There aren’t a lot of motivations that are initiated out of actions purely political in nature. Interests combined together with the forces that influence them are concerned about maintaining a controlling stake. That is how and where the ball drops because when it does every imaginable crony flocks toward its anticipated collision point. These cronies are representations of their own special interests in which they wear on their artificially postured faces. Where cunningness and viciousness converge a politically charged interest is exposed which is expressed by that representative and the end game is all about planting a stake that captures the upper hand advantage.
Pure genuine loyalty does not exist when there are so many interests competing for complete political control. Each facet of society has the ability to produce its own interest and behind that an agenda is born which transforms into its own creed of allegiance. The greatest issue that confronts any democracy is determining how a balance can be secured when managing vested interests, the numerous orientations behind them, and the individual representative’s obsessive fixation with furthering the plight of their advocated interest. That agenda is treated as something that is both scared and revered which is why so many politicians devote their careers to safeguarding them, but do allegiances of loyalty based on politicized agendas bring us closer to transparency under the alias of the so called democratic process?
In the real world, loyalties are manufactured, bought, traded, and sold as something that directly compares to the fiscal stock value of a publically traded corporation on Wall Street. Vested interests are not concerned about the shell orientation that is assembled at the surface, but beneath the integrity of its casing these interests clash and are handled with greater regard than any imaginable politically correct vision. A cycle of compulsive consumerism must continue if these interests are to be exchanged and artificially inflated which is done out of a desire to maximize power and control. There is an authoritative dominion of contestation which exposes a desire that rests against the backdrop of the political process. Once greater power and control is secured that newly empowered interest has the ability to start shaping the policy of government through the vision of its own exclusive flavor.
Tribunals, elaborate juridical proceedings, and the interpretive jargon of jurisprudence hashes out harsh condemnations of corruption and all of its forms. The best palate of democracy is thought to be carried by the one government that is able to implement, carry, and afford a policy of transparency to all its citizens indiscriminately; that is obviously an idea that extends far beyond the publicly orated and recorded statements that try to capture the same standard. A practical approach insinuates that a fully transparent government is nonexistent because the same type of standard is one that carries with it the flavors and overtones of perfection. It is for that reason why a representative government suffers from a great deal of duplicity because the livelihood of democracy is carried, orated, and advocated by those contesting interests that ultimately fake a gesture of politicized perfection.
Democracies extend social privileges in which we interpret in the abstract as inalienably organic rights to each citizen that falls under the umbrella of a representatively democratic nation. At the earliest sign of a civic education that ecumenical spirit is not taught because such a heavy handed interest is directed and emphasized on ideas that align with interests that diverge toward nationalism. A standing nation is a full testament of a tribe’s full sociological evolution and that is made possible through measures made possible by political coerciveness; that is how national infrastructures come into fruition. That lesson cannot be reversed because it is indisputable; what makes the functionality of a democracy a reality equally compares to the inner mechanics of a developed civilization.
The grey and hazy language of balances and incentives safeguards a union among diverse interests that depict tribes of their own prolific posture. The tycoon that presides over diverse agricultural commodities has a controlling stake which actively reflects on their own interests committed beneath the cause of democratic nationhood. Once those interests are set in stone those that preside over them won’t make a single compromise without solid assurances that the same interests will remain where they are; that is rather ironic since the democratic process produces an overarching assurance that the same political commitments can be turned over in their totality.
It should be no surprise why we encounter eventual conflicts of interests because allegiances that are largely derived from tribal interest speak of exclusive motivations which seldom reflect on the reality of the bigger picture. These interests obsess over resources and behind each one a commodity of power is produced which delivers exponentially concentrated wealth. What is actually insinuated fails to diverge toward material obsessions that are directed toward wealth and all of their possible manifestations; however, the worldview that made the acquisition of these resources a possibility is sharply shallow because the end game is all about the maximization of manifested power through the direct control of resources. A rule of common sense reminds us that once wealth is amassed in exponential quantities a fiefdom is born from within the inner workings of the nation; even a democracy is not immune to that exclusivist eventuality.
The wealthiest names and dynasties known to world history have always championed an overarching body of politics which brilliantly articulates their worldview. Domination of resources and the power derived from each one delivers an underwritten guarantee that the vision guiding the acquisition of both will eventually emerge as a structural pillar from within the political process. By and large representative democracies have not been able to deliver fluid equality when faced with the prospect of delivering the vote. A unified front that is articulated by a billion people strong does not signify the arrival of an imminent change that will recalibrate the ways of billionaires which in this case exposes another inconvenient truth. Generalized perceptions of the world are based on aggregated truths which abide by attributes that rule as a governing reality based on majority without being fully inclusive of each and every person that is exposed to the same generalized perception.
In a representative democracy we arbitrarily assume that as constituents our elected representatives will carry the direct will of the people to the seat of government. The raw innocence of that worldview exposes the impetus of a blind eye that is casted into the real world out of fear. The maximization of transparency is not the same thing as the maximization of votes; the latter is secured by any means necessary while the former is spoken by the dying breath of the whistle blower. Representative governments are divided and subdivided by fiefdoms that depict interests that obsess over power; the political process continues because one vested interest realizes the necessity to compromise with the other in order to achieve the fluid mutuality of exponentially concentrated interests which produces the much desired result of affirmative action.
The most blatant inquisition we currently face concerns the majority of democratic citizenries because once the interests are bought, sold, and traded where will that leave the aggregated political will of the people?
-Image is Courtesy of Wikipedia-