What is Polity? It is a form of civil government. It is a noun. It also refers to a constitution. It can be regarded as a reflection of organized society. It is basically, in other words (more suited for the commoner), a set of policies to dictate the lives of a collection of individuals. Loosely speaking, Polity is a consensus.
So here comes the question.
What does it mean to be a citizen? A citizen votes. But what does he vote for? Is it for the rule of the land? Is it for an ideology? Is it for lethargy? Or is it for individualism?
Let us then analyze each of these issues.
Rule of the land : Land is not merely the piece of earth which is surrounded by water on all sides. Land, in the present world is surrounded by lines. Unlike water which is a physical quantity, lines are imaginary. So does it naturally establish the fact that we are only living in a make-believe world? Are we?
Let's ponder for a while on what these lines are. To a large extent, these lines represent what can be called "consensus" (conning of the senses?). So when a line is drawn on a piece of paper, a modern day land comes into existence. Now each land has its own laws (and in-laws!). Stretching my jugglery a bit further, one might then ask, what about the outlaws? More on this later.
When an election takes place it asks the citizens within the respective lines to give their "opinion". Now what is opinion? Here comes the clash. Opinion represents individualism. The process of voting at least on the surface (or actually inherently) respects "diversity". Then as the government arrives in the scene, it makes or upholds the laws; laws for the society, laws for the common, laws for one, laws for all! No matter how novel the idea of an election is, a deeper thought provokes the question of how fragile the concept actually might be.
Ideology : First and foremost : Idea.
Ideology is the study of ideas. Like any study, it is a research. Shouldn't then the question arise, is an ideology just something a person believes in? The way I would like to proceed on this is the following : Ideology is a set of thoughts, a collection of information that requires processing. So when a citizen is fed certain sets of issues, he has the choice of being rational and analytical. Normally, various groups present their points of view (which we loosely call ideologies). But a "political party" has got nothing to do with ideology. It might have everything to do with ideas though. So again, when we talk of ideology, it is about the research that an individual has to ultimately perform, provided with the data sets of ideas. These ideas mainly deal with the issues of the society (and hence the collection). But when you cast your vote, you are supposedly publishing your research.
Lethargy : The central idea of an election process is about choosing a representative. The natural selection process deals with the thought process of whether a candidate is good enough for the job or not. We generally criticize the representatives we choose. These people are supposed to take care of each and every "societal" problem. So we choose an individual to work for the collective. Doesn't this represent lethargy in its purest form? If ultimately, the power of decision lies not in a referendum but with an individual, how is it fundamentally different from monarchy? May be an election is an example of the most collective lethargy of individuals.
Individualism : I vote because I have the power to vote. I select because I have the power to select. I criticize because I have the power to criticize. I condemn because I have the power. But why do I agree? Does my agreement stem from logic or does it stem from the above three points? A religious society is much less individualistic than a scientific one. Why? Is this the thin line between arts and science? Religion is philosophy. It renders itself open to interpretation. Surely it incorporates a few scientific nuances here and here. But it strives to jump above logic. Sadly, the universe is built on logic. 0 and 1. This is where art differs. It speaks of the continuum, the hidden grey.
On the other hand, science is based on logic. One cannot interpret science.
Religion can be established. Science has to be proven. Science is the perfect outlaw.
So the basic question is, can a person be apolitical? Yes, only if he is bereft of senses or if he has been truly incorporated in the con-sensus.
Anyone else is political.
So here comes the question.
What does it mean to be a citizen? A citizen votes. But what does he vote for? Is it for the rule of the land? Is it for an ideology? Is it for lethargy? Or is it for individualism?
Let us then analyze each of these issues.
Rule of the land : Land is not merely the piece of earth which is surrounded by water on all sides. Land, in the present world is surrounded by lines. Unlike water which is a physical quantity, lines are imaginary. So does it naturally establish the fact that we are only living in a make-believe world? Are we?
Let's ponder for a while on what these lines are. To a large extent, these lines represent what can be called "consensus" (conning of the senses?). So when a line is drawn on a piece of paper, a modern day land comes into existence. Now each land has its own laws (and in-laws!). Stretching my jugglery a bit further, one might then ask, what about the outlaws? More on this later.
When an election takes place it asks the citizens within the respective lines to give their "opinion". Now what is opinion? Here comes the clash. Opinion represents individualism. The process of voting at least on the surface (or actually inherently) respects "diversity". Then as the government arrives in the scene, it makes or upholds the laws; laws for the society, laws for the common, laws for one, laws for all! No matter how novel the idea of an election is, a deeper thought provokes the question of how fragile the concept actually might be.
Ideology : First and foremost : Idea.
Ideology is the study of ideas. Like any study, it is a research. Shouldn't then the question arise, is an ideology just something a person believes in? The way I would like to proceed on this is the following : Ideology is a set of thoughts, a collection of information that requires processing. So when a citizen is fed certain sets of issues, he has the choice of being rational and analytical. Normally, various groups present their points of view (which we loosely call ideologies). But a "political party" has got nothing to do with ideology. It might have everything to do with ideas though. So again, when we talk of ideology, it is about the research that an individual has to ultimately perform, provided with the data sets of ideas. These ideas mainly deal with the issues of the society (and hence the collection). But when you cast your vote, you are supposedly publishing your research.
Lethargy : The central idea of an election process is about choosing a representative. The natural selection process deals with the thought process of whether a candidate is good enough for the job or not. We generally criticize the representatives we choose. These people are supposed to take care of each and every "societal" problem. So we choose an individual to work for the collective. Doesn't this represent lethargy in its purest form? If ultimately, the power of decision lies not in a referendum but with an individual, how is it fundamentally different from monarchy? May be an election is an example of the most collective lethargy of individuals.
Individualism : I vote because I have the power to vote. I select because I have the power to select. I criticize because I have the power to criticize. I condemn because I have the power. But why do I agree? Does my agreement stem from logic or does it stem from the above three points? A religious society is much less individualistic than a scientific one. Why? Is this the thin line between arts and science? Religion is philosophy. It renders itself open to interpretation. Surely it incorporates a few scientific nuances here and here. But it strives to jump above logic. Sadly, the universe is built on logic. 0 and 1. This is where art differs. It speaks of the continuum, the hidden grey.
On the other hand, science is based on logic. One cannot interpret science.
Religion can be established. Science has to be proven. Science is the perfect outlaw.
So the basic question is, can a person be apolitical? Yes, only if he is bereft of senses or if he has been truly incorporated in the con-sensus.
Anyone else is political.
No comments:
Post a Comment