Episodic dictatorship: why do we need an active civil society?

A popular thesis of many politicians with a penchant for authoritarian practices is that "civil society," associations, interest movements, and lobby groups should have nothing to say in the exercise of power to politicians who have been given a "democratic mandate." But this argument is chucpe - it is active civil society that is helping to prevent democracy from becoming an open dictatorship of the majority.

Democracy does not equal freedom - that is obvious. Just because you are allowed to said / do something doesn't mean that you are free. In a democracy, this is only "allowed" by majority decision-making. It is a tamed dictatorship, or rather an oligarchy.

But by what is it tamed?

Ongoing agenda

The idea of ​​authoritarian politicians, who consider themselves self-proclaimed defenders of democracy, is that they have obtained a mandate from the citizens - they thus have the right to exercise power. Who are Greenpeace, Children of the earth, Agricultural associations, specialized institutesjournalists and other organizationsthat they want to get involved in their decisions?

Their idea is that once every 4 years, citizens are asked the question:

"Who could decide on your lives for another 4 years now?"

And then there will be XNUMX years of peace at work. After all, they have a mandate. Unfortunately (for them), there are interest groups that are actively interested in politicans decision-making - here fighting against "corruption", here for "environment", here for "protection of domestic production". We may or may not agree with opinions and measures which these groups promote, but in any case we should be grateful that they exist.

It sets the political agenda and indirect competitioninto political decision-making; they act as those who constantly monitor politicians. Thanks to them, we can live freely in the current Central and Western European democratic system and we do not live here as in  episodic dictatorship: when we replace the dictator only once in a few years.

Whether we look at any country where democracy has degenerated into any form of greater or lesser state oppression, in the beginning it was always oppression of active civil society.

Dictatorship of interest and the civil society market

Of course, this "watchdog" system is not perfect. It can easily happen that some civic groups will become too much strong and with their influence they will begin to create a dictatorship of interests - everything will begin to be subordinated to the political agenda set by them.

As elsewhere, this is damage to the "civil society market" caused by state intervention - lack of competition in education that creates a predominance in the "market" of opinions in a society that is skewed in one direction, where education distorts the thinking of future citizens who will engage too one-sidedly.

The lack of competition in the "active civil society market" is then basis for a dictatorship of interest.

Civil society as a guardian of state mistakes

However, the more functional and diverse the "active civil society", the better the balance of errors caused by the nature of state proceedings where the state has predominant power. Whether education, health, transport, security, currency (cryptocommunity) or law and justice, there is a functioning civil society everywhere that the state manages the area centrally and without market competition.

It works like a kind of a market simulation - simulation of potential competition. Probably with a lot smaller and slower influence than direct competition, however, it is at least some competition.

Defense of civil society as a defense of the conservative and libertarian concept of freedom

Therefore let's be happy for every activistwho promotes his agenda. Whether we agree with him or not, it is he who has democratically "allowed" as many freedoms as we currently have, and it is he who ensures that, albeit slowly, we move at least a little in an exclusively state areas forward.

And if the current form and prevailing views in the space of "active civil society" do not suit you, there is nothing easier than to get involved yourself.

However, without the state, such wanderings are not necessary.