Like all citizens who interact with the media, I was astonished by the overwhelming display of the government’s “Democracy is Your Power” advertising campaign, as we are faced with a misleading statement that deserves quiet contemplation, not contemplation. … Hasty reactions, even if they are relevant. For example, following the rhetorical thread of the ads, we could say “the power to squat,” “the power to ban,” “the power to confiscate,” but it would be like taking a radish by its leaves.
In fact, in the slogan “Democracy is your power,” the emphasis is not on democracy but on power. We are faced with a rhetorical, semantic, and pragmatic construction that wants us to believe it is comprehensive, when the real semantic focus is elsewhere. The grammatical subject is democracy and especially authority, but the semantic and emotional weight does not fall on “democracy” but on “authority,” because the collective structure does not determine “democracy.” Rather, it redefines the recipient as having “power.” In practical terms, this phrase does not explain what democracy is, but rather promises personalization. Therefore, we are faced with a campaign that suggests that “this” democracy is not a system for everyone, but rather a tool for empowering individuals.
If “democracy” is the same as “your power,” then the word that gives meaning to this phrase is not “democracy”—an abstract and trivial concept—because what activates in the imaginaries a more resonant emotional, political, and symbolic semantic field is the phrase “your power.” Democracy is thus reduced to a pretext that legitimizes the desire for power: the normative and institutional order (“democracy”) is transformed into subjective agency (“your power”). The ferry pit is not a political concept, but rather a promise of power and/or an invitation to seize power. Here the manipulation becomes more subtle, because I notice the fallacy of implicit democratic exclusivity directed toward the citizen.
In order to explain the aforementioned fallacy, I must remember the ideas of Norberto Bobbio and Luigi Ferragoli, who assert that a “governed democracy” is one in which laws act as limits to power, while a “governed democracy” is one that turns laws into an expression of its authority. It is not necessary for me to cite examples that prove our condition as a “governed democracy,” because the government’s mingling in matters of decree laws speaks for itself. Therefore, the authority granted will emanate from a government that sees itself as the source of powers, as if the constitution did not exist.
If the government is democratic, the authority granted is the authority of the government. Narcissism? No. Political ventriloquism.