No matter what political system of government is in question, the people are almost never right in politics. Nor can they be. (The communists called the people "the masses", Njegos "open sea"...)
He is wrong, because if the people were right, politics as an institution - and even as a social institute - of reasonable, moral and timely solving of the real problems of a society would be unnecessary. Also, the intellectual elite in society would be unnecessary, because the people - know everything. So ultimately, both the government and the election of the government and the leader would be unnecessary. Because the people are self-sufficient.
It has long been correctly concluded that the people are the object (subject) of politics, not its creator (subject). That is how it has always been, is, and will always be.
Therefore, the crucial question for every government and leader in a society is: to have visions, means, and a system of values that that government and its leader impose on the people (society). Naturally, all with the aim of reshaping the people in a better, higher, and more civilized direction, according to the ideas of the individual or government.
So, it's about what goals to impose on society, how to mobilize the people, by what means to achieve the goals, etc. Because if there were no need for a leader, there would be no leader.
All in short.
The torment of every political leader - and Montenegrin in particular - is how to "overcome" his people, how to oppose them and how to "defeat" their natural and innate conservatism and staticity and direct the people towards a higher cultural and spiritual level. The recent "Botun case" shows this very clearly. It is a classic example of the abuse of politics for daily and local purposes.
It's no coincidence he's a Nobel Prize winner. Hermann Hesse sang from the perspective of Indian philosophy "A man kneads, but never bakes.".
Therefore, democracy is the answer, or more precisely, an attempt to answer how to involve the people in politics while keeping the people "integrated".
So, with democracy, responsibility is transferred to the people - if something goes wrong. On the other hand, with democracy, glory is transferred to the government, i.e. the leader, if something goes right - for the better.
To that end, the government (leader) devises numerous procedures, rules, laws, etc. that the people must respect in the name of the development of democracy. The government generally observes all of this from the sidelines, if not from above when it comes to leading powers and nations. Especially today in the era of globalization.
And so on. Democracy can be especially dangerous if representatives of the "democratic" development of society come to power from the streets, from the asphalt, without a modern ideology, as was the "political" environment of the self-defeating communism in our country.
If we add to that that they are "young, beautiful and smart"(Milo, Momo, Sveto) knew back in 1989 that “years start in January", the negative consequences for Montenegrin society may be long-lasting.
However, democracy is as much the best system of government as the separation of powers, i.e. mutual control of multiple branches of government. Naturally, provided that society is as capable and ready as possible to participate in government.
Democracy, in its ancient Greek roots and Athenian meaning, had an exclusive and elitist character. Many strata of Athenian society at the time did not even have the right to vote and thus influence politics and social movements.
And right from the start, it is necessary to point out the famous ancient Greek deceptive slogan that they often used to "democratically" seize power: Vox Populi, Vox Dei (“voice of the people, voice of God”).
It's hard to find a more dangerous, meaningless, and populist slogan than this one. But a slogan that the people are "happy" to swallow with joy.
Leaders are not a “gift from God”
Political leaders do not fall from the sky. They are not a “gift from God.” Quite the contrary.
Because they (leaders) are the result, the resultant of the meeting of the individual characteristics of an individual who has a passionate desire to rule and to be the creator of local history, on the one hand, and external circumstances, on the other. (Often, coincidence also plays a significant role.)
So - for example - today's Montenegro would not exist if it were not for the Ottoman Turks and their centuries-long rule in Montenegro.
There would be no Njegoš or anything like this."Gorski vienci"if there were no Ottoman Turks."
(It would probably be "Luce microcosme", because Njegoš had to express his natural genius somewhere. Fortunately, in poetry. Njegoš was a weak politician, because he was of Apollonian pride and a distinctly asocial personality.)
And further, if there were no Ottoman Turks, there would be no "Roast" Peter I, neither Prince Danilo, neither of King Nikola, is "An example of bravery and heroism" Marko Miljanov, neither Miljana Vukova, neither Gavr Vuković... not even Montenegro as it is today.
Well, there probably wouldn't have been a magnificent nationwide uprising of July 13, 1941 in Montenegro if it weren't for the Ottoman Turks. Because that uprising wouldn't have happened if somewhere in the subconscious of the Montenegrin people (Montenegrins, Serbs) the spirit of the people hadn't been maintained in resistance to - any - occupier of Montenegro.
The Montenegro of that time, or Montenegro by the 20th century, had risen to the level of virtue and inner commandments. Liberal and moral, of course.
Therefore, the history of a society is created and built by a combination of circumstances, and not only by the deliberate goals, utopias and visions of individuals or groups in power. The charisma of a national leader is created in the same way.
And this: throughout the 20th century, the Zeta-Banovina “Montenegro” was “mummified” and worthless. Montenegrins too. Too weak to understand the modern world and modern politics.
The exception was the beginning of the 40s, when the communists primarily launched the anti-fascist struggle against the German-Italian occupiers. The uprising was (from the beginning) nationwide and without ideological divisions.
One of the leaders of the Montenegrin insurgents was both charismatic and thoughtful. Milovan Djilas.
With the uprising, they (the communists) created a spiritual and warrior "bypass" with the Montenegrin liberal virtue of the 19th century, which - let us emphasize once again - the Montenegrins of that time built in fierce anti-Ottoman resistance.
Therefore it is no coincidence Ž.P. Sartre said words of magnificent praise and admiration about the July 13th uprising. Because the uprising took place when all of Europe was militarily crushed and without a shot being fired, and morally disgraced by the German fascist "civilization of death."
But all of that is a distant past. As important as it is unimportant. It depends on the political and ideological perspective. (Especially today in the midst of the war in Ukraine.)
Because the Balkan past - and especially the Serbian and Croatian - is of a medieval, celestial, evil, vengeful, religious, vampiric, fatal type that explicates old forms of life. That "brings" old forms of life to the surface.
Researcher B. Šušnjić claims that it (history) repeats itself in our country every 50 years or so identical manner with modernized combat equipment.
It is similar to Shakespeare's tragedies where even evil dead people know how to rise from the grave and create "silence" in society, i.e. kill everyone.
In our country, history rises from the grave and makes a real gift to Montenegrin society. And the spirit of our current medieval nationalist leaders and politicians applaud it by creating their own careers.
Brutal struggle for power
"The company has disappeared somewhere." are the words of a wistful hero in a novel who anxiously loses hope in his future and the future of the people he belongs to.
The point is that the struggle for power over society is the goal of political struggle in every society. This is nothing new. History is full of such examples.
But if you take a more realistic, i.e. "Balkan" approach and look at the local (Montenegrin) political and party scene, you can easily and quickly come to the conclusion that the "party struggle" is a cover for the struggle of individuals for official power or the struggle of a narrow group of party members for group power. The people are collateral damage in this anti-democratic struggle.
It is no coincidence that the greatest Montenegrin, Yugoslav and global dissident of communism, Milovan Đilas, dedicated an entire book to this dangerous ambition of people eager for power. He called the book “The New Class - An Analysis of the Socialist System". The book seemed to be "designed" for Montenegrins. Because he knew from his rich experience that the Montenegrin agon was endless and brutal in its exclusivity, single-mindedness and desire to rule.
Today's political parties in Montenegro have no ideology at all, or they have a very meager and anti-modern one. It is of the last century type. But they have one and only "ideology" called: power.
Today's Montenegro clearly shows, as if in the palm of your hand, all the banal, frantic, tragicomic and even brutal struggles of individuals or groups to seize power. And in a "totalitarian" manner.
So, it is about conquering and controlling every branch of government (judicial, executive, media, military, police, legislative and every other).
Obviously there's one squatting in each of them Stalin or a misinterpreted Turk-Ottoman.
Modern Montenegro is in conflict with itself
With this political orientation of the leader, the trouble begins when power is seized and the officials sit in their chairs. Then they feel like “fish out of water”. They die in power, because they have destroyed politics. And they do not have an ideology that would keep them upright and that would be able to transform them with the help of science and knowledge into a new, higher, more modern consciousness and social quality.
But - hand on heart - ideological awareness is not easy to "create" and know how to turn it towards the right side of history. At the same time, it is necessary to respect the past and tradition of one's society, on the one hand, and global trends, on the other. Tribal Montenegro knew how to do this. Especially, then, while there were Turks-Ottomans. Not later.
Modern Montenegro is in conflict with itself. But also in conflict with the world. The question is whether the European Union is a valid and prosperous alternative in competition with the Far East. China primarily. NATO can easily be Montenegro's modern and moral hm, hm, hm. Brussels and Washington administrations too.
Let us conclude in a (sports) spirit about the attitude of the Montenegrin people towards the leader (authorities).
Because the spirit of sportsmanship is "more honorable" and understood better and more easily by Montenegrins than the numerous ideologies, philosophies, utopias, and theories that the government and leaders impose on them.
Here's an example.
When a leader awards a medal to an athlete or a team for success in a competition, he is actually awarding the medal to himself. The athlete is an object. Because the leader believes that the athlete's (team's) success would not have happened if it weren't for him and his authority.
The athlete (the people) is unimportant.
The leader is important.
He adorns himself with other people's feathers.
Bonus video:
