After the end of World War II and the fall of the Berlin Wall, something unexpected is occurring in the world for those who believed that the values of democracy, dialogue, peace and nonviolence were guaranteed and one could build their future on them. Instead, the new images of 21st-century autocracies, persecuting and silencing any dissenting voices, as well as hatred and confrontation that can be perceived in the public arena, make us realize that we are losing our taste for and appeal to the fundamentals of democracy.
Democracy is jeopardized when freedom of the press is attacked, individual and gender rights are curbed and the separation of powers and independent self-correcting bodies are questioned; all the more so today, when the manipulation of artificial intelligence may affect our personal freedom.
The yearning for justice, equality and women and gender emancipation is eroded when a pluralistic and democratic system fails, in that political democracy is the best ground for an endless process of social and individual empowerment.
Therefore, what can ordinary people do to stop this drift, which unfortunately is not sufficiently understood and forces us to live in an increasingly hostile climate, to the point where we are almost used to becoming servile and powerless subjects?
It may seem that everything depends on those in power, however, as in other historical moments, each of us, in our daily lives, has the opportunity not only to act as a bulwark against violent speech and other confrontational attitudes, but also to become the builder of a new beginning.
It is the democratic power of the “powerless” that we would like to show at the Gardens of the Righteous to society as a whole, so that citizens, through their virtuous behaviour, can revitalize political institutions and seed empathy in society for those who risk their lives for rights and democracy in dictatorial countries.
As John Dewey wrote, democracy is not only a form of government, it is also a way of life, a way of thinking that can determine people's behaviour, opening them up to dialogue and acceptance of diversity. Therefore, it is also an ethical issue in human relations.
Rediscovering the taste for dialogue and listening
Our first responsibility is to rediscover the taste for dialogue and conversation, even with people who have different opinions, recognizing our own biases and being aware that our mind is always enriched by our relationships with others.
We have lost the propensity to listen to the others, as if everyone were the bearer of an absolute and ultimate truth, and it is often unlikely to hear somebody admit to having changed their mind in a public relationship or in a debate on social media. All too often, in a debate, the main purpose is to assert oneself and not to humbly seek common ground. This degeneration has profoundly polluted public life, where political groups face each other as enemies on a battlefield in which one party must defeat the other and presents itself as the bearer of absolute Good in opposition to Evil embodied by the opposing party. In elected assemblies, it is rare to see a politician or a political force claim they have changed their positions and responsibility always lies with the opponent for everything that has gone wrong in the past.
Unfortunately, the idea is emerging that those who govern should only assert their own position and not represent the multitude of opinions and interests. This is where the greatest danger lies for the future of democracy, which can thus turn into a dictatorship of the majority or an illiberal democracy. If such drift is not stopped, it will lead to the emergence of autocracies and the questioning of the richness of pluralism.
New “tyrants” can also arise in our own homes from the proliferation of hatred and from exaggerated conflicts.
For this reason, in today’s world, being democratic means protecting human plurality through one’s own attitude, which autocrats and populists seek to suppress. Even small actions taken by individuals can make a difference.
Rediscovering the power of collective action
On many occasions in history, even in the darkest times, people having different opinions have come together to change the course of events. It occurred in the confinement of Ventotene, when a group of intellectuals in the resistance drafted the Manifesto that formulated the idea of a united Europe; it occurred after the fall of fascism, when representatives of parties having different, even opposing, ideologies wrote the Italian Constitution that united an entire country; it occurred during the years of communist rule in Prague, when individuals having different views gave life to Charter 77, the group that laid the foundations for the Velvet Revolution of 1989; it occurred in the United States, when Martin Luther King’s nonviolent movement against racial segregation was born.
And even today, if we can build shared experiences with different people, in our own small way, we can revitalize democracy and reshape new forms of bottom-up participation, which may then become virtuous examples for society as a whole.
For this very reason, we need to rediscover the pleasure of acting in a common space, which Hannah Arendt, from the Latin term ‘infra’ (that which is in between), defined as the intermediate space that connects us to one another, where individuals come together, discuss, and lay out common actions. It is as if we were sitting around a table for dinner and everyone has their place, but at the same time we build a relationship with the other diners that makes us feel part of a community. We can rebuild this space in every area of our lives: in companies, schools, neighbourhoods and institutions themselves, if we get used to unbiasedly listening to others and seeking the good and the true together with others. Whether large or small, these experiences lead to the pleasure of acting together and to new possibilities that individuals alone could never achieve.
These are the true miracles of democracy, when citizens become aware that democracy and pluralism are alive, not only when they vote and delegate their elected representatives, but every time they individually and collectively shoulder shared responsibility. This is the idea of participation that manifests itself not only in moments of dissent, but also in the positive construction of common paths for better governance of the country.
As Piero Calamandrei explained in his speech to young people in 1955, as enshrined in the foresight of our constituents, even the best democracy dies if there is a lack of proactive citizen participation. The maturity of a democracy is measured by the involvement of civil society, from a building to a neighbourhood, from a municipality to the highest institutions. This means being at the service of the country everywhere. We are all the guardians of democratic plurality if we can maintain it in our relationships with others. When the responsibility for running a country is delegated entirely to elected representatives of representative democracy, apathy and detachment from institutions arise, and even a mechanism of voluntary servitude towards those who rule, which can become very dangerous if political power degenerates.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy explained this well on 20th January 1961, when he took office as President: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”.
Acting as a bulwark against hatred everywhere
In the past hatred was considered as a feeling that caused moral unease and from which one should distance oneself. Today, on the contrary, contempt for others expressed with evil words has become a habit to attack those who have a different view, or those who are considered as an obstacle to one’s success. People no longer discuss or disagree with each other, they publicly despise and personally attack those who have different ideas. During the funeral of political activist Charlie Kirk, US President Trump declared that it is legitimate to hate those who think differently from his administration. Subsequently, some celebrated the influencer’s death on social media because they disagreed with him.
In this vicious circle, it becomes legitimate to publicly sully the dignity of others and to consider political opponents no longer as a proactive part of democratic life, but as enemies to be defeated using increasingly illegal means.
All citizens have the opportunity to counter such hatred if they can control themselves and show respect in their public and private lives. Opening up to others and feeling part of a common destiny with a sense of empathy is the precondition for escaping hatred and envy and experiencing the pleasure of living close to others.
We must be aware that democracy ends when a society is in the grip of opposing hatred. Autocrats who make hatred their form of government, even to the point of dictatorship, do not come out of nowhere. This is why we will prevent them from coming to power and we will be able to curb their manipulations by learning not to hate. Conversely, if we fight hatred with hatred, we will pave the way for them and become part of their project ourselves. The tyrants of our time need haters at their service, but also haters who are apparently in opposition, ready to substitute them.
As Etty Hillesum wrote before she was deported to Auschwitz, hatred is a disease that disfigures our soul, and “every atom of hatred we add to the world makes it even more inhospitable”. It is for this very reason that she argued that we must have the strength not to hate if we do not want to resemble the worst executioners even in the resistance against extreme evil such as Nazism.
It is our duty, as Karl Popper wrote, not to underestimate the declared enemies of democracy, to be able to alert public opinion vis-à-vis their plans, to teach society how to defend itself against them, but always to remember that the danger of a “dictatorship” of any kind or degree cannot be fought with the idea of an alternative “dictatorship”. In 1959, in his book “Life and Fate”, Russian writer Vasily Grossman recounted a dialogue taking place in a prison between a Nazi officer and a Bolshevik prisoner, arguing that those who fought against one system wanted to establish a similar one. The former proposed to build the “new man” by eliminating Jews in concentration camps, whereas the latter wanted to eliminate human diversity through the gulags.
Fortunately, we do not live in those terrible times, but Grossman’s warning has universal value, in that, even today in the face of autocrats, democracy always defends itself in the name of human diversity.
It is up to us to grasp in advance the meaning of the words used by those politicians who express themselves with proposals of hatred on the public stage; indeed, in history, every dictatorship, every crime against humanity, every genocide, never arose overnight, it was first prepared through declarations of intent, and only later through the resulting political acts.
Therefore we all have the opportunity to imagine how certain discourses can be the first stop on a dangerous journey, which can lead us to lose our freedom, if we do not stop it through our moral resistance.
Controlling one’s words
Nowadays, words do not fly and remain within the walls of our homes and in anonymous exchanges in bars, they are amplified and persist in the memory of time with social media. Anyone who uses the wrong statement or hurls an insult on Facebook has the potential to influence millions of people.
This is why, in virtual communication, it is important to impose ethical etiquette on ourselves, which should envisage humility to seek the truth, to quote sources and to avoid making hasty statements that could hurt someone.
We must always remember the biblical commandment “thou shalt not lie”, in that words must always strive to reflect reality, and any false information, even in good faith, pollutes the democratic life of our country.
Being responsible for our words means showing our yearning for the truth, without prejudice; it means striving for the truth through a plurality of interpretations, but it also means leaning towards dialogue with others, always imagining that even those who are wrong can be redeemed and that all of us can be ready to change our minds.
We must be aware that “living the truth” from the bottom up, as Havel taught (this was the slogan of Charter 77 that led to the end of the dictatorship in Prague), is the best weapon each of us has to oppose rulers who use the power of false and sick words to distort reality and amplify their personal control over society.
If everyone lies out of habit, or conforms to falsehoods, as the protagonist of the Velvet Revolution in Prague reminded us, the mechanism of lying cannot be stopped.
Therefore, in the conscious exercise of daily defence of a common space of truth open to dialogue, even today, each of us has the opportunity to expose the actions of those in power who question the truth and seek to undermine the pluralism of opinions to impose their ideas, even through coercion.
This is how we can expose the new king who tells us that climate change is an invention, that the country under attack is an aggressor, that genocide is just political propaganda, that an attack on a parliament is legitimate, that we must defend ourselves from the invasion of migrants, that gender identity is only binary, and that political pluralism is an obstacle.
Being guardians of the ethics of nonviolence and messengers of peace
One of the great achievements of democracy has been the establishment of national and supranational institutions that turn conflicts into political, social and cultural dialogue. This was the intention of the United Nations, which was established to affirm international law and fora of exchange to find shared solutions to conflicts.
Today, these bodies are not only proving to be powerless in international crises, they are being challenged by those who believe that the law of the strongest should prevail and that political mediation is an obstacle to their hegemony.
Thus, not only have we witnessed wars, the questioning of state sovereignty, and new exterminations, the very idea of war and violence has become attractive, both as an affirmation of power over another country and as a legitimate way to resolve conflicts and injustices.
This drift is also starting to pollute democratic debate. Not only is there addiction to the idea of war, considered to be inevitable, the call to violence can be found in aggressive words circulating on social media and in demonstrations, which turn indignation into street clashes and a showdown with the enemy.
Each of us has the opportunity to stop the dangerous new appeal of violence. We can do this through small daily actions by preventing violent words and acts in demonstrations, by striving to discuss without destroying the others and turning them into an enemy, by showing our indignation when politicians insult their opponents on television or in parliament as if they were in a battle against them, by courageously taking the side of a woman who has been harassed or someone who is being bullied, by showing our solidarity with somebody who has been targeted and by getting used to apologizing for unfair offense.
But each of us, even in our own small way, can take responsibility for the world by becoming a multiplier of peace and a partisan of dialogue and nonviolence.
For example, we can support those Palestinians and Israelis who seek dialogue and sharing in the Middle East conflict, the Russians and Ukrainians who are trying to build new relationships despite the war, the peace associations working in conflict areas, building schools, hospitals and humanitarian corridors, the independent journalists who, at their own risk, inform us about conflicts, and the doctors who save lives in war zones.
Recreating the common space of human plurality
We must give strength to all those around the world who feel to be the messengers of the spirit of Raphael Lemkin’s 1948 Convention on the Prevention of Genocide, in the name of nonviolence and the sanctity of human life. History has indeed taught us that the final stage of hatred and dehumanization of people is the extreme situation of genocide, which never arises suddenly, it arrives step by step, precisely when violent and sick words infect people.
Today, we can rebuild the spirit of the United Nations from the bottom up, not only by supporting this organization, which is currently under attack, but also by becoming the path to make known all the women and men of good will who work for dialogue, and by becoming part of this movement ourselves. In doing so, we can be the inspirers of the United Nations of the new millennium.
We must no longer feel like a part that asserts itself as an ethnic, national, religious, or political identity in negative opposition to others, we must feel part of the world and of all humanity. This is why we must revitalize the political and supranational spheres, those that rebuild relations between nations and make us understand that planet Earth is our common home and that we must all take care of it.
We must be guided by the founding principle of nonviolence and dialogue, as Hannah Arendt so aptly put it: “Not man, but men inhabit this planet. Plurality is the law of the earth”.
Without uninterrupted dialogue with ourselves and with others, as Socrates argued, we cannot understand the strength that human plurality gives us and that offers us the opportunity of overcoming our fragility, which we presumptuously think we can resolve on our own.
It may seem paradoxical, but only through inner work in the intimacy of our conscience, through which we can rediscover the moral dimension, as Immanuel Kant sensed, can we emerge from our small egos, rediscover the joy of dialogue with others, our belonging to the whole of humanity, and ultimately fly into the starry sky.
In the photo: Effects of Good Government on the City by Ambrogio Lorenzetti
