The elite always claim
The elite always claim that a large number of politicians incessantly talk on behalf of the people and attribute their political desires and aspirations to the will of eighty-three million living, rational, intelligent, and mature individuals.
People who have repeatedly shown that their desires differ significantly from those who consider themselves representatives and spokespeople of the Iranian nation.
For example, it was said that people demanded the continuation of the previous government’s policies when in fact the majority of voters and non-voters were actually in favor of a change in the status quo. None of those who consider themselves representatives of the people have provided an analysis so far on the reasons for the difference between what people voted for and what was claimed about it, or I haven’t seen it.
Will politicians, especially those who seek power, eventually accept that they are dealing with a dynamic, living, and intelligent human society that cannot be molded to fit their desired mindset, appearance, and lifestyle? Will they realize that a parliamentarian and a politician have no mental, intellectual, or genetic superiority over other people, and the only difference is whether they have entered politics out of interest, relationship, or fate? Will they, after numerous experiences, recognize their multiple mistakes in understanding the desires of the people, or are they simply individuals who are asleep and cannot be awakened?
Speaking on behalf of the people and advocating for their own desires instead of the desires of highly diverse societies is not exclusive to politicians.
You can see this comical damage and error that has persisted from the era of populist and communist governments and mass literature in the opinions expressed by cultural figures.
Among cultural and cinematic figures, filmmakers consider themselves more representative and expressive of the people’s opinions.
In many cinematic criticisms, the writer’s opinion is portrayed as the people’s and society’s opinion.
For example, a critic writes that people do not like this genre of movies and series, but society is made up of people with different opinions and beliefs.
People with different life experiences, who do not have uniform analysis and evaluation, may agree on one issue and disagree on a thousand other issues.
Those who consider themselves obligated to express people’s opinions usually lack the courage to say or write the phrase ‘I have this opinion’ and hide behind the word ‘people’.
Labeling certain individuals as elite is a blank check that is easily issued mostly based on relationships.
This is probably our own specific way if there are elites, and if someone has higher intelligence, talent, and abilities that should be showcased, otherwise being in a political and ideological front where elitism has no meaning. Do you notice that once you label someone as elite, you can no longer bring them down? We should say that an elite should also be fair and once again wants his rights and superiority to be recognized with justice.
Who is truly an elite? Is it someone who excels in studying, networking, engaging in party and factional activities, laying the groundwork for branding, and is well-versed in these matters? Are there any criteria or standards for identifying elitism? Does everyone who is a teacher or university professor, or graduates with good grades, qualify 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 each person’s opinions, based on their statements, writings, actions, and behaviors, should be evaluated equally with others.
Perhaps if we accept these points, the way for many positive and constructive changes will open up.
