THEM, POLITICAL MASS, AND DEMOCRACY
- Federico Pintus
- Mar 15
- 11 min read
Updated: Apr 4
“[…] Populist leaders—who are winning elections all over the world—push the idea that society is made up of a ‘we’ and a ‘them,’ simply because the majority of society (which may vote for and support them) believes it to be so. […] It is a political model where the loudest wins, the most extreme statement prevails. […] Political mass, by orienting politics according to its gut instincts, ends up causing the very consequences it later complains about. […] It signs the verdicts binding itself to these ideas but, above all, to their consequences. […] And then this happens: a scapegoat is found, and consciences are absolved. ‘It wasn’t us; we were manipulated and led into all of this,’ they say.”
INTRO
The intellectual project that hosts this writing—along with the people who drive it forward—is viscerally and consciously in favor of democracy. This conviction arises both from deep passions and from more analytical reasoning and discussions. For the same reasons, we believe that opinions like those expressed in the following essay are important.
What has ‘democracy’ become today?
Ideas are not just abstract entities of thought. They emerge from living reality and exist in a continuous exchange between people’s minds and the tangible world. To believe that ‘democracy’ as a concept remains eternal and immutable within human Thought is as naïve as assuming the same about its practical applications and implications in societies.
So, what has ‘democracy’ become today in the real lives of people in the so-called democratic countries?What do the citizens of democratic nations (and even those of non-democratic ones) perceive as ‘democracy’ today?
While it’s given that this project is not, in its intentions, hostile to ‘democracy’ in principle (quite the opposite!); I after all believe that the idea of ‘democracy’—along with all its concrete implications—has become problematic.
For too long, it has been relegated to the prison cell where once-living ideas lie, kidnapped by the superficiality of common sense – now gray, empty, and inert abstract entities of thought.
I should state that I rarely venture into reflections on excessively broad concepts. The main reason is that I see these highly abstract categorizations as an inadequate lens through which to observe the world. They often fail to serve any practical purpose and do not allow us to zoom in on reality, which has become so complex that it demands more precise analysis.
That being said, it is undoubtedly true that without some categorization, discussions struggle — especially when dealing with issues that target beyond the strictly personal, involving entire ‘democratic societies.’
THE LETTER
Reading the letter published over recent days on this site, I was drawn in by the scenario it evoked and the emotional intensity of its intent. I also found myself agreeing with some of the theoretical points underlying its narrative. However, the big deal here is not whether this text ‘pleased’ one reader or another—I would’ve just posted nothing more than a brief comment under it.
Instead, I’ll try to lay out the theoretical aspects which find myself disagreeing with the author.
If there is one truly useful kind of reflection, it is the one that takes us beyond ourselves—toward ideas that do not belong to us, yet whose underlying logic allows them to be understood and even shared.
This is not about pretending to agree with something, rather about pushing to the extreme that internal effort to understand reality. After all, reality—by definition—even includes things that exceed us, that we’re not part of.
The first thing I noticed about the text is its underlying urgent desire to pull the emergency brake, to stop the machine before it crashes.
“[…] We reject war and violence, but above all, we reject this atmosphere that increasingly pervades our world—an atmosphere that, almost with arrogance, claims the necessity of such a conflict. […]”
“[…] We must be determined and united in the greatest battle of our lives: preventing all these global tragedies from escalating into The War. […]"
“[…] On one point you’ll find us united as one: the future of this world won’t be corroded —like its past— by forcing the planet once again into the flames of a fratricidal global war. […]”
In these and other passages, one senses the idea that the narrating ‘we’ (the ‘people,’ the ‘majority,’ to use a broad category) is being almost forced toward certain consequences—against its will.
“[…] Dear politicians, and this is not a threat but a promise: if you’ll ever put us in a position where we would be forced […]”
The idea is that there exists a group (the ‘them’) that, on the other side of the barricade, conspires in silence—sinister and calculating—to determine the fate of the majority (the ‘we’).
My thesis is that if one were to truly cross that barricade—to step into the space hidden by it—one would find it empty. He would rather find only mirrors, in which the social mass would see nothing but itself.
It is undeniable that the most widespread belief about today’s society is the idea of a raw distinction between the ‘powerful élites’ (the ‘them’) and the ‘powerless masses’ (the ‘we’).
Not only, since many also claim that the majority of people (the ‘we’) are manipulated and forced by these vaguely defined elites (the ‘them’) into suffering the consequences of their decisions. These élites, a silent minority, supposedly hold all the power.
But is that really how things are? Could it not be that the majority itself—unwittingly and indirectly—causes the very misfortunes and atrocities it complains about? And that only afterward it comes up with a fictional ‘them’ to blame for everything?
THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA ENVIRONMENT
In what context does this consideration take shape?
We live in a world dominated by a fully integrated and far-reaching communication environment.
The etymology of ‘integrated’ traces back to the Latin integer, meaning ‘whole’ or ‘complete.’ The entire internet-connected world is woven together by billions and billions of ‘threads’ (hence its capillarity), at the very end forming a single web of connections. Of course, not every node in this vast graph communicates directly with all the others. However, through an enormous system of references and links, they are all potentially connected.
This media environment enters our lives primarily (though not exclusively) through the main technological device of our era: the smartphone.
It acts as a link between the media environment and the user. Over the years, it has been armed with increasingly sophisticated tools to ‘measure’ the individual—tracking their choices, their focus, and how they spend their time.
This is where algorithms come into play. They serve to take the measure of the individual. They come to know a person with a level of depth that even themselves are unaware of. As humans, we are not capable of being permanently conscious of all our thoughts, desires, or even actions.
An algorithm is a machine. It has no limited resources, no exhaustion. It is always watching, always on point.
What are you doing right now? Where does your attention wander throughout the day?
These questions reframe a much simpler and more direct one: «Who are you?»
Knowing who someone is also means knowing what do they likely want. And if I know what you want, then I know that by giving it to you, I’ll capture your attention and approval.
In this sense, it seems natural and logical to state—something that has been an almost trivial truth for decades—that in the media environment, the idea of imposing truth is outdated because it is simply not efficient.
The supreme value pursued by the digital habitat that connects and hosts us is efficiency—that is, the ability to generate engagement and keep users inside it for as long as possible.
The best way to achieve this goal is, quite simply, to give the audience what it wants, to tell people what they want to hear.
How does this relate to the idea of the powerful ‘them’ imposing its choices on the powerless ‘we’?
The verb impose is dissonant with the world we live in. The system does not pursue domination—it pursues efficiency, its own perpetuation in an increasingly widespread and omnipresent form.
But in order to do this, it must grant those who inhabit it at least one key right: the one to choose which content becoming addicted to.
The society we live in has moved away from a top-down structure where a central command—if it ever even existed—dictates what we should think and how we should behave. Did such a structure ever exist in a clear and absolute form? Likely not. Perhaps something close to it, but believing in it has always been the easier option, a simplification driven by our innate need to categorize reality.
More than ever, we are now immersed in a system that is horizontal, flat, parallel… democratic: a network where changes emerge from below in some places, slightly rise in others, and then spread across the entire system like a virus.
MEDIA ENVIRONMENT, MAJORITY, AND CHARISMATIC LEADERS
Ok. No one imposes choices and consequences on the ‘we’, the majority of society, in a strict sense. Though someone must, at least formally, claim responsibility for taking decisions, right?
That formal role is occupied by charismatic leaders—those who interpret and embody the will of the majority. Nowadays, more than ever, the quintessential politician is someone who chameleon-like becomes whatever the voter wants them to be.
This dynamic has been intensified by the media environment we discussed. Not only does it enable direct, real-time, and unfiltered communication between leaders and citizens, but through digital profiling, the electorate’s desires are more analyzable—and therefore, more exploitable—than ever before.
The mortal sin of politics today is telling the voter only what they want to hear. On social media, engagement is generated by feeding users content aligned with what algorithms reveal about them. The exact same process now occurs in politics.
‘THEM’ AND ‘WE’ AS A REFLECTION OF WHAT THE MASSES WANT TO BELIEVE — BUT WHY?
As mentioned in the opening, the dominant political narrative today is based on a supposed division between élites and the masses, where the them (the élite) manipulates the we (the powerless majority of people).
Taking what we’ve so far discussed about the media environment, the majority, and charismatic leaders as true, then this supposed social division —though elevated to the status of dogma—is nothing more than what the majority wants to believe.
That this wishful thinking is opportunistically exploited by populist leaders (who validate it and fuel the hatred caused by it to secure electoral results) is hardly surprising.
The real question is: why has this fictional, non-existent division become a majority-held belief?
Today, the majority is:
Less and less involved in productive economic processes and the labor market, since fast technological progress continues to sideline large portions of the population (who lack the educational qualifications to be part of it, or who can only do so by accepting lower-paying work).
Increasingly unable to understand the social processes unraveling around them (economic, technological, political, religious, etc.) due to a lack of the necessary education and analytical skills.
The majority of people today experience, on one hand, exclusion or at least economic decline; on the other, confusion, as if they fall victim of something ungovernable that they cannot understand.
This likely generates:
The desire to find a scapegoat for their suffering (the ‘them’ as the élite).
Deep frustration, which in turn fuels a visceral hatred for the established order.
The masses’ profound desire is to overturn the existing system—to destroy the world as it has become, a world that is hostile to them (excluding them economically and eluding their understanding, becoming increasingly complex and difficult to interpret), and to rebuild it in their own image.
To pursue this goal, they naturally turn towards strong leaders—men and women who interpret their feelings. These figures promise, on the one hand, to bring the ‘chaotic world’ under control; and on the other, to make ‘common sense’ decisions (which, in reality, are nothing more than coffee talk ones) to turn things around.
THE PATH OF DEMOCRACY AND ITS ‘FINAL DESTINATION’
We are at the end of a historical process that began more than a century ago—the moment where ‘democracy,’ in the strictest sense, fully materializes. The idea of the political arena as a marketplace where direct democracy (believed in common thought to be the highest form of democracy) comes to life.
This is a democratic model in which the loudest wins, the the most extreme statement prevails. Populist leaders, the agents of this historical process, gain support of the majority by becoming its megaphone. Decisions—formally taken within the legislative process—are imposed on everyone. Irrational and ineffective choices, driven by emotion and superficiality, rises from the gut of the masses. The demagogue, who thrives in today’s media environment, has one mission: «They must feel that I am one of them, I must capture their attention, their time, their money, their emotions, their thoughts—everything. We must become one thing, so that voting for me will be the same thing as voting for themselves»
The majority, blindly supporting these ideas and the policies derived from them, unwittingly binds itself to the things it claims to reject: war, violence, inequality. These are the perfect conditions for the emergence of a world that is brutal, discriminatory and inefficient.
Supporting this almost-direct democracy (as it might be called, waiting for even darker times) means embracing a set of dangerous ideas in public discourse: that all opinions are equally valid, regardless of competence or expertise, the popular consensus as the ultimate criteria for truth and authority, the justification of violence against the so-called “élite that exploits us!”, the reckless expropriation and redistribution of wealth under the guise of humanitarian motives, realistically for electoral gain, the glorification of ignorance, the rejection of debate, seen to be an unnecessary obstacle or waste of time, the embrace of an authoritarian state that flirts with autocracy, the marginalization and suppression of minority rights in the name of the ‘will of the people’, the legitimization of public spending as a tool for vote-buying…and when things come to an end, no one takes responsability for it: «They are the ones who set us against each other!», «They are the ones who put us in this mess!»
RECAP
The “them” mentioned in the letter is the same that dominates much of today’s global political discourse—a supposed élite, driven by its interests and going underground, manipulating the rest of society. This élite is accused of imposing decisions—and their consequences—on a disorganized, unaware, and powerless “we”.
In the letter, there is a direct equation between this “them” and the inevitable consequences of its choices—consequences that the majority, the implied “we”, is forced to passively undergo.
The point of this writing is not to deny the existence of the world’s problems—quite the opposite. The issue is that seeking their roots in this supposed élite is a way of misfocusing the discussion.
Populist leaders—who are winning elections worldwide—fuel this idea of a society split into an antagonistic “we” versus “them” precisely because the majority that elects and supports them already thinks this way.
“We, the exploited masses” versus “them, the wealthy élite.”
“We, defenseless and unorganized” versus “them, powerful and coordinated.”
They push this narrative while concealing their true elitist goal: securing electoral support. Above all, they position themselves within the “we”—as redeemers of its abused rights. They reinforce the perception that they are the underdogs, if not numerically, then at least regarding their power of influence: «We are the ones who don’t have the power that they—the élite—do.»
They claim to represent the numerical majority of society while portraying it as a powerless, abused minority. Their goal is not to tackle real, complex world dynamics and to implement policies but rather to secure short-term electoral gain. I tell you what you want to hear, you vote for me.
The original sin is therefore not just committed by those who whisper into people’s ears exactly what they want to hear, but first and foremost by the individuals themselves.
«Does the mass living in the media-driven environment fester hatred against the rich and powerful? I’ll give it to them—more than they even desire. I must capture their attention, their time, their money, their emotions, their thoughts. To win their vote.»
A political system that operates in this way is condemned to short-term thinking and will never be able to tackle the real problems of the present. By chasing nothing but mass approval, political discourse becomes violent, superficial, and unproductive— It takes the form of the audience it seeks to win the heart of.
Thus, the disastrous consequences that, according to the letter, the world is heading toward are, upon closer analysis, the unintentional creation of those who denounce them. It is the majority itself that signs the verdicts binding itself to these ideas but, above all, to their consequences.
The “them” that the majority believes it must fight against, the enemy it curses, is, in reality, the majority itself.
THEM. POLITICAL MASS. AND DEMOCRACY. OUT NOW.
Comments