3. GOVERNMENTS AND AUTORITY

In a democracy, people are supposed to freely decide for themselves their civic behavior, which can be dictated by their conscience and critical judgment and submit to the rules and laws democratically promulgated and contained in the social right. This means that to reasonably exercise their rights and duties as citizens, they need to freely form a personal criterion of conduct. For this, they must make decisions that force their will to act accordingly, even against their principles and convictions. In other words, their freedom forces them to "govern" themselves, to establish their social behavior, and thus coexist in harmony in society.

On the contrary, in a dictatorship people, cannot freely decide their social behavior, but must follow the doctrines of a leader, who is alienated, by conviction or obligation. Hence, they become individuals without personal criteria that must be governed because they lack the ability to freely govern themselves.

From this reflection, it follows that in a dictatorship, individuals need to be governed. Still, in a democracy, there is the conflict of the existence of two superimposed governments, the personal and the state. One of the states tries to govern people, considering them as individuals, and the staff refuses to be governed by the state because it means the annulment of their personality and free will. The outraged are "people," so they reject any alienating form of government, and that is precisely the revolutionary aspect of this movement, which does not obey the slogans of parties, unions, or religions, but their own personal judgment of political reality. and social in which they live. For this reason, their mobilizations are spontaneous and lack, and will always lack! A specific leader. Whereas traditional mobilizations throughout history have been carried out by "individuals" motivated by a leader's personalized doctrine.

If we want the future society to be freer and more responsible, and the state does not become police and repressive, that is, simply in a dictatorship skillfully disguised as a democracy, as there are already many today, without a doubt, the personnel must prevail. From which it follows that free people simply cannot be governed. So the institution of state government must change its function and role. Instead of directing, ordering, and commanding, it must limit itself to "managing" or "administering" the interests of citizens, because, in a free and democratic society, the government is already in each one of them. Citizens cannot obey other orders than those that emanate from the law and the constitution.

This may seem like a utopia, but if in the future civil society does not progress in this sense, it will do the opposite. It will be inevitable to fall into a false democracy, with a government-protected by economic interests and supported by a majority of individuals who they prefer to act upon dictation rather than take responsibility for being free and governing themselves. Therefore, the outraged want the freedom that this democracy can no longer offer.

On the other hand, the current supposedly democratic governments receive from their constituents the necessary authority to carry out a specific political agenda on their behalf. But the governments' agendas are mere projects, which served to prepare their programs with their electoral promises, and which are subject to the changing circumstances of the political, social, and economic reality. Therefore, the government does not receive a specific mandate, but a vote of confidence and the necessary "authority" to carry out, roughly, and as far as possible, the fundamental ideas proposed in its electoral program.

This means that the government has sufficient authority to change its political plans or to include others in the course of its legislature for circumstantial and more convenient reasons if it deems it appropriate, but that they were not on its initial political agenda and that they may be in total—opposition with the arguments and reasons why their constituents supported them. But, as is already more than evident in governments' current action, this authority can easily degenerate into authoritarianism when the government acts outside the mandate was given by citizens according to their programs and ideology, or even control parliamentary.

The cause of this embezzlement of the will of the citizens who elected them lies not only in the government itself but in its authority. We always refer to members of any government as "authorities"; that is to say, that they have the authority to propose a bill or any another type of political, economic, or social initiative, but above all, and that is the very essence of all authority, to "command." and give "orders," which It can easily make them fall into authoritarianism.

From which it follows that if the government did not have authority, there would be no possibility of falling into authoritarianism. Then the first and most important proposal for political reform is for the government to cease to have authority. But, strictly speaking, a government without authority cannot even be described as "government," but, as I said, "manager" or "administrator." Therefore, and once again, what a democratic society need is not a government to order and command us, with authority or authoritarianism, but a commission to manage and administer us, with the power delegated by free and sovereign citizens, which is very different.

Therefore, what we must replace is the government itself and its authority with another public management model without the need for authority but with power, which, therefore, cannot degenerate into authoritarianism.