MONOLOGUE OF POLITICS AND AUTONOMOUS SPHERES
By Bardhyl ZAIMI
No matter how much we try to simplify the world, it remains complicated to explain. In the political space explanations become even more complex. In the Balkans, where infinite praises are constantly produced, interpretations become even more impossible.
However, the present and the future are in front of a categorical imperative to react, interpret and reflect on political and social realities. And this remains a difficult thing, as politics is understood only as utilitarianism and a fragmented everyday life, which all the time try to scheme the interpretation into a uniform opinion that must not exceed the ubiquitous average.
And where might best in the drama appear these dilemmas of a soul that requires change, which requires a different understanding of the world, over the entire system set up as a canon that attempts to maintain a fatal correlation between the robot and the sovereign, as the philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev described in his extraordinary book “Human Freedom and Slavery”.
And who could better articulate this dilemma than Shakespeare? In Hamlet, we will find an action to change the world. “The time is out of joint, O cursed spite that ever I was born to set it right”, Hamlet says in his greatest despair. It is this cry that is interpreted in the framework of social theories, in addition to the thousands of artworks for one of Shakespeare’s masterpieces of “the impossible prince”, as the writer Ismail Kadare defined in his essay.
This cry of Hamlet in a non-literary comparative interpretation is considered a social action for change and as a premise of responsibility and social consciousness that articulates and promotes today those autonomous spheres of the academic and civil world that in Western society remain the driving force of public and political thought. In our region this cry seems unclear and almost insignificant. In fact, there are two things that foster each other in the process of Balkan repetitions and in the process of realizing ideas. On the one hand, it is a policy that completely ignores this autonomous sphere of thinking, on the other hand we have an autonomous sphere that lives in “huge scientific” films that find no space in social and political dynamics.
For years, there has been a fatal gap between the two public spheres, which have no interaction with each other. There are two parallel worlds, each of which exists at its own will. Politics that repeats the plays of the endless rush of a human being and the sphere of autonomous thought, instead of being a catalyst and protagonist in political and social processes, decided to be placed in an undisputed world from the outside.
In this line, we need to distinguish two moments that remain an exception to this eternal relationship of real estate and the schemes predetermined by the two groups. One point is related to the fact that these few votes have provided decent horizons for the future of politics and society in general, while the second moment is related to the fact that politics once gained the votes of the autonomous sphere with a bad intention to justify its will for power and not to make a creative synergy for the future.
At the time when these two bodies of public opinion exist parallel to the world, the hope of creating greater interaction and setting other coordinates of institutional functioning will always be weak. Undoubtedly, this situation produces a permanent political monologue that has been operationalized in the momentary decision-making that in no case can be inclusive and effective in terms of systemic changes that are expected to emerge as new practices. This situation also produces an autonomous sphere of opinion, which exists beyond any obligation in the public sphere, namely in the field of public policy making.
This situation remains a “paradise” for political mediocrity, for the repeated monologue of politics, which implies slogans for bribery rather than a vision and practice of government that includes the interests of all citizens. This situation produces a party-state, a party-society, a party that is everywhere and that self-injures the magic of power, but which in no way manages to create a comprehensive debate on the various problems and causes of social groups.
This situation also produces a pro-fan Facebook status expert who, in the absence of relevant thinking that was to come from real spheres of autonomous thought, declares competent for everything. This type of expert knows only two situations of functioning: either blindly supports or contradicts, without understanding anything. This is, in fact, the Orwell’s “Newspeak” expert, completely arrogant and ambitious in his intention to be a party “elite” established in power controlled by political “elites”.
Politics, which is understood only as a force, and not as a vision, politics that is completely utilitarian and dehumanized, is fed precisely from this incompetent “thought”. This is because politics is thinking and continuing to think about the external facade rather than the sustainable development that provides long-term welfare for the citizens.
Western countries are at this stage of their development, precisely because they made creative interaction and synergy within the sphere of independent thinking within the framework of public policies that professionally and responsibly gave coordination for policy development through research, endless studies, conceptual considerations and scientific paradigms that responded to a certain reality and social and institutional evolution.
Nothing is coincidental, autonomous social spheres have always produced and continue to produce thought, sensitivity and other vision across the world that respond to the challenges of time. These autonomous areas of thinking and social action are the main points of sustainable development, which are always interacting with politics. This is a relevant knowledge-based thought that orients the whole plan of political and social life.
We are where we are, with the monologue of politics without a clear vision and autonomous spheres of thinking that as a reference have themselves. Only a creative synergy between the two parallel worlds traveling blindly for now can hope to change qualitatively. Otherwise, we will continue with a promising politics, or one that is caught up in moments of seasonal “gloss”.
*The text is written exclusively for the purposes of Inbox 7. For each republishing, a consent by the editors must be obtained. Inbox 7 does not always agree with the opinions and views of the authors in the debate section.