Democracy or Dictatorship: The Lost Art of Civil Discourse

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com

Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Journal: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Journal Founding: August 2, 2012

Frequency: Three (3) Times Per Year

Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed

Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access

Fees: None (Free)

Volume Numbering: 13

Issue Numbering: 1

Section: B

Theme Type: Idea

Theme Premise: “Outliers and Outsiders”

Theme Part: 32

Formal Sub-Theme: None.

Individual Publication Date: October 8, 2024

Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2025

Author(s): Dott.ssa in Ort. e Oft., Beatrice Rescazzi

Author(s) Bio: Dott.ssa in Ort. e Oft., Beatrice Rescazzi is the President of the AtlantIQ Society.  She has been an optician, orthoptist, eye surgery assistant for years, and teaches computer science in adult courses. She is an autodidact regarding 3D printing construction, 3D printing, electronics, robotics, and more. She has an abiding interest in inventions to help vulnerable people and the environment, astronomy, general science, informatics, space missions, 2D and 3D drawing and design, as well as languages and arts. She has taken part in competitions for design, inventions, and space projects. She is an Esperantist.

Word Count: 1,493

Image Credits: Beatrice Rescazzi.

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885

Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*

Abstract

The text reflects on political discourse, contrasting Italy’s civil exchanges among friends with the polarized, heated arguments often seen in American politics. The author highlights the importance of respecting differing views, avoiding confirmation bias, and rejecting propaganda. They argue that true democratic engagement requires listening, humility, and the rejection of authoritarian attitudes, even within democratic systems. Ultimately, the text calls for open-mindedness and civil discourse in political conversations.

Keywords: agendas, civil discourse, confirmation bias, democracy, dialogue, differing agendas, ideological superiority, mutual respect, political parties, political polarization, propaganda.

Democracy or Dictatorship: The Lost Art of Civil Discourse

“Did you watch the debate last night? What do you think?” This is the message a friend sent me a few days ago. In Italy, we have a wide range of political parties, each with different agendas, and our President is a super partes figure who represents all Italians. Even at the local level, candidates belong to various shades of center, right, and left. During the recent elections for Mayor in my city, at a dinner with six friends, we revealed our preferences: it turned out that each of us would vote for a different candidate. During the dinner, we explained the reasons for our choices and compared them with each other’s views. No one raised their voice, except to make a toast, and no one called the other stupid for preferring a different candidate. No one ended a friendship over a different opinion. Rather, the exchange of opinions and points of view, peppered with humorous remarks, is one of the ingredients of my longest-lasting friendships. From the Communist Party to the Far Right, passing through the Center, I count many decades-long friendships. Believe it or not, they are all honest people who work hard and love their family and friends. They are teachers, rehabilitation therapists, doctors, and lawyers. To those who wonder how people from “that party” could ever be considered good people, I reply that it doesn’t matter through which institution you do charity work, or how you try to protect your children, or what ideological motivation you claim for behaving ethically. Similarly, it doesn’t matter what commandment, shamanistic belief, or religious precept you offer as an explanation for your good deeds; what matters to me is that you are a good person. Of course, the opposite is also true: if you are immoral and full of hatred, I don’t care who you are, what you think, or what you believe—you will never be part of my life.

I often talk with foreign people, and once a week, I meet with a diverse group, mostly from the United States and Europe. They are all very nice and kind people, but when the conversation touches on politics, some of them turn into fanatical propagandists. I’m sorry to say that they are almost all Americans. I have no desire to teach lessons from another continent or criticize another country—neither I nor Italy are remotely perfect. I just want to express my concern and sadness for a great and wonderful country that, according to a historical view, should represent Democracy at its best. But I won’t invite people to join some utopian circle where we all hold hands: it’s clear that these kinds of arguments haven’t worked. Unfortunately, I notice that in the United States, extreme political polarization has turned into an impenetrable wall of incommunicability. Political discussions are marked by heated tones and an “us vs. them” mentality. This phenomenon isn’t limited to the media or social networks; it also pervades everyday conversations.

When I listen to American news, I can see the deep “Grand Canyon” between Democratic and Republican channels, each with its own interpretation of the world, each with its obvious, blatant propaganda, in defiance of the true purpose of an informative and objective newscast. The dramatic background music often accompanies what is more of a news show, and it sometimes ends with a sweet note of a puppy or a trivial civil act between citizens, celebrated as a rare and miraculous event—often in place of important news covered by other foreign newscasts. No one likes to think of themselves as a victim of propaganda, which is why it’s so hard to break what seems like a curse without an antidote.

The American friends I talk to often seem almost proud of having nothing to do with “them,” meaning those stupid and evil people who vote differently. The “different” is thus often accepted only when it’s externally different, but not when their thoughts differ—in that case, they can be humiliated, insulted, and excluded. There is a lack of willingness to understand the point of view of the other half of the population, their own fellow citizens. At this point, I must add the usual disclaimer that I am generalizing, that not everyone is like this, that it can happen in other countries too, that a circle is round, and other banalities that some people like to nitpick over instead of grasping the point of the discussion. When the ability to listen to different opinions disappears, all you do is make your brain lazy and lock it inside a prison made of confirmation bias. It’s a very comfortable prison, where you never feel offended, never challenged, and always feel right—in fact, morally and intellectually superior. Others begin to seem like cruel and stupid enemies who want to destroy everything, to the point that justifying their physical elimination no longer seems like a big problem. In fact, people start wishing death upon others lightly. Where have we seen this process before? Of course, in wars and dictatorships.

So, is there an antidote? I don’t know what could work, I’ll tell you what I think. In my opinion, it is extremely important to recognize that your political side is just like the other side. Yes, I’m sorry to shock you, but it’s true: your party is just like the other party. Not only that, but no one is immune from propaganda. 

Defending candidates to the hilt is absurd: they are not your friends, and in reality, you don’t know them at all. All you see of them are photons on a screen. You might get the impression that one is better than the other, but you must have the humility to recognize that you could be wrong, even by a lot. 

Changing your mind in light of new data is a sign of intelligence, not a betrayal of an entity you must stay loyal to for life. If you meet someone who thinks differently from you, ask why they think differently and listen. And don’t listen to argue back; listen to understand. 

You are not a candidate; you are an ordinary citizen. Your duty as a citizen is to gather as much information as possible from different sources to form your own opinion. It is not to join a cult and repeat everything they say. 

Don’t dress yourself in the logos and political symbols of one side or the other; forget about the flags—you are not a billboard for a political party. Have more respect for your own complexity as an individual and free yourself from labels created by others.

Watch the news from other political factions and from other countries, and do it for real, not just once, only to stop because you don’t like it. Don’t feel offended by different opinions; instead, try to understand where they come from and what they aim to achieve. Don’t insult someone for offering you a different idea; you’re not obliged to agree, but you are obliged to behave civilly.

We all fall into the so-called “confirmation bias,” a cognitive distortion that leads us to seek, interpret, and remember only information that confirms what we already believe. This vicious cycle, fueled by news outlets, shows, and algorithms on social media that tend to show us content aligned with our preferences, makes us impermeable to change and limits our understanding of the world. No one is immune—least of all those who believe they are immune—so the only way you have to counter this effect is to always be aware that it’s happening.

Propaganda also works subliminally, with photos of candidates frowning or caught in unpleasant expressions when appearing in opposition magazines, or smiling and victorious when featured on their own political side’s newscasts. Or, for example, through a careful selection of interviews among attendees at political rallies, making their own party’s supporters appear very intelligent and full of valid arguments, while excluding the silly ones, and selecting the most foolish responses from the opposing party’s followers, eliminating the sensible and valid ones. These are just two examples among thousands of ways to present facts, now joined by AI-created manipulations.

This deep belief that belonging to your chosen party makes you morally and intellectually superior is far from democratic—it’s a dictatorship mentality. Being convinced that there can be no dialogue with the opposition and that only your political program should win by any legal or illegal means, is dictatorship. You yourself, if you impose your ideas by raising your voice and plugging your ears when others speak, are a dictator. If you think Democracy means that your party must always win, you are a dictator. Democracy works if citizens support Democracy, not if they support the dictatorship of one side or the other. For this reason, it’s necessary for everyone to realize exactly what they are supporting, and to always remember that all people, even “the others,” simply want to be happy, live in peace, and be free.

Footnotes

None

Citations

American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Rescazzi B. Democracy or Dictatorship: The Lost Art of Civil Discourse. October 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/democracy-dictatorship-rescazzi

American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Rescazzi, B. (2024, October 8). Democracy or Dictatorship: The Lost Art of Civil Discourse’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): RESCAZZI, B. Democracy or Dictatorship: The Lost Art of Civil Discourse’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Rescazzi, Beatrice. 2024. “Democracy or Dictatorship: The Lost Art of Civil Discourse’.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/democracy-dictatorship-rescazzi.

Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Rescazzi, B. “Democracy or Dictatorship: The Lost Art of Civil Discourse.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (October 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/democracy-dictatorship-rescazzi.

Harvard: Rescazzi, B. (2024) ‘Democracy or Dictatorship: The Lost Art of Civil Discourse’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/democracy-dictatorship-rescazzi.

Harvard (Australian): Rescazzi, B 2024, ‘Democracy or Dictatorship: The Lost Art of Civil Discourse’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/democracy-dictatorship-rescazzi.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Rescazzi, Beatrice. “Democracy or Dictatorship: The Lost Art of Civil Discourse.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/democracy-dictatorship-rescazzi.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Rescazzi B. Democracy or Dictatorship: The Lost Art of Civil Discourse [Internet]. 2024 Oct; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/democracy-dictatorship-rescazzi.

License & Copyright

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.