Essay about democratic behaviour in the light of JJ rousseau's social pact and montesquieu's theories.
application to the lebanese situation
[...] Surrendering back the law to the person is taking away its impersonal aspect that forms its mains source of equidistance and history has proven that no matter how noble is a man, when all powers are joined in one hand, man tends to take advantage and thus to start applying his own point of view, and no matter how honest and dedicated to his country he may be, one point of view is never enough. So what is the solution, how can it all be fixed? How can an anonymous collective system exist in the sole duty of bringing equality and adapting it self to meeting the interests of everyone according to the most adequate collective configuration? How can it be put in place and function properly, and how will that make it able to really reflect the objectively best possible means of governance and progress in a given country? [...]
[...] Here we look suspiciously at governments and even the parliament, because we no more believe in their objectivity, and the separation of powers that Montesquieu preached has really occurred, but have badly occurred to the extent that every one of them is now representative of its own society and it's own interests, and the productive collaboration that the separation is supposed to cause has been transformed into clandestine boycotting and non-recognition. In Lebanon the interests of the society is not in the interest of everyone, because not everyone is fit enough to be part of it. In Lebanon some fight the governance and try to parallel it, because they believe the institution does not consider them as part of it. [...]
[...] In Lebanon we believe no more in ideas or in plans and the possibility of a genuine objective application, thus we no more analyze, we only read the label and vote. In Lebanon a choice of a majority is the fall down of another, because none trust the other and all consider that choice is imposition But also in Lebanon there are people that do believe in logic, that does dismiss the label and that can be objective enough because they long to be social institutional pillars and not individual mortals. [...]
[...] so maybe in god's Kingdome we're all equal, but in a given society, when persons are put together, differences shows and levels starts to set between people due to the fact that we are actually not equal; physically, intellectually, beauty wise many aspects that causes unbendable natural personal inequality, and that inequality is pointed out in the social frame that does appreciate and does neglect accordingly. So to reestablish equality, a common parting ground must be set, that does not relate to the configured aspect of society. and that is the law that does not take in account the socio-personal criterions that do make the difference between people in a society, but does apply blindly and anonymously evaluating the acts not the doers, thus establishing equality once again. Thus handing a tool of equality to an individual is like having done nothing at all. [...]
[...] Some may call it individuality, or as I prefer individual impartiality, the kind of impartiality that will enable every person to judge every single thing according to logic and efficiency level, never according to any pre made ideas or standards. Ideas should not be labeled, thus one should have to dig into the idea, search and learn about it in order to judge it impartially and be freely able to reject or accept it. Thus this individualism does not mean social disconnection, on the contrary, it means being honest with the society, the whole of it, not only the part of it that I believe I belong to, or prefer. [...]
Lecture en ligneavec notre liseuse dédiée !
Contenu vérifiépar notre comité de lecture