Opinion Sur
In a representative democracy, those who govern do it in the name and on behalf of the interests, needs and emotions of those who appointed them. However, one of the most critical and common challenges faced by contemporary democracies, is that those representatives end up not representing their voters appropriately: the direction and priorities chosen by people represented by them are not respected, thus compromising the political foundation of the government with this detour from the requested mandate; this representation gap may have several explanations.The most indulgent one is that some governments lack the ability to communicate properly with their population base, so the sectors served by them and taken into consideration at the time of strategic decision making in fact do not perceive this affinity. If this were the case, the solutions would be quite simple and would relate to improve communication channels and contents. Unfortunately, in many cases this is not the question but simply that representatives no longer represent us. Even worse, in some instances of questioned representation, communication and publicity are used so that represented individuals notice as little as possible that the government is not defending their interests, needs and emotions.
It can be said that the way in which representation quality is perceived is mediated by a sort of communication veal: sometimes this veal prevents recognizing a full and authentic representation by those who represent us and some other times it makes it possible for those who end up not representing us to make us believe that they do. It is clear that between these two extremes -full representation and no representation at all- there is a full range of representation degrees which is what occurs most often.
Traps in representative democracies
The functioning of a democracy lies in the division of powers, is governed by rules and regulations and has several monitoring and control mechanisms. This institutional framework is of the essence to channel potentialities and to order the confluence of the so many and so different interests involved.
All individuals and organizations are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law and therefore, the different interests are to be equally considered without privileges or payoffs, but this is not always the case. Furthermore, there are too many cases where those holding greater power impose their interests over the rest. The fact is that there are traps in representative democracies that are hard to face. Some of these traps are mentioned below.
Financial bias
It is quite obvious that economic power is not evenly distributed. This is the result of an extended process of concentration that occurs in almost all the countries of the world. The most dramatic aspects of this process are two of its main characteristics: on the one hand, the concentration, far for being reduced, tends to expand rapidly, and on the other, it is the financial sector, the financial intermediation, that concentrates an increased power over all the other players in the real economy. The only player that, with severe limitations, could rise to change such trend and transform the systemic course is the State; but the operation of the State is managed by governments arising from the functioning of a representative democracy. What a trap we have fallen into: we have endorsed a government system based on representative democracy but those having the greater power to influence government decisions are increasingly concentrated financial sectors which, under their supremacy, manage to enlist other affinity groups that benefit serving, directly or indirectly, those interests.
Two clarifications must be made before we go any further. On the one hand, even with all its imperfections and traps, so far I do not know a better governance system than the representative democracy. This does not mean to condone those things that distort democratic representation, but that we need to get more involved in democratic dynamics, with determination and understanding, trying to remove one by one -or all at the same time- the most dangerous traps that prevent building fair and sustainable development paths.
The other clarification has to do with a mistake we often make: the financial system is not an homogeneous universe but comprises several players, some of them much needed to finance the activities of the real economy and some others, instead, dedicated to a bloodstained speculation: they act like vultures profiteering from others’ difficulties. Even though they have substantial amounts of money and move rapidly from a market to another, speculators are a minority that cannot defend their own interests in the open field: in order to have an impact on public policies they need to disguise them inside alliances with other actors. Some allies are accomplices of such speculation but others become part of it alienated by antagonisms that do not distinguish them from the great speculators themselves.
Mass-media bias
There is no doubt about the influence of mass media on public opinion; everyday it decides the things that are important to look at, know, face or ignore. It determines or at least conditions, the economic and political agenda. That is why power factors seek to have like-minded media channels to enforce their perspectives, stands and interests.
If there were a great diversity of media, each with explicit affinity for certain political tent and power groups, we could no longer speak about a mass media bias since all opinions and perspectives would be expressed and in that way enhance a constructive democratic dialogue. However, when mass media ownership is left to the whim of the market, it is evident that those having the greatest resources shall have greater capacity than others to take control of the most important media. This is a fact occurring in many countries where big mass media oligopolies have been established, which have disproportionate effect on public opinion and economic and political agendas.
These situations should be considered anomalous in a representative democracy but they end up being an everyday occurrence. It is up to our representatives to find ways to overcome the mass media bias; one of the most transcendent solutions is the adoption of rules regulating media broadcasting space, assuring that all the wide range of opinions and interests have the opportunity to be expressed on equal terms.
Government bias
On the other hand, a common practice of the governments in office is to use and abuse of the public funds administered by them for their own benefit. Dictatorships have taken control over media to extremes and they have used it to misinform and manipulate public opinion. Although less virulent, some governments arising from democratic processes have done similar things. Indeed, each political party tries to take advantage of the time they hold government positions. Sometimes the same party that is in charge of local government and is using public resources at its discretion, criticizes the opposition party which is governing at national level for practicing the same policies that it is using locally. Later on, the political situation changes and counter-allegations are exchanged.
There are rules regulating the use of public resources and controlling entities that must watch over their fair enforcement. However, the ability to get around such rules seems to be a common thing in all administrations.
A complex and delicate situation arises when large media oligopolies control press information and investigation. Since only governments are able to face up to them, confrontation between both forces sets a government bias that rises to oppose the media bias. While this polarization persists, it will be very difficult to transform one bias independently from the other. The most constructive response depends on making access and contents more democratic therefore dismantling simultaneously both the media and the government bias.
Political funding
There have been several attempts to regulate political funding so that big contributors cannot obtain privileges in exchange for their contributions. This is difficult to avoid since even in cases where there are public funds to finance parties, additional funds obtained from direct contributors may amount to big operative differences between one party and another. These differences are expressed with more virulence at campaign periods when the dependency of parties on big media companies which favor with coverage those having affinity with them is more evident.
Political funding also implies to resolve how politicians, that is to say the people that represent us, support themselves. When they are elected, their salaries are paid from the budget of that governmental level but, when they are not acting as public servants, it is not always clear how their activities are funded. This is more serious in the case of those who are few times elected. For some political organizations, the public sector is considered booty to be obtained, a system for financing political militancy.
A myriad of questions are waiting to be appropriately answered. How politicians surface? How do they emerge into a sort of union of professional politicians? How many of them can devote all of their time to political tasks and how many work in other non-political areas to ensure their income? How politicians born in rich families run with advantage? How do they coexist with corruption and the granting of perks and privileges? What level of freedom and objectivity are able to achieve those funded by corporate, media, union or religious organizations?
And in this complex context, how are politicians trained and how the level of those who represent us could be improved? Furthermore, how can we measure political quality? as the capacity to manage?; as the ability to generate agreements?; as the capacity to win elections? As the wit to conceal interests? Do professional politicians who accumulate experiences and relationships have a better performance? Do self-perpetuating closed castes of politicians suffocate the renewal and appearance of new prospects? Do they damage diversity? Do they restrict options in defense of their own petty interests? Are they more exposed to submission and blackmail on account of crimes or ill-gotten gains?
Distorting the political debate
The electoral debate arises as a key element for getting to know positions, proposals, the creativity and abilities of those requesting to represent us; it is an opportunity to learn and understand what is going on; to recognize the personality of those disputing our vote. However, political debate is often devoid of contents and meaning.
Instead of informing and educating, the debate and the election process itself becomes a marketing operation on names and “brands”. The voter is manipulated in a way very similar to the way in which a consumer faces a variety of offers. Packages, subliminal messages, slogans, and evocations obtained by means of tricks in order to associate them to candidate/products, are considered more important than proposals, work methods, referential utopias, directions, pathways, strategies, which are left behind, far behind, if any remain. Instead of comparing visions, programs, projects and ways of functioning, preferences are supported by forged empathies, orchestrated theatricalities, reiteration of mottos and slogans. It is an ongoing flow towards fantasy scenarios where whistles and balloons, jingles, bottled gestures and feelings try to mimic situations of “joy”, “happiness”, “satisfaction”, of carefully manufactured ‘informal’ and ‘spontaneous’ attitudes.
We are looking to a sad emptying of contents from substantive discussions, the status of politics, the debates on ideas and proposals. We find in its place advertising campaigns, image consultants, salesmen of illusions, specialists on winning at any cost; who cares if they resort to deception, lies and tricks! Mind manipulation is thereby enshrined, as well as the importance of available resources which finally enables to hire that army of producers and illusionists that turn politics into a theater set and know how to conceal interests that cannot be openly defended. On the other hand, who is monitoring the fulfillment of election promises and lies? Do accountability matters when in a few years a new film crew will shield us from the consequences of our actions and will offer a make-up that will conceal the pale color of sorrows, sadness, injustice and betrayals?
Uneasiness and epics
Disillusion and uneasiness are addressed with hard work; with new searches; with the effort of the righteous and the courage of the brave; with the commitment of understanding and building beyond supremacies and the hegemonic thinking imposed upon us.
The concerted action of thousands of individuals gives and renews hope; the strategic thinking protects from disorientation.
Facing the marketing switcheroo we need to set up referential utopias capable of best aligning the multiple interests and different needs of society as a whole. Straight thinking precedes straight acting. Make no mistake: the price to be paid shall be really high if we renounce to understand, organize, manage, reflect on, amend mistakes, adjust the course, bring the future closer.
Neither wailing nor astonished looks are needed. The distant future and the present pathways are still at stake.
The challenge is a major one; our response will need to be epic.
