Wicc
Auto-translated
A small off-topic remark, please don't take it to heart, any coincidences are purely accidental...
After the collapse of the USSR, the cult of democracy was introduced to the post-Soviet space. Initially, it manifested as a cargo cult, and many hoped that it would eventually evolve into a normal cult, but for some reason, it didn't work out. As a result, in one part of the post-Soviet states, regimes of varying degrees of authoritarianism were established (which decided to abandon the cargo cult), and in another part, they were not established (which did not decide), and the political and economic situation in these "undecided" states is, on average, worse than in the "decided" ones.
Why this is the case is still a subject of heated debate, there is no consensus, and even an assessment of the situation is not agreed upon (let alone conclusions), and although subjectively I believe that this is not due to great intelligence, objectively one must admit that this is indeed a difficult task.
I will offer one possible answer to this very question "why this is the case." I will not claim that it is the only correct one; many factors converge here, but I dare to assert that the factor described below does have an influence.
If you look at the societies in which democracy was born (or revived), you will notice that they have one thing in common: the presence of many people with an active political position, with the ability to take responsibility for complex decisions, with an understanding of public interests, with the ability to discuss and negotiate with people.
For example, in Ancient Greece, whose economy was closely tied to maritime trade, these people were merchants, who were often also captains of their ships. Another group of people with similar qualities was the military aristocracy. Military affairs at that time were not very similar to mass conscript armies, but rather to a competition of special forces groups.
In the 18th-century United States, there were even more such groups, in a situation of a huge number of undeveloped territories and a non-intrusive central government (which, beyond 100 kilometers from the coast, essentially did not extend), each settler was the master of his own destiny, made decisions himself, and was responsible for them (often with his life). All these farmers, cowboys, gold miners, etc.
The main distinctive ability of these people is the ability to self-organize. Both individually (to get off the couch and do something) and collectively (to define common goals, develop a plan and division of responsibilities, implement it, and then share the profits). This mentality made the mechanisms of democracy work very well, because they simply formalized the processes of self-organization that already existed.
If, however, the skill of self-organization is absent, then attempts to introduce democracy lead to chaos. People simply do not understand what is expected of them, what kind of civic position they need to express, and how exactly they need to do it.
And often this leads to a search for a solution in another plane - to find a "father-king" who will organize everyone, judge everyone, etc. And it doesn't even matter that someone will be oppressed in the process; minor excesses are considered an acceptable price against the backdrop of fresh memories of a "democratic mess."
But as the memory fades (partly due to the change of generations), the reverse process begins - they say, the king is too authoritarian, what does he think of himself, why doesn't he listen to the people, etc. For example, the essence of the claims of the Russian liberal opposition to the current government is approximately this. Sometimes this even leads to an attempt to revive democracy, and then the cycle closes.
This is what I'm getting at - recently I often hear reproaches addressed to me in the form of "Vik decided, and no one can dissuade him." I "decide" because I perfectly know what happens when you try to "listen to everyone and take into account everyone's opinion"; I've seen enough of it over the years.
I do not consider such a practice to be correct; I would rather participate in the collective development of decisions, but looking at how people implement this very collective development of decisions, I always come to the conclusion: "forget it, I'd rather think for myself and decide."
The semi-final and final of this tournament very clearly illustrate this. It would seem that this is a very simple organizational task; all you have to do is talk to everyone, agree on a list of substitutions, and schedule the games. But no! We will be wasting time, arguing, speaking different languages, and cursing each other.
In general, here is some good advice and a good wish: try to practice collective self-organization and the art of expressing a civic position on this simple game example (where all that is at stake is a trinket in your profile). I will neither interfere nor help you.
P.S. The participation of Lucky in this process is especially welcome:rolleyes:
