, democracy is easier to attain. However, it is also the easiest ideology to get deconstructed. Democracy, when it gets out of hand (because it CAN get out of hand) will lead to anarchy. Anarchy, essentially defined, as rule of no one and lawlessness.

When everybody claims freedom and the right to it, nobody will pay attention to authority and the spirit of real democracy, which puts weight to the opinion of majority, will cease.

My point? All political ideologies are ideal. But they shouldn't be the entire basis of what a state's political map should be. Ideologies are there to guide us. There are no perfect political ideologies.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to people working hand in hand with the government for a better society.