The Day Democracy Stood Before The Holy Court of Populus
Social media have given the opportunity for both sides of the argument to be heard. The potential for practising freedom of speech is limitless. However, democracy has decided to censor one side of the argument. Why?
Democracy will soon stand before the highest court in the world, the one that will decide on its fate, The Holy Court of Populus. The Court of People!
A judge won’t be dressed in scarlet robes with grey silk facings, a jabot and a bench wig. No, the judge will have construction workwear instead — big boots, old dirty trousers, an orange protective vest and a yellow helmet on his head. He will ask Democracy with his broken English accent:
“Do you find yourself guilty for the massive breach of the following democratic features the whole idea of yours is set upon:
- Freedom of speech
- Independent source of information
- Citizen control of agenda
- Informed electorate
“No, I do not feel guilty,” Democracy will answer genuinely.
“Oh, come on,” the judge will say ironically. “Not even for censorship?”
“No.”
“Not for removing Karlo Tasler’s article under the name “The Power of Protests” from Medium?” (The article was brought back to life eventually and you can read it here)
“Noup!” Democracy will answer without blinking. “I need to censor anti-vaxxers because they spread misinformation. That is what I am about.”
“But Karlo Tasler is not an anti-vaxxer,” the judge will say. “He simply observes what is going on in society. In that article, he explained how the protests influence decisions governments make. Karlo Tasler’s article was based on facts and professional journalist observation!”
“I am sorry, but you either follow the mainstream narrative, or you are an anti-vaxxer. There is no third option. You are only allowed to observe and explain information given by the system. Otherwise, you are anti-vaxx and you are endangering the system.”
“Ok… Even if he was anti-vaxx, you are Democracy, and you should maintain the freedom of speech alive no matter what,” the judge will say. “What about the famous Voltaire’s quote ‘I wholly disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it’, that you used to show off with?”
“Ohhh, don’t be naive, that was before the era of social media,” Democracy will say. “You don’t want everybody to have the right to speak now.”
“Hasn’t social media given you the unique opportunity to exercise freedom of speech?” the judge will ask. “Now when we have two sides of the argument, almost absolute division in society, isn’t this the right moment to practise democracy to the fullest?”
“No, because that is not how I work,” Democracy will say. “I was invented a long time before the Internet, before social media, in the time when not everybody was able to speak out. Do you understand? I am not suitable for the technological era. I was never going to thrive through these times. I was made to support the system. I was an idea that sounded great, and all the major pillars of society wanted to identify with me. Freedom of speech, independence, rule of people… Everybody wanted a piece of it. But you need to understand — that was before social media, before everybody got a chance to speak out.”
“Are you saying that you were a democracy only when there was nobody to challenge governing decisions? That freedom of speech worked only when a small group of people could speak publicly?”
“Well… yeah.”
“So technology made you realise you are not about freedom of speech after all?”
“Correct.”
“But you still have time to change,” the judge will say in despair. “You can start practising the real democratic values and give freedom of speech to both sides. You still have a choice!”
“Are you not listening to me?” Democracy will get angry. “My role is to support the system. And the system is based on some pillars that must not be shaken. Because if they collapse, they collapse on me, and the whole system is gone. The thing you are talking about, the system where two sides speak out endlessly, is not democracy. It is something else that is yet to be named. If I let everybody speak their opinion, then the mainstream media would be endangered. Mainstream science would be endangered. Governments would be endangered. All the things that are crucial for democracy would collapse. It might seem to you that I have a choice here, but there is no way out of this situation for me. The only move I can do is to censor one side of the argument.”
“But that sounds like a dictatorship,” the judge will say. “Like dictatorship propaganda of creating the society tailored for the wishes of the rulers, of the ruling system.”
“Well…”
“Oh my God,” the judge will conclude — “Have you the whole time been a dictatorship hidden under the values that now are proving to be fake?”
“Well…”
“Has technology only put a light on you and presented you for what you really are?”
“Well… Yeah,” Democracy will say lethargically.
“So what now?”
“The only option I have at this point is to be exposed as a dictatorship. Either way, I am ceasing to exist,” Democracy will say. “You get it now. I was not made for a technology era. I cannot survive this. I am done.”
“Shit…”
“So, do you understand now why I don’t feel guilty for removing Karlo Tasler’s article?”
“So it is the end of the system as we know it, isn’t it?”
“It is,” Democracy will confess.
“Democracy is not guilty,” the judge will say sorrowfully like he doesn’t trust his own words. “Go out there and do what you need to do — Spend your last days as a dictatorship… But expect resistance and anarchism to grow parallelly with you. Because anarchism is simply a byproduct of dictatorship.
