Supermen among us
Supermen rank high among children's favorite toys. They are infinitely adorable dolls, with perfect proportions, always on the side of good, never on the side of bad, with which the possibility of children's play is almost endless. Superman takes care of the villains with the unbearable ease of the superhuman strength he possesses, establishes order in nature and society, and in all his obligations he manages to find at least a little place for some authentic manifestation of himself, such as going to the cinema, going for a walk and other everyday joys. Although some feminists will poke the male gender with the words that even in more mature stages the male gender does not manage to move away from the fascination with supermen, nevertheless, normal cognitive growth shows that the interest in the doll of all dolls ends somewhere with the onset of puberty, if not earlier.
Supermen are a popular symbol of magical belief and naive trust in the mysterious and unpredictable forces from which they successfully defend us. Although even a below-average rational being is at first clear that they are fiction after all, it seems that we prefer to understand the politicians we tend to see through the magical Superman view. When Donald Trump was recently indicted for falsifying business records in which he failed to disclose the tricky hush-hush payments required by law, his supporters unanimously said it was a conspiracy. Someone is setting him up, they claimed and threatened with protests. The American judiciary is corrupt, they argued, especially when it comes to an anti-system player like Trump, and his unquestionable morality does not even allow the possibility of prosecuting such a special political figure. Although the United States of America and Bosnia and Herzegovina are miles apart, last week's first-instance verdict for the famous respirators showed a strange similarity in the perceptions of some of the public when it comes to their political darlings. These people are perfections without flaws, respectable and sinless, with an incorruptible and indomitable spirit and, as such, they cannot (make) mistakes. If by chance some kind of indictment appears, it will be the work of foreign agencies that are developing subtle mechanisms with internal enemies to take over the state, which the aforementioned righteous selflessly protect without flaws. Although this reason, which is present to a small extent in the public space for the "believe it or not" section, it is easier when we know that it is also present in the West, so we will be able to state that it seems to be about broader political trends.
Political castes, but perfect
In the more primitive stages of civilization, the bearers of power and authority were idealized, so they spoke of perfect rulers who, with the help of supernatural powers, physical and spiritual, manage their subjects. Traditionally, these are understandings with elements of charismatic power to which it was impossible to direct any criticism, let alone anything else, in this somewhat comical framework. To question their work - forbidden, to disagree with their decisions - not allowed, to think a little differently from their patterns - treason. The mentioned ideologues were so socially powerful that the reality in which the society found itself, such as slavery, feudalism, exploitation, was interpreted in a fatalistic way, that is how it must be. However, as society evolved, understanding power in a mythological-magical way lost its magic and was replaced by a more adequate rational approach.
When the sociologist Max Weber introduced the term "disenchantment", he wanted to indicate how modern societies have abandoned magical and mythological determinants and focused on more rational determinants. And precisely all those components by which we measure the quality of a society, such as public space, transparency, criticality, thinking - arise from a more rational view of the world. This also affected the realistic view of the mentioned political perfections, the ideals of which melted at the first contact with the court of the public.
Human nature, of course, is prone to imperfection, tricks, vulgar or more creative ways of thieving - and it seems inevitable, but there must be a corrective. Sometimes we find it in public opinion, which mercilessly questions the actors of political life. It is more serious when it comes to judicial power, which is characteristic of the state and is based on the simple belief of citizens in the rationality and meaningfulness of legal regulations. However, today we seem to be witnessing a certain type of social regression, which consciously ignores all rational determinants, apostrophizing only the already mentioned traditional and charismatic understanding of power. We don't trust institutions, but that's why, if not completely blindly, then we very short-sightedly trust exponents of political power.
Perhaps this in itself is not overly condemnable, but the trend of trusting in completely meaningless political ideas, applauding in the face of naïve arguments and wholeheartedly adhering to positions without reason and logic is worrying. Is the problem that we played with supermen when we were little, and in adulthood we have maintained such a naive approach that prevents us from having a more rational view of reality? A more serious answer certainly does not move in that direction, but still this analogy with childhood shows us the social tendencies of distorting reality. From a politician's perspective, it is ideal to have such an electorate, which can easily be fooled by just about anything. Belief in white mice or some mythical creatures must sooner or later come at a real cost. But people don't seem to mind all that much or at all.
Bonus video:
