Figures of the One Must Go

by Victor Living

  Do we have any access to that? Oh, yes, we always have. I only hope the next generations daresay and insist on creating a new system. What’s the idea? It’s simple. If we already choose someone, we must think how to get feedback about protection of our rights. But to make real steps to it, we have to set up the general question: “Hey, Mister Choice, would you like to prove why you are the best?” Have you ever met any high officials? I have. But when I make up how they reply to their secret thoughts, I’m getting, “Thanks, plebs, for profiting and escalating on the level of the person with the name!”

  Oh, the irony of fate. It materialized because we let them pull off the best in life: prestige, privileges, accessibility, and paying nix for this. It shows up because as regular citizens we only hold the routine needed to build, serve, teach, heal, defend a country, and produce even simple bread.

  Well done, people!

  But we left only one spot: a permanent fight for surviving. And that pushes talk about our peeves. Again, yes, as irritation and aggravation. When you see that your finest chosen doesn’t even speak with you, you enter a state of mental prostration. In consequence, you’re in open disgust about the politician, even in disbelief to your manager on the job. But anyway, we have many excellent points to feel like we can create a new measurement about deliberation to check who from the demos is not working for democracy.

  Hey, super-wits of democracy, would you like to answer: Why modern politics deceive so many people? I believe anyone of them could reply: What are you talking about young man? But the same young questioner should respond: I’m the voice of a demo, and I am ready to sacrifice my time and make you turn faces to the needs of simple people. So, I’d like to invite you to think deeper about this to help bring it nearer. Will you support such affirmations?

  If the voters found no political liability of selects, do they have to proclaim political misrepresentation?

  When a citizen disagrees with a turn of policy, they get full rights for free self-defense—because the collective civil control over a situation loses the meaning of

  WHO is DEMOS in DEMOCRACY.

  When you see how the political system works and more evidence, compare all of it with expression, “If you put a thief in the gold cave, he doesn’t stop stealing, but would demand an exceptional status.” It is possible that an average people after overseeing such tendencies and later getting power conducts themselves as “goldstone ingots.” Is that a problem? No, that is the trouble of humiliation, and it disgusts us. And it accumulates inside us as explosive negativity. One sage said you could perceive any military conflict but not a civil war. These battles are inconceivable for the psyche. When the brothers kill each other for false ideas but with the hottest passion, the world gets scared.

  “Oh, democracy! Demo-cra-cy! Let us also live in a democracy!” proclaim many post-imperial or post-colonial or post-communistic countries. Oh yes, they want such justice not as the rule of law but as political tolerance and transparency. At the most, no one tolerates “kings, emperors, or leaders of totalitarian regimes” anymore. All survivors of longtime misery got in arousing pathos as needy for equality, human rights, and economic freedom. And they don’t care to discover what real democracy is. It will come later. Now, they are glad as blind sequence accredits only democracy. I’d like to invite you to think about ideas and confirm that democracy isn't a panacea-cure after any moral slavery:

  An autocratic authenticity fails only in democracy. Any proclaimed perspective for the population is pick point.

  Thrilled trust of transcending tomorrow not achieved yet because you have no explanation for

  WHAT is a REAL BOOST for democracy and still a green faith.

  But when you have matured in the knowledge of democracy, you wouldn’t endorse tricky political actions. Because you have nothing to support, even it looks like booster aid. Become savvy after achieving the truth beats you. Have you undisclosed clearance for how zero-point accountability of democracy works? Have you learned that populism isn’t a formula of alluring prospects but poison on any mind? Did you detect big stress for miscalculating yourself as the solicitous contributor to democracy? Would you like recheck what you got in the final? As well, you found that only everyday men like you became responsible for dissipated penny-payment. Aren’t you shocked by the cost of democracy? Are you ready to consider these proposals and ‘try it your way’ but react:

  The sum of our hopes to support justice has no backup.

  Only you delegate pratfalls of our politics. Are you endorsing democracy’s artifices—because you’re just an individual

  WHO is the FIRST PAYER from demos? You?

  Oh, democracy! It looks like we don't run away from this. But it also sounds that we never will find answers to all our why's.

  Why have yesterday’s angry-hungry-sharp men who demanded freedom regained one’s temper today? Wherefore the inspired slogan turned to mystification? Why have the millions so quickly transformed into wanderers, who look for precise destination answer: Whom to listen to, where to go further, and why former shiny candidates now appear as slaves who in their souls and gladness and satisfaction sold themselves to the new clique?

  I hope you understand the answers are only our painful rhetoric…because now, it doesn’t matter which side of democracy you defend; you can find only more issues of its insolvency. But if you want to get a better understanding of how democracy works, check how younger generations react to political changes. In our digital age, it’s fascinating how swift people generate information. The youngest population has already learned to protect their no mistake pose. So, they bring tones of evidence by truthful fact-checks. But let’s step into the exceptional event of young people and their inclusive views about democracy. This exciting story narrated by my acquaintance, John:

  “My two close friends graduated from the same college, but I went to a particular program. I applied for a master’s degree program in special education. As you remember, after college I started a career in engineering for the telecommunications field, but I had to resign. My three-year-old daughter was diagnosed with autism. Yes, to move in such a different direction was only due to this painful circumstance. I had, and still have, the biggest passion for helping such fantastic creatures like Emilia. As was my plan, I began a precise fight for deeper knowledge about this disease from the first day. My dream was to become an expert in this field. My dive into an environment of education elevated my enthusiasm. Many things were easy and connected with my total computerization. As I found strength in math-logical skills, I was disappointed about challenges with subjects that demanded the best verbal skills ever. In the beginning, it was embarrassing. You never know, and I caught myself in immense curiosity for psychology, philosophy, and the art of teaching language. They all in a few weeks became my favorite. The lectures about the influences of philosophers on education gave me an intellectual disclosure that “the knowledge and needs to pass a course is far from each other.” And as I realized later, most of the students weren’t in love with that discipline. They complained as it needed many hours of concentrated reading. Also, it required attention to comprehend old philosophers’ work. At last, students didn’t consider such information useful in teaching, but it was mandatory for getting the grade. For me, it was also a chance to get more familiar with the thinking world of philosophy and the world of logicians and theorists with their immortal viewpoints.

  We also had a little quandary with our professor. As an outstanding, erudite scholar and dean of our faculty, he liked to quiz the students by giving too many questions. And for the students who weren’t keen-witted, it was a jam. So, everyone who passed the final test said, “To even get a B from him is a big headache.” If I can recall it right, in the middle of a session, we had a remarkable event. It was a topic about similar tendencies of democracy from ancient Greece to our recent situation. As a real inventor, the professor was a provoker. An agenda for every next lecture, with a practical exercise, was that
two students from his list had to make a personal presentation about a chosen philosopher and what influence he had on education. After these performances, as was common, he handed everyone a set of complex questions. Everybody knew it would grow into a related discussion. Next, all fifteen classmates divided into three groups and had to move chairs to three sides. The first group of three, named J, hung about the center. They played the role of moderator—judges. Later, one student would announce the results of the team with more pluses—guessed as a winner. The second grouping, A, contained six students. They had the task to bring to attention only clear pros to prove why they stood for their position. The third was group B, also with six participants. They had the goal of declaring all cons to uphold points about why their contradictions sounded stronger and more truthful.

  This day had run as scheduled. The agreed-upon topic for the dispute was “Define contemporary democracy. What is similar and different in the political attitudes of ancient Greek city-states and the modern democracy of developed countries?” Before opening such competition for the judges, the professor made a brief five-minute speech. It was a historical excursus about where democracy was born and how humanity arrived at our present-day political establishments. The professor also accented why we have to pay attention to geopolitical tendencies and how new democracies apply for connections. Later, for this discussion, he prepared a lottery. One person from the judges’ table would pick up a ticket with a card for a country with an existing democracy. It was all countries of the European Union. The rest, chosen by the professor, were France, Germany, Poland, Great Britain, Greece, and Russia. When we uncovered the name of the country, the two groups of competitors had to make roundtable talks for preparation. For such a practice, we could use any access to information, including computers in the lab or cafeteria or personal gadgets in hand.

  The professor gave us about fifteen minutes of class time and added fifteen minutes during a time-out. It looked like an arrangement only for an exchange of ideas among students. We had to determinate who our captain and speakers would be. So, it was the surprise ticket — a choice about democracy in the Russian Federation. Then, it became a plan to start preparation. But why was it a surprise? The reason is that everyone heard about an unprecedented political occurrence in Europe. Russia, by a false voting referendum of locals, annexed the Crimean Peninsula (part of an independent country, Ukraine) and connected to its territory. So, after such a radical change, it disturbed an entire world. The officials of Governments and regular people of the globe got confused. Is that our twenty-first century? Crimea had already been part of the independent sovereign country Ukraine for twenty-five years. It brought strident shock, ringing bells to Western civilizations. And it was, as our professor assessed this situation a few weeks ago, an open message from the government to that country; they were no longer on the way toward developing democracy. At most, the president of Russia (we know his name) broke agreements of international law from World War II. Doesn’t that look like the authoritarian state proven? It became months and months of full-time breaking news, but our professor, during one lecture, emphasized that we lived in the epoch—where we could witness how such an inclination would finish as the totalitarian regime with political and moral consequences. Was it a coincidence? I don’t know, but now to conduct our competition was more challenging. I knew we had a few students from the Russian Federation, but they didn’t look like Russians. But a student named Tanya was in group A, and we all knew she was from Russia. Every person in class admitted her outstanding look and sharp thinking.

  So, we tried—even by impartial logic—to test all existing information from or about RF that could be offensive to her. I believe the professor knew his students’ native originality. As we all noted after a brief scientific message about the history of democracy, he made a little-added deviation.

  “Dear students, I’d like also ask you to scribble down why practicing any polemics is not a simple assignment. Our task for today is to learn how to load arguments with particular facts and keep monitoring how we tolerate one another. Understanding this technique helps use classic philosophical reasoning. Please emphasize that any historical fact must be supported by practical precondition. Only then is it possible (taking into account all the pros and cons) to come within reach of the political counterevidence. After probing why it works as a tool, you could become more skillful in showing the problem, classifying, illustrating, and making a synthesis for correct conclusions. That’s what we call an instrument of authentic critical thinking. As you’re already educators, you know how to prove they believe facts. You are on the road to the master’s degree and should train yourself how to apply that knowledge in actual situations. As that is easy with the theme, don’t forget it for data revisions. It is like a law when you examine in the smallest details you can bring correct summary. Okay, let’s start with group A for pros. I’m expecting, that you bring many facts up now and defend a position that the Russian Federation is still a developing democracy.”

  “We’re group A for pros and would like to start with an opening statement we believe could confirm that the Russian Federation is still on the way to developing democracy. Yes, we understand the new circumstances brought serious damage for the reputation of that country. We organized a set of solid objects and wished to declare only our position is right,” pronounced a young student who looked American.

  “Okay, I’m from group B for cons. We don’t agree with the opposite side. We judge the Russian Federation moves to the authoritarian state. The main reason is the president has lead the country for over sixteen years. It includes a huge range of political and economic consequences. But, the civilized world believes that such a rich and powerful country is inevitably on the way to a democracy,” said a student who appeared to be a native from India.

  “Let’s remark from the beginning,” intervened the professor. “I’d like to ask you in an introduction to try cutting wads of opinion or prediction. I agree its emotional context. Fellows, you are analysts now. Even in the situation with RF today, please remove any prospective spots ‘what it could be.’ Guys, let’s learn how, after announcing this issue, to fill it with actual proof. Please, give us more solid facts and just pull any conclusion. Okay, who would like go next? Thanks.”

  After comments of the professor, I’ll explain why I noticed the nationality of participants. I was doing this just to show there wasn’t any bias about the topic. The common facial expression of dedicated students exhibited only blank, ‘we don’t care’ looks. That made me think that none of the classmates felt anything toward this country. It was like an unpainted picture of the visible total indifference of young people. They showed no sympathy, no neutrality, and no involvement. It was just apathy. It brought me to the decisive misunderstanding of what’s going on with the young generation. Why aren’t they attracted to important global issues like peace and war? Okay, I’ll tell you what happened next. After a minute of pause, one student from group B for cons, all at once raised his hand. It looked like one student wanted to knock down a regular proceeding and break the rules of the game.

  “Sorry, Professor. I understand that by our rules, the next turn is for someone from group A, but let me have a word. It’s only about reasons for sharp recent facts,” said a student with a mustache inappropriate for his age.

  “Could you promise not to reduce our interesting engagement with the circus?”

  “Yes, I do, Professor. And I would like to keep it earnest, just for the advantage of everyone here.”

  “Okay, define your position by the items,” replied the professor, and he put his chair in the front of the opposing parties.

  “I’d like to refresh points about Russia’s hacking during our last 2016 presidential campaign. I agree that there’s no evidence yet at all, and by myself, I don’t believe it possible. For now, that is only mass media talk, but if we looked back over history for how it existed and died in the empire, we could just grab the main
tendency: not a single empire ever lived without wars. Correct?”

  “Yes, right, but RF today is not at war with anybody,” reacted Tanya from group A. She looked like a real Russian girl.

  “Very nice, guys,” countered the professor and continued, “Okay, we argued without performing a full argumentation of each side. But please do not twist it somewhat bazaarly.”

  “Very sorry, Professor, I’ll put it back in order, but just give me a chance to complete the statement. And later, we can invite the other team to discuss every fact from my list.”

  “Oh, you have a list? That’s interesting. Okay, keep going.”

  “As we know, with today’s super easy access to any source, I’ve found demonstrative facts about RF, but it’s from a period when RF became an assignee of the former Soviet Union with full international responsibility.”

  “I see, fellows,” again interrupted the professor. “If you want to apply to an issue at first, name it, and then inform us why you used it.”

  “Sorry, Professor, that’s my fault. Let us bring a term: ‘war.’ It looks like, after the collapse of the SU, Russia conducted nonstop conflicts with former, but now independent republics of the earlier called the Soviet Union. And I want—before I the read lists—to ask the participants rhetorical questions: Did that country ever try to develop democracy?” And the student answered, “I don’t think so.”

  “Okay, guys, sorry for the interruption again,” the professor said with a smile. “Now, all of you are witnessing a good objection about how we may not conduct a philosophical dispute. It’s not a scientific method. Let me tell the three whales of the simplest basis of polemic arrived from ancient natural philosophy. It’s thesis-antithesis-synthesis. So, our student has broken that classic principle. He jumped from half a thesis straight to the synthesis. But I feel we have to let him go on with his list. So, keep continuing, my friend.”