Those who rule
By: Antonio Lorca Siero: Citizens have a certain conviction that they are the one who governs when they vote. In reality, it is an innocent fallacy, served by the leaders of the system to give it formal relevance and encourage consumers to continue consuming greedily in the market, because in a democracy it sells better.
The process properly ordered from the group perspective, in representative terms one could speak, not of democracy, but of partitocracy, that is, the people vote and the parties govern. The plan makes sense insofar as it allows to falsify political reality, although making it not seem so, through a model of beliefs that are promoted by invoking ideologies to put the plural feelings of changing the world on track, always latent, although each in its own way . The political issue is reduced to something like a sporting event that, due to its natural attraction force, invites you to tilt positions among the spectators on the side of those who coincide with your preferences, although they do not participate and the characters they trust do not. represent. The thing remains in mixed feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction among those who attend the media spectacle to which politics is today reduced. The parties not only channel political sentiments that are labeled as ideologies, they also sell images, focused on occasional oppressive characters who take over the media to instill beliefs into the audience, whether coincident or discordant, and adjust in detail those channels through which political circulation must , while reality walks the other way.
Based on ideologies for the occasion and leaders, assisted by their court of petty elites, citizens are encouraged so that the political landscape does not decline. Everything seems to be the fruit of that representative democracy that distinguishes civilized countries from others. Although it turns out that almost everyone plays the same game, the difference has been that some blatantly cheat in the election of their rulers and others do so using the new means of persuasion that technologies have been providing. Therefore, the more advanced play with an advantage or, if you like, dominate the question of style, that is, greater refinement and better display of appearance.
Now getting to the bottom of the matter. In a panorama of political characters to remove and to put on, this seems to be the great virtue of democracy in use, the question is who takes them on stage, gives them media rope and, when they are no longer useful, dismounts them. To the electorate, each party offers the most recommendable of its establishment as if it were a previous exercise of personal evaluation of the candidates. Which leads to consider that political characters are the product of the parties, but the explanation is not so clear when the one located up there is supported by an insignificant minority of faithful, does not have the support of the majority of affiliates and even distorts what they have called the party ideology. The question then arises of who has put it there.
Starting from the fact that the voters find that not people vote, but parties that represent their political beliefs, and that in turn serve figures theoretically committed to those beliefs, when it turns out that they go the other way and the party is powerless to correct them, is that something happens. And not only that, they are even temporarily untouchable and incombustible, although, in fact and beyond the media propaganda, they deny the rule of law, in what does not suit their personal interests, make representative democracy a legend and cling boldly to the seat of power through thick and thin. Much worse still, if possible, what they make of the country they represent a puppet of international interests. It allows us to conclude that someone, who is not the party, much less its electorate, lends their support, becoming the one who really commands over the institutional channels of each State.
If such characters of the moment are on the fringes of the party to which they claim to belong, and in the practice of politics they follow slogans of foreign origin, unknown to the public, it is because they fulfill the mandates of those who support them through thick and thin because they defend their interests. and fundamentally because it has the power to do so. The new question would be where are those who really rule through such commissioners located. Solving the enigma does not require too many headaches, it is enough to observe who has the necessary strength to move the world at their convenience, even playing with political ideologies, which ultimately turn out to be driven by the weight of money.
It is a fact that big capital supplies its commercial ideologies to the masses, for this it uses, among other more refined instruments, media influencers, but also, to reinforce them, it turns out that it has control of political ideologies through these new personnel, salaried in the shadow of the officiants of the capitalist doctrine. The aim is none other than to keep the market under net control directly, imposing beliefs and selling virtual merchandise, animating the landscape through shows, in which politics cannot be absent. A wide panorama woven of networks so that nobody escapes. Above, in that minority redoubt and hidden from any prying eyes, is where those who command and govern the collective existence are really found, although, contrary to what is thought, they are not included in the ranking of the most rich of the world.
