[ad_1]
Does democracy mean freedom?
It is an issue that hides many pitfalls both in philosophical and legal terms. In the case of the 2020 US elections, the dispute between the two concepts becomes more intense than ever and this is the premise of a reasoning that seeks a geopolitical reading of the two elements.
Therefore, the first question is followed by another. Is it important to know who really is the presidential candidate who, according to the rules of the American country, will be democratically supported in the individual states so that the so-called “big voters” are attributed (again for each state)?
The comparison that arises spontaneously could be, in a way, that with the fake manager of the Italian legal system. Attention, however, to a difference that must be clearly specified: in Italy this figure is governed by the Civil Code (among other things, the latter, from the pre-republican period so that, by deduction, it was born in a time prior to the democratic state ) which does not mean that there is the same legal framework in the United States (in which there is, well known, a common law that diverges from systems civil law).
This clarity is objectively translated, at least at a legal rather than a geopolitical level, into the understanding of how essential it is who, between Trump and Biden, is actually the candidate who voted with the democratically given rules in force in the United States.
It is a very delicate issue: depending on the choice of one or the other, the effects of geopolitics would imply, for the states of the world that interact with the US (and not only), a different approach in the energy, commercial, diplomatic, monetary and so on.
Here, therefore, the most important root of the analysis is grafted: to what extent the effectiveness of a vote, taking the form of public opinion as democratic, is an expression of the freedom of choice of the American people.
To date, the facts tell us that Trump asks for the verification and exact counting of the votes before accepting himself defeated or not; Biden, on the other hand, has already started the call “transitionUntil January 2021, considering valid the result of the electoral round that has just ended.
From this evolution of events, it follows that it is necessary and essential that, precisely because of the democratically valid rules in the US system, there is electoral clarity. The credibility of the world’s largest democracy is at stake. At stake is Biden’s credibility and the force majeure he could express politically. Likewise, Trump’s credibility is at stake both in the hypothesis of confirmed defeat and in the reversal of the result determined in the first instance.
Imagine for a moment the hypothesis in which Trump would not have declared that he wanted to start the recount procedure, thus accepting the electoral defeat, assuming that the vote derived from the session at the beginning of last November was immediately evident.
Here, reasoning by hypothesis, the effect of what has just been described would be to see Biden as president without any dispute: the democratic game (it is reiterated, determined by rules in that given legal system) would, in doing so, have given the way to the elective certainty of the forty-sixth “most powerful man in the world.”
The bias in terms of political representation to which Trump would have contributed (guiltily or innocently) would have been far worse than what is happening today; This, especially, if it were discovered that, after a recount, Biden would not really have the majority of the so-called large voters to become the next president of the United States.
Therefore, democracy does not necessarily equate to freedom if the rules that govern a system do not come to life by addressing a specific problem with a method of recognition. It is a right, therefore, to recount Trump’s votes, as it is an act of democracy for Biden to consider himself the future 46th President of the United States (until the vote just taken by the American people is confirmed ).
Having certainty of the vote, despite the fact that democracy is a long, exhausting and expensive process, is essential so that the other countries of the globe can also interact correctly with the United States. Otherwise, one of the pillars of international processes that aim at consolidating geopolitical relations would enter into crisis: precisely mutual recognition.
Recognition principle that, like an identity card, is essential to reveal oneself abroad, as well as to make reliable information, characteristics, structure, employment situation, etc. of a particular topic.
However, what would happen if the US identity card did not correspond exactly to the true electoral data? However, the vote in early November 2020 is nothing more than the result of a democratic process in which it was established that votes by mail are worth as much as those present. The role of truths becomes essential at this point unless, regardless of the American Constitution, theestablishment however, it did not decree the end of Trump.
This is also democracy, some will say, but it is certainly not freedom, because it is only effective if rights are enforced and the rules of the game are recognized. Therefore, regardless of Trump’s victory or not, the strength of a democracy weighs on how it continually manages to question itself with the certainty of the law. Certainty, the latter, that can only be wished with courage (of all).
Because if courage remains the prerogative of only a few, in the end, one remains only Democrats without having any real antibodies inside to prevent it. stress it favors systemic implosion, giving way to the famous “isms”. One of the worst evils of democracy is, in fact, democratism: a fanatical display that only leads to the denial of the very principle from which it derives.
For this, it is necessary to clarify the American vote: as long as there is no recognition as prescribed by the rules, democracy will never aim for effective freedom and equality. Would you trust a country that does not admit its self-control and, therefore, the transparency of its own progress from outside and outside? Would you invest in a relationship (be it diplomatic, commercial, etc.) with someone who is not trusted because of their way of claiming or showing? The fine line that unites the fundamental principles, values and the integral development of humanity between the different continents lies precisely in the mutual legitimacy to speak.
Biden could be sworn in in January 2021 as the next democratically elected president of the United States, but he will not be freely recognized until all the dynamics of the legitimation process have been completed. And at this point, the United States will have to act like Europe and, in particular, Italy. Why the democracy of fake manager it is a great stumbling block (in memory of Morotea); as great as losing one’s identity and not being able to regain it. Dollar, right?
[ad_2]
