Internal Alienation and the Denial of the Other – Philosophical Roots
The fact that the nation-state has historically been founded on the logic of negating all that is different, transforming the individual into a being detached from their social nature, is undeniable. When any transformative movement adopts this same logic within its structure, it reproduces the very machinery it seeks to combat. Indeed, any democratic and liberating project cannot be built upon the same mechanistic and bureaucratic logic employed by authoritarian regimes. Ignoring and eliminating the partner is the initial form of tyranny, for such disregard is an escape from responsibility itself.
Democracy as a Societal Ethics, Not an Institutional Form
The essence of governance lies in service, not power. This principle is the core of the concept of democracy without a state, or democratic confederalism. The reality of democracy here is not merely ballot boxes, but the ethics of a free society. It is the daily practice based on mutual recognition, dialogue, solidarity, and building bridges of trust through honesty, transparency, and mutual respect. And if someone is incapable of upholding these values within a small circle of close associates, how can they possibly extend them to an entire society that awaits justice, not exclusion, and transparency, not procrastination? This reminds us of the concept of ethical agriculture, which emphasizes that genuine change begins at the very first cell, with the pattern of direct personal relationships between individuals within the project. If the project fails to produce a new kind of person whose relationships are characterized by honesty and mutual respect within their immediate circle, how can it possibly produce a new society that embraces everyone? The reality of democratic practice is like a craft; it is honed through daily training in small spaces before being practiced on a larger scale. The philosopher Hannah Arendt believed that the essence of politics is speaking together and working together. But when the door to dialogue is closed, and communication dies, politics itself dies, replaced by naked bureaucratic management. If an official finds no time for meetings, no space for dialogue, not even a word to return a greeting, how can they possibly listen to the cry of an unknown citizen amidst the hustle and bustle of life?
Project Collapse: Due to Internal Stagnation, Not External Hostility
History testifies that many projects have failed not because of external hostility, but because of internal stagnation resulting from deliberate silence, fruitless meetings, and empty promises. When a political or intellectual actor is treated as a burden to be neutralized, rather than a force to be activated, the entire project begins to slide into bureaucracy, far removed from its initial liberating spirit. True democracy is not practiced on holidays and special occasions, but in the small details: in respecting deadlines, in valuing differing opinions, in not using one’s position as a tool of pressure or a symbol of loyalty, and in understanding that collaborative teamwork is not a luxury, but an existential necessity for any collective endeavor. The reality of ignoring and marginalizing individuals within any democratic project is a form of passive co-optation that freezes critical energy and transforms it into silent resentment.
Escaping Responsibility: A Harbinger of Wider Alienation
If some officials resort to a policy of evasion, shirking their responsibilities and refusing collaborative work, this is not merely a loss for an individual or group, but a harbinger of wider alienation between the institution and the people. Those who do not see value in those who share their ideas will see people only as numbers to be manipulated, not as human beings to be respected. At a time when we need every sincere heart and every constructive mind, we cannot afford to squander energies through neglect or marginalization. A genuine encounter, even if it ends in disagreement, remains nobler than a silent agreement built on fear or self-interest. The free life we aspire to is a comprehensive one, where democracy is not merely an electoral mechanism but a complete way of life, where means and ends are interwoven into a single fabric. A free society cannot be built through oppressive practices, nor can the ethics of struggle be separated from its goals. True liberation begins with liberating human relationships themselves—within organizations, families, and local communities—from the logic of domination, so that every social circle becomes a nucleus for horizontal governance based on participation and solidarity. In this sense, democracy is both the seed and the fruit. It is the daily practice of freedom in its finest details, and a wager on the ability of people to organize themselves freely outside the framework of the centralized state, striving towards a society where freedom is realized as an existential condition, not merely as a political right.
The Conclusion (From a Culture of Resistance to an Ethics of Construction)
The fact is that any democratic reform project that loses its beating heart—trust and respect among its members—becomes a lifeless corpse awaiting burial. Sincere dialogue, even amidst disagreement, is the lifeblood. It is an affirmation of our shared humanity, while silent agreement based on fear is a form of moral death. Hope is not merely an expectation; it is a moral stance, and true hope lies in the ability to create spaces for trust and mutual recognition, here and now. Only projects that begin with a culture of respect and appreciation from within can reach the people with the language of truth, not the language of domination or falsehood. And only they can transform shared concerns into a lived reality that respects people’s wounds and does not deepen them.
Professor Anas Qassem Al-Marfou’
Scientific Office
Independent Researchers Section
