The Ever-Claiming Elites
The ever-claiming elites, many politicians continuously speak on behalf of the people and attribute the political desires and aspirations of themselves, their party, and their entourage to the demands of eighty-some million living, intelligent, and mature people.
People who have repeatedly shown how different their desires are from those who present themselves as representatives and spokespersons of the Iranian nation.
For instance, it was said that the people wanted to continue the path of the previous government, whereas, in reality, the majority of voters and those who didn’t vote were seeking change. None of those who consider themselves representatives of the people have provided an analysis of why there is a difference between the people’s voting and non-voting and what was claimed, or at least I haven’t seen one.
Will the politicians, especially the absolutists, finally accept that they are dealing with a dynamic, living, and intelligent human society, and that it’s impossible to standardize their minds, appearances, and lifestyles according to their preferred method? Will they realize that a member of parliament or a politician has no mental, intellectual, or genetic superiority over other people? The only difference is that, either out of interest, connections, or fate, they have entered the field of politics. Will they eventually, after numerous experiences, acknowledge their multiple mistakes in understanding the people’s desires, or are they essentially like someone who pretends to be asleep and therefore cannot be awakened?
Speaking on behalf of the people and substituting one’s own desires for the desires of a highly diverse society is not exclusive to politicians.
This flaw and absurd mistake, which has remained from the era of populist and communist governments and mass literature, can also be seen in the opinions of cultural figures.
Among cultural and artistic circles, cinema people consider themselves representatives and expressors of the people’s opinions more than others.
In many film critiques, the personal opinion of the writer is presented as the opinion of the people and society.
For example, a critic might write that people don’t like this genre of film and series, but society is made up of people with diverse opinions and beliefs.
People with different lived experiences who do not have uniform analyses and evaluations may agree on one issue and disagree on a thousand others.
Those who see themselves as obligated to express the people’s opinions usually lack the courage to say or write the phrase ‘I have this opinion’ and hide behind the word ‘people.’
Giving the title of elite to some is a blank check that is easily and mostly issued based on relationships.
This is probably a method unique to us. If someone is an elite and possesses intelligence and talent above others, they should have shown something; otherwise, being elevated and belonging to a political or ideological front doesn’t mean being elite. Do you realize that once you label someone as an elite, you can no longer bring them down? Even if we tell them to be fair, they will still want their rights and superiority recognized.
But who truly is an elite? Someone who studied well, or someone who knows how to network, engage in party and factional work, and brand themselves correctly? Are there references or criteria for recognizing elitism? Does every university lecturer or someone who graduated with good grades count as an elite?
Let’s accept that we have a diverse, intelligent society with different opinions.
Like the rest of the world, this society is made up of average and ordinary people who have no superiority over each other, and everyone’s opinions should be evaluated based on their statements, writings, actions, and behaviors under equal conditions with others.
Perhaps if we accept these points, the path for many good, positive, and constructive changes will open.
