The political mind... The Way to a Democratic Mind

Ameer Babiker Abdallah
Translated by Moatinoon

I was impressed by the classification of one of the writers, I dont remember his name, and I think he was from pre-Bouazizi Tunisia, of the political mind, starting with an entrance called the Foundation Mind. According to his perspective in todays Arab political mind, he found a democratic mind as a way out of what is prevailing. The author considers that two types of mind, the cowardly political mind and the savage political mind, which are the result of authoritarianism, albeit with varying form and content, must be eliminated in order to embark on a democratic project.

In his view, the characteristics and manifestations of the cowardly political mind were the maintenance of structures and their priority over their functions. Abandoning the vessel was a taboo for the cowardly political mind. One of its characteristics is flexibility, which amounts to a characterization of moderate, minimum-level attitudes of principles, rights and dignity, which in any natural country is considered to be centrist, with hardship, rigidity, extremism and recklessness. One of its negative factual characteristics is a reality analysis that claims realism, i.e. abstraction, objectivity, remoteness from illusions, dreams, will, adventurism, etc. But it is a mind that sees only the imbalances of dysfunctional forces in favour of the enemy and highlights only the frustrating factors of the resolve and focuses only on what calls for absurdity, avoidance, non-confrontation and sacrifice. Thats how realism becomes the justification for the reasons for the resurrection and acquiescence, and he says that thats her job from the beginning.

Ego, above all: from the constants of the cowardly mind: every idea I dont have is corrupt, every ideology I dont embrace is corrupt, every initiative I dont have to fight, every project I dont start to abort, every action I dont control is dangerous, every circle I dont have. Funny in this mind is that he didnt understand the rule of rules in politics and in life: to grow younger, to find yourself wasting it, as much as sacrificing, giving and conceding to the collective interest, as much as your worth and influence increase.

One of the characteristics of what we call the fatwa from above the parenthood, or what we call the theoretical, is the chisel that puts itself in the field of autonomy. In the authors view, the independent of natural countries is a legal personality who expresses political views without ambition for power. This was the case of Sartre and the leading intellectuals in the West, and it can be said that this is the situation of our countrys leading legal personalities who need the political arena to govern and, if necessary, rule them. But the grassroots freelancer in Plana completely changed that. It is a political party, but it is a one-person party that puts itself in parallel to parties and even claims its moral superiority, criticism and lessons for all. This is about the advisory. As for parenthood, a man, or a woman, distances himself from falling to the level of problems of the organization he claims to be despised. He is unwilling to recognize his dear freedom or surrender his precious intellectual independence. He looks at all this from his ivory tower where there is no anxiety and no inconvenience.... There is no danger. Thats the whole point.

Like I see him describing our situation when the writer says, Of course, there is a contentious relationship between all the varieties of cheese and the terrible collapse of the political mind that governs our country today. It is the so-called oppositions fear of genuine confrontation with authoritarianism that has opened the door to opportunism to beg, wander and aggravate the country and the slaves without fearing anything or anyone. So power no longer fears that lying will become truth and falsification is reality and corruption is morality...... The methodology is a tactic and manoeuvre to entrench these principles in the best interest of the supreme goal of preserving for the longest time the treasure of Alibaba, who accidentally fell between the dirty claws and seized the opportunity will not be renewed to prejudice all possible pleasure and privileges even at the expense of the destruction of the homeland.

The second counterpart to the cowardly political mind is the brutal political mind, which is defined as the set of intellectual mechanisms that produce attitudes and behaviours of rebellion against authoritarianism in order to take its place. The writer says that the energy that drives this mind is intolerance, not opportunism that characterizes (cowardly). It is also rigid and favors violence and movement over meekness and surrender. It heightens the groups affection at the expense of the ego that hates and despises it.

According to the writer, this savage mind has caused many blood and tears throughout history, and the cowardly political mind is the lightest damage compared to it.

An apparent characteristic of this mind is absolute trust in the premises of ideology, not being held accountable, critical, reviewed, believing in its universality and completeness, and trying to read all phenomena of life on its light in an insect, arbitrary and transgression with the very rejection of its history, let alone recognizing that it has limits and disadvantages.

It is also characteristic of what he called verbal paganism. Words and slogans that are placed are sacred, words and slogans that, if analysed, have no meaning, yet are worshipped by the monstrous political minds. This ultimately leads to verbal terrorism, or, as the writer puts it, it is the nature of the savage mind to pour curses with so much generosity on its enemies because the word-taker considers himself to be a value of the idea. Moreover, it is a mind that simplifies things, eliminates pluralism and eliminates all other experiences that do not fall within its interpretative framework, which is ultimately a mind that is abusive in reality and awaits only the first opportunity to be abused by humans.

The writer reaches that it is this mind that you find at the Islamic fundamentalist in the same way that you find at the worst of his opponents according to a law that can be enacted as follows: the attitudes and actions of a national or religious extremist in his conflict with an extremist belongs in the opposite direction, always caused by an absolute contradiction of ideas and an absolute similarity of thinking.

The author concludes that the democratic mind is the way out of this impasse, and considers that there is no room for opposition under the dictatorship regime, as it only benefits in the face of tyranny and favors peaceful resistance. It establishes the principles and approach of a resilient mind based on:

Acceptance of multilateralism: Democracy is a mindset that rests only within a mindset that accepts different visions, complexity, relativity and pluralism in natural and human phenomena.
Positive realism, based on a multidimensional and in-depth analysis of reality based on its wealth, complexity, duplicity and continuous dynamism. It strictly monitors all the anti-emancipation forces at a time when all the driving forces of the emancipation project are most accurately monitored. They are those who do not disregard the enemy, not the obstacles, but bet, even in the most difficult circumstances, on the forces of creation and renewal, which are no less important in understanding and controlling reality than the forces of obstruction and destruction.

Strategic toughness: toughness is not only about content but also about ways of achieving that content, as it is not more dangerous to our principles and objectives than the despicable notion that you find in the mouths of all opportunists, that is, the end justifies the means.
Tactical flexibility: The writer has set the best rules for evaluating results and restoring the ball in case of failure, and the flexibility has the best manifestations in: Leave to the peace a daddy and your enemy an enforcer. If you are defeated, do not give up and if you win, do not retaliate, and are not a copycat or prisoner of thought or structure, but innovative to this and that.
The author concludes, With this mindset, today we can imagine our institutions and so we can build them a day of breaking the restriction.