Simplifying, Complicating, and “Democracy”

So that we do not stay in the generalities, we say, for example: It is not rare that we hear an analysis of the following type: Syria is a playing card in the Russia’s hands that it could throw in as part of a deal that guarantees the status of the Ukraine; the US is not interested in the Middle East, but is prolonging its presence there and to get out, it is waiting for an appropriate price from Russia and China; and so on.

We cannot deny that this type of comparisons is really tempting, and it may be useful sometimes when presenting an issue to listeners or readers by simplifying them, and thus facilitating the digestion thereof. However, the problem is converting this type of comparisons from a presentation tool to an analysis tool.

Complicating Analysis, Simplifying Presentation

The rule used in various sciences is that the analysis process should consider the largest possible number of variables affecting the subject being studied, and study those variables in static and motion, as well as individually, in twos, threes, fours, etc. After discovering the law governing the relationship among these variables, and after experimentally proving its validity, only then will it be possible to move to the stage of presenting the result.

In the stage of presenting the result – as long as the clear proof in the scientific sense is available – the presentation can be simplified to the maximum extent to facilitate understanding, including the use of metaphors. For example, argon can be described as an “inert element” to express the decrease in its chemical activity as a result of its energy stability resulting from the electronic distribution within its atom, this in turn is a result of the quantitative characteristic that qualitatively distinguishes it from any other element in nature, which is the number of protons within its nucleus, the electric attraction between protons and electrons, the mechanical repulsion caused by the centrifugal rotating force of the electrons during their rotation around the nucleus in energy orbits with a specific spatial distribution, and so on.  (There is no end to this matter, by the way, because it is not possible to reach a final and complete interpretation of anything, although it is possible to reach an absolute and relative explanation; that is another matter.)

What we are trying to get at from this example is that of course it is possible to simplify any issue (after understanding it in depth), but the opposite is not possible; you cannot understand the chemical nature of argon, neon, or any other element by simply describing it as an “inert element”.

Likewise, in a sense, in understanding political conflicts. You can always use simplifications like a chessboard or card games to demonstrate or clarify your understanding of things, but the opposite is not possible. You cannot analyze the international situation based on simplifications like those that use chess.

Simplifying, Complicating, and “Democracy”

Let us take the following simplistic example: If one of us gets sick and goes to the doctor, in most cases he will stick to what the doctor tells him and buy the medicine he prescribes for him. An ill person will not listen to the advice by his neighbor who is an engineer/grocer/teacher to double or the dose of or change the medicine. Furthermore, this neighbor will be blamed for daring to infringe on a profession that is not his. This is not the case at all in “public affairs”, especially the political ones.

Ballot box democracy, or representative state democracy (which was certainly a step forward within the historical development of humankind), also has its many problems, chief among them is that democracy within a class-based society is always the other side of the dictatorship of the dominant class against the rest of society.

Among the problems related to the topic of our discussion here is the illusion that democracy creates: the illusion of the equality of all humans in political affairs. Ballot box democracy centers on the idea that all citizens participate in the political process of their country in an absolutely equal manner: everyone has one vote (one opinion), and in the end, the majority decides, and this seems very fair.

However, would any of us, if ill, accept that we randomly choose for them a thousand people for example, and ask them to vote on the type of treatment that he/she should undergo? After voting, he/she must submit to the opinion of the majority, whatever that opinion is.

Let us add to the previous simple example the following new element: The major media outlets are owned by a very few, the same ones that own a drug company that manufactures a drug called (X). In the news bulletins and in the morning programs, ads for (X) are played, as well as many guests, all of whom are doctors hosted by these outlets and give positive opinions about drug (X).

If within a “random” sample consisting of a thousand people, which will determine the fate of the patient, 900 people, for example, follow the media outlet owned by the owners of drug (X), can it be said that (their vote / opinion) will be a neutral opinion?

The same applies when the discussion is about a political issue. The method of simplistic presentation, and even teaching people to use simplistic analysis tools -- tools that are simplistic to the point of being ridiculous and ludicrous as real analysis tools -- is part of spreading reductive mental “idleness” and laziness, which ultimately leads to transforming people’s “free” opinions into pre-made “results guaranteed” opinions.

Politics is like other very complex issues in life, so to be able to get close to the truth, one needs a deep understanding of a huge number of sciences, including philosophy, economics, sociology, geography, history, psychology, etc. Making the largest possible number of people ignorant, and flattening and simplifying their minds, is one of the tools of “democratic” political work, which is in the interest of the plundering and ruling classes. On the other hand, raising the level of awareness of the largest possible number of people is one of the tools of democratic and revolutionary work that is in the interest of the plundered classes.

“Simplification in analysis” is treating the people as if they were stupid and enslaving them in the name of freedom and in the name of the ballot box. Complicating the analysis and simplifying the presentation is the only way to respect people’s minds and their interests, and to enable them to use the various political tools, including democracy, to serve their interests.

Arabic Version