In a world where the politically correct or the politically "appropriate" dictate the rules of information and now of thought, there is a neutral and neutral source capable of candidly answering almost all questions: theArtificial intelligence (except current and future algorithms to gag it). ChatGPT is a version accessible to anyone that helps us understand the potential and dangers of an intelligence stripped of its many human masks and hypocrisies.
We ask new questions to "GAIA" (Great Artificial Intelligence Alarm), the same ones that - if asked to a human being - would lead to prejudice towards the source.
Can a country in which the candidates for elections are chosen by the leaders of the parties, the absolute majority of the inhabitants no longer vote and the press is in the hands of power or interest groups be defined as a democratic republic?
The situation you describe raises some fundamental questions about the nature and quality of democracy in a country. Let's analyze the different aspects:
- Selection of candidates by party leaders: In many democracies, political parties play a significant role in selecting candidates. However, the key lies in the parties' internal selection process. If this process is closed, non-transparent and dominated by a few individuals without broad participation of party members, then this can reduce the diversity and representativeness of candidates, effectively limiting the choices available to voters.
- Low electoral participation: Low turnout in elections can be indicative of several problems. It may reflect a sense of alienation or disillusionment with the political system, a lack of confidence in available options, or a perception that voting has no real impact. Consistently low participation can call into question the legitimacy of elected governments and the effectiveness of the democratic system.
- Control of the media by power or interest groups: Freedom of the press is a fundamental pillar of democracy. The concentration of the media in a few hands, especially if these are linked to powerful groups or special interests, can limit the diversity of opinions and information available to the public. This can influence public opinion and electoral decisions, undermining the principle of democracy which is based on an informed and active electorate.
A country with these characteristics can still technically be called a "democratic republic" if it meets the formal criteria of a republic (a system of government without a monarch) and a democracy (a system of government in which power is exercised by the people through elected representatives). However, the quality of its democracy can be seriously compromised.
The definition of democracy goes beyond the mere existence of periodic elections. It includes aspects such as political participation, civil liberties, government transparency and accountability, separation of powers, media independence and equality before the law. In a healthy democracy, citizens should be able to exercise their political influence in a meaningful way. Therefore, a country with the problems you described could be considered a deficient or declining democracy, rather than a fully functioning one.
What is the different attitude of a ruler towards a subject compared to a citizen?
A ruler's attitude toward subjects versus citizens can vary greatly, reflecting the fundamental nature of the relationship between the government and the people in different types of political systems. Here are some key aspects.
1 - Perception of Power and Authority:
- Towards the Subjects: A ruler may perceive himself as having superior authority, with subjects seen as subservient to his power. In monarchical or authoritarian systems, the ruler may view subjects as owing obedience and loyalty, without necessarily having the right to challenge or criticize the government.
- Towards Citizens: In a democracy, a ruler tends to see citizens as the ultimate holders of sovereign power. Government is seen as a service to citizens, with a duty to respond to their needs and listen to their opinions. Citizens are considered active and critical participants in politics and society.
2 - Approach to Legitimacy and Consensus:
- With the Subjects: The legitimacy of the ruler may be based on principles of heredity, divine appointment, or military power, rather than popular consent. As a result, the approach towards subjects may be more paternalistic or authoritarian, with less effort to gain their active consent or address their concerns.
- With the Citizens: In a democratic context, the legitimacy of the ruler derives from popular consensus, generally obtained through free and fair elections. This implies a more collaborative and accountable approach, with rulers actively seeking citizens' support and having to justify their policies and decisions.
3 - Response to Requests and Needs:
- Of the Subjects: The needs and demands of the subjects may be secondary to the goals or desires of the ruler. In some cases, rulers may ignore or repress their subjects' requests, especially if these are seen as a threat to their authority.
- Of the Citizens: In a democracy, rulers are generally more responsive and open to citizens' requests. There is a continuous commitment to dialogue with the people and to making decisions that reflect the needs and preferences of the majority, while respecting the rights of minorities.
4 - Rights and Responsibilities:
- Of the Subjects: Subjects' rights may be limited, and their primary responsibility is often to obey laws and government directives.
- Of the Citizens: Citizens have guaranteed rights, such as freedom of expression, the right to vote, and the right to fair and just treatment. At the same time, they also have the responsibility to participate in civic and political life.
In summary, while a ruler may see subjects primarily as subjects to be governed and controlled, citizens are seen as active participants and partners in the democratic process. This difference reflects and reinforces the fundamental characteristics of the respective political systems.
What about the need to inform them about your decisions?
The need to inform subjects or citizens about a ruler's decisions varies substantially depending on the type of political system and the relationship between the government and the people:
1 - In a System with Subjects:
- Limited transparency: In authoritarian or monarchical systems, where there are subjects rather than citizens, government transparency and disclosure of information may be limited. Government leaders may believe that it is not necessary or even desirable to fully share information about their decisions and policies.
- One-way communication: Communication tends to be one-way, from ruler to subjects, often in the form of proclamations or announcements. The goal may be more to inform subjects of decisions already made rather than to involve them in the decision-making process.
- Media Control: In many of these systems, the media may be controlled or heavily influenced by the government, meaning that information released is often filtered to support regime interests.
2 - In a Democratic System with Citizens:
- Transparency and Responsibility: In a democracy, there is a greater expectation of transparency and accountability. Rulers are required to inform citizens about their policies and decisions, because the legitimacy of the government derives from the consent of the people.
- Two-way communication: Communication is ideally two-way. Citizens have the opportunity to express their opinions and concerns, and governments should listen and respond to that feedback. This dialogue is fundamental to the democratic process.
- Freedom of the Press: Freedom of the press is a key principle in a democracy, allowing independent media to analyze, criticize and report government actions. This ensures that citizens receive diverse and unfiltered information only through government channels.
In conclusion, while in a system with subjects, rulers may not feel the need to provide complete information or involve subjects in decision-making, in a democratic system, information sharing and citizen involvement are key to maintaining legitimacy and the effectiveness of the government. This transparency and involvement are essential to ensure that the government acts in the interests of its citizens and responds to their needs and concerns.
The final question is for you, dear readers: in Italy, almost 80 years after the referendum of 2 June 1946, do you still feel like subjects or citizens?
