Some Reflections of the Re-Normalization of the Democratic Process

	The following paper arose out of a workshop on two papers on the nature of the democratic process that immediately preceded this one. The concerns addressed here, partly or in full, are why do forms of political extremism de-centering the political process and disrupt patterns of democratic representationalism despite the possible reflection of majoritarian views, what is/are the role/s of a sense of a political center/centers, and, how is the democratic process best re-normalized, i.e., relatively democratized/re-democratized?

0.   Introduction

	As argued previously, all extremes, whether from the Left or the Right, by their very nature de-center the democratic process [by the distortion of prior privilege or processes of privileging of one aspect of society over another, e.g., the state (be it an aggregate totality or some regional collective) or the individual particular (be it a specific company/type of industry or person), etc.]. (1) 

	In this paper let me demonstrate why this process of de-centering, through privileging, already established or currently in process, is anti-democratic in spirit. (2)

	As a consequence of this theoretical-observation, let me discuss the importance of the re-vitalization of the center and what it means in practice. (3)

	Following on from this discussion on the nature of the center let me then offer an account as to how an overall transcendental suspension could be applied in the political arena in order to produce/re-produce a relative democratic re-normalization of the political process under review. This process of re-normalization can operate at two levels, namely, on a relatively deep level wherein there is a de-subversion of the minimal, basic democratic nature of the co-extensional dissemination of power, and, on a relatively superficial level wherein overt processes of an ostensively democratic nature are re-existentialized and made relatively more democratic. (4)

	First, however, let me re-show that the relatively fundamental nature involved in the dissemination of all forms of power, essentially, is co-extensional and democratic, and, that all forms of non-democratically oriented governance must have involved the subversion of this minimal ‘democratic’ basis. (5)

1.   The ‘Democratic’ Basis that Grounds the Dissemination of Power

	The dissemination of all power is founded upon a relatively democratic and co-extensional basis! Upon this basis it both is founded and can be found to founder. As is the nature of all processes, without re-normalization of the involved relationship what is founded must then founder within the consequential confines of the identity of its existential descriptor/s. So, e.g., a baby is born and in the course of its existence will meet with death at some time or other, in the meantime, that person is able to stave off the existential description of its demise through an ongoing re-normalization of that embodied relationship through eating and drinking, sleeping and exercise, avoiding sickness and harm from others, repairing from illness and injury, etc., etc. By not leading a life dissipated through the clash of extremes the existential identity of that person is re-continued till such a time that state of affairs can no longer viably continue in that current form. (6)

	Dissemination of power is ‘the transmission of power through others’. Hence this dissemination is co-extensional, i.e., ‘the emission, and deposition, of a text, a series and/or a set of texts’ that is essentially a co-authored affair! Thence the relatively democratic basis involved in the dissemination of power. Let me demonstrate this fundamental fact. (7)

	No monarch or dictator has absolute power. Power is always limited, i.e., has limits. E.g., if the ruler were to proclaim that every member of their army was, for the unspecified good of the state, to immediately kill themselves by their own sword and that they were to commit this act of suicide in front of Their Great Leader at this very moment in time, if I were that ruler I would fear for my life. Even though each individual soldier knows that in subscribing to the army their life is at risk, still, faced with such a sacrifice to no obviously good reason, other than the whims of the Great Leader, most soldiers would revolt. And, even if every soldier in the army did as ordered would every citizen in that state do the same if told by their Beloved Leader. No doubt some cults have deconstructed in such a manner. But would an entire country do as so instructed? I doubt it. Then, if they did, the Beloved Leader would then be powerless as the dissemination of power cannot be disseminated if there were no person to actively and/or passively transmit the dictates of this Great Leader, indeed, they would now be the Great Non-Leader?! The point I am making here is that in the dissemination of power, in the transmission of that power, each point in that nexus is co-authored in such a manner that without their active and/or passive co-authoring such power could not be co-extended! If everyone in a state were to say “no” to a dictator that dictator would be instantly powerless. They would have to do everything by themselves and, consequently, would be powerless since power is defined as this transmission of power through others, i.e., through a process of dissemination. Therefore, the transmission of power must involve the cooperation of each and every person involved in that nexus of transmission. Similarly, a culture or society is dependent upon this passage of dissemination (in accordance with meta-textual genres of activity that pre-establish the regulation of that culture or society through the adoption and adaptation of expected genres of activity as pre-mediated in that ‘culture’ or ‘society’, indeed, establishes that overall meta-textual mode of life  as a relatively pre-arbitrated set of otherwise relatively in(ter)dependent meta-textual modes of life). (8)

	Now, it is a fact that all power-relations are asymmetrical. Even between friends the power between them is never absolutely equal even though friendship is normally situated more upon a basis involving an equalization of power (as a practical fact or conducted symbolically) (I help you, you help me, let me share this with you, will you share that with me; we respect each other but defer to each other only as friends, etc.). (9)

	The transmission of power is actively and/or passively transmitted. Otherwise power is not transmitted from an initial point to some other point, i.e., to and from some person within some group, institution, state, etc. E.g., if the Great Ruler were to ask a certain subject x to chop off the head of subject y, if they were to do so they are actively transmitting that power radiating from the Great Leader through them. On the other hand if z, who is present, could have prevented x from loosing his head by remonstrating with the Great Leader or with y then they stand to passively allow that power to be disseminated. The active transmission of power involves the interpretation and re-constitution of the same. On the other hand, the passive transmission of power involves the interpretation and non-cessation of that transmission under review. With the non-active reconstitution of power and the non-passive obstruction of that radiation of power the dissemination of power is circumvented unless it can radiate through other active/passive channels of communication. Hence the relatively democratic basis of the co-extensional dissemination of power. Any individual, group or institution could obstruct the dissemination of power centered either internally or externally to the same. The internal obstruction of the dissemination of power of an individual occurs when a person themselves over-rules their own expected or demanded transmissions or potential transmissions of power, etc. The external obstruction of the dissemination of power occurs when a person over-rules the transmission of power being transmitted by some other person, etc. Although the particular obstruction of an individual, group or institution could be circumvented, the dissemination of power cannot be circumvented if all co-extensional parties adopted the practice of obstruction and consequent disruption. Hence the potentially democratic basis involved in the co-extensional exercise of power. In theory at least...! In other words, power is transmitted through our actual or virtual consent, active and/or passive in nature, whether we are aware of that fact or not, regardless as to whether that basis of power from a democratic point of view is relatively subverted or not subverted…. (10)

	The primary implication to be drawn being this fact, namely, that in the relatively non-democratic dissemination of power that democratic basis must be effectively subverted by some means or other, in some form or other, be that process individualized or non-individualized in expression and sedimentation. By ‘individualized’ is meant the change in state is effected by one individual. By non-individualized is meant a change in state that has become conventionalized through custom., etc. This subversion of power, in what ever form or forms taken, can also be seen as its non-existential expression (since an overall transcendental suspension of the same, properly centered in the matter to hand, would elicit/re-elicit the democratization/re-democratization of that relatively democratic basis, i.e., would oversee its progressive re-normalization). (11)

	No doubt, subversion will take many forms, but, the weight and institutionalization of non-democratically oriented non-individualized custom alone is enough to see the non-existential concretization of this fact. Then, upon the concrescence of custom ego-oriented modes of manipulation and trans-valuation will continue this process… the whole process mystifying and re-valuing the legitimate, relatively democratic basis of power (through usurpation of the ‘prior’ legitimacy of that process of dissemination). (12)

2.   The Anti-Democratic Bias of Privilege and Privileging

	In a democracy for an equality of all voting participants to be effective all would need to vote and possess an equal degree of information and ability to interpret the same in order to wisely exercise that right. The presence and/or introduction of privilege and privileging could upset that balance of opportunity. Especially if that sense of (an objective) balance could not be re-asserted. Why is this the case? (13)

	A phenomenon is best represented in its entirety, appreciating all relevant factor or aspects of that phenomenon. Privilege or privileging distorts that representation, or, rather, further distorts that process of representation, albeit in a process of mis-representation. Regardless of whether that be a process of appreciation or self-appreciation. Since the democratic spirit better represents that society or organization, the less distortion present in this process the more representative that process of representation will be given a desire to see out a process of representation that fairly represents that society or organization. Hence that which de-centers the political process is less able to represent it. Furthermore, that which de-centers the reality of a phenomenon or finds itself de-centered, be it political or otherwise, is less able to re-constitute a representation of that phenomenon be it in appreciation and/or self-appreciation hence the relatively anti-democratic basis of accepted privilege and process of privileging (although, naturally, the inequality of power relations and their natural institutionalization non-extreme forms of ‘privilege’ are also a natural part of the landscape, like, e.g., property and possessions, etc.). My primary argument here is this: that the representation of the reality of a phenomenon is best re-constituted about the simulation/re-simulation of its psychic center; hence its true sense in the world as pre-psychically mapped out for us culturally and inter-culturally is determined in and through this mid-point (or set of mid-points when viewed multi-dimensionally and transformationally accommodated). Then, for these reasons accepted, how do we determine the psychic center of a phenomenon? (14)

3.    Determining the ‘True’ Center of an Individual, Series or Set of Phenomena

	Over time, in certain countries like USA and Australia, as people have felt themselves to be better off, the psychic center of the country has for the last thirty or so years more or less shifted to the Right. So, we must ask ourselves, what reality is born by the contemporary sense of center to the actual sense of a center or objective sense of center? (15)

	One could say, perhaps, that to better represent that political phenomenon it is best conducted about its contemporary sense of a center, but, to best appreciate that phenomenon itself as it stands in the Life-World appreciation is best conducted about its objective sense of center. E.g., a politician in the USA needs to recognize, in some form or other that, currently, more than sixty percent of the population able to vote believes in upholding capital punishment. On the other hand, as a politician on the world stage they should recognize that world opinion is probably written in the opposite direction on this issue (as reflected in European practice and pronouncements from the United Nations)? Furthermore, that a general trend may or may not currently exist in American thinking that is finally reversing this other trend that took them to their current contemporary sense of an off-centered center on this issue in the first place? Hence these various political realities of where the contemporary sense of a center is, where the objective sense of center is on a particular issue or set of issues, and, just what trends are there with respect to the current political relationship between these two senses of center (in so far as they might be found moving closer to each other). Either way there is a call for the revitalization of the center… and in this we must ask what center? (16)

	To effect change we need to act about that contemporary sense of a center in the hope of moving closer to the objective sense of a center. Why? In the hope of better mirroring the political reality of that phenomenon in the political phenomenalization of our understanding of that reality. Paradoxically, albeit superficially, the relatively greater degree of centralization in the dissemination of power over a certain region the less democratically representative it is and the less centered is that dissemination in an objective sense. Although power is always unequal in its distribution, and representative power is represented unequally, still the democratization of a society or an organization is realized through centering of that contemporary center of power in its objective sense of a center. This is achieved through a re-normalization of power relations by re-revealing the inherently democratic nature involved in the co-extensional dissemination of power to that extent both achievable and to that degree that it can currently be achieved!  (17)

	How is re-normalization achieved, or, rather, moved towards to that degree best achieved under current circumstances? In other words, how is democratic re-normalization best achieved in practice. By acting about the contemporary sense of center in the intentional aim of returning the current center of that body politic back towards a sense of an objective center… and, we must ask, how is that to be achieved? (18)

4.   How is the Good Political Art of the Possibly Better to be Best Achieved?

	Democratic re-normalization is achieved to that degree the political form of an overall transcendental suspension is able to be put into best practice (through the adoption of a better degree of practice). In other words, how is a contemporary sense of a starting central point to be realized, and, how is an objective sense of a central endpoint also to be realized, as well as a thematization of the pragmatic nature of the relationship between these two senses of center? (19)

	A contemporary sense of a political center is best approached through simulating/re-simulating a balance of the ostensive economy of the currently operating political forces both overt and covert in nature in accordance with the manner they are currently weighted. On the other hand, an objective sense of a political center is realized when all competing political philosophies (and background forms of prejudice/pre-judgment) are neutralized through an equal weighting of their writing/counter-writing. This is conducted in the existential economy of an overall transcendental suspension wherein competing forces are equally weighted and equally written and counter-written. Then, through a suspension of that suspension, the semblance of a political response is evoked, or should be evoked/provoked, that thematizes both this sense of an objective center and a current sense of a center and how the distance between the same can be properly, appropriately, and validly lessened, i.e., resolved. But, it is the nature of all processes to be as ‘processes in time’; that all processes of an existential and/or non-existential balance are achieved in and through a period of time. Although it might be said that time itself eventually rectifies all semblances of a political distortion through a rectification of all imbalances. But let us not wait for that to happen but be politically active enough to ensure this art of the possible is better achieved in the best time and manner possible! (20)

5.   Conclusion

	Let me recount the main points of this essay:

1.	All power relations are unequal but based upon a relatively democratic bedrock since the dissemination of power is co-extensionally transmitted both actively and/or passively.
2.	Overlooking this ‘democratic’ basis is achieved through processes of subversion.
3.	Extremes distort the political process and compound this process of subversion.
4. 	Political representation is best achieved through the center of that political phenomenon, otherwise representation further distorts our processes of appreciation and self-appreciation. 
5.	Rectification is achieved through a democratic re-normalization.
6.	The best possible degree of rectification is realized through the best possible degree of re-normalization open to that phenomenon at that moment in time or period of time.
7.	Existential change is effected about the contemporary sense of a political center when it is moved towards the sense of an objective political center.
8.	A contemporary sense of a political center is realized through a weighted sense of balance in that economy that reflects the current differentiation of that community. 
9. 	On the other hand, an objective sense of a political center is realized when both political forces in that current economy are written and counter written against each other with an equal weighting and means are adopted to re-direct that contemporary sense of a political center back towards that objective sense of a political center.
10.	A ‘suspension of that suspension’ naturally ‘induces’ a program of action and non-action that will best achieve the eventual returning of this contemporary sense of a center to that objective sense of a center (although never absolutely!)! (21)

								      Noël Tointon, 12.1.06.

Some Final Reflections

	This theoretical treatise now needs to be practically applied! Here such concepts as the co-extensional dissemination of power, re-normalization, contemporary political center, objective political center, etc., etc., need to be transmitted in a plain, direct and vivid language without too much terminology in the hope that it can provoke and promote a more democratic re-normalization of the political process under review, and, thereby, improving the quality of our existence as we-find-ourselves-living-together in the open-ended richness of this one World-of-Life, N.