1

A Dicta of Destabilization
An Alibi to the Primitivization of Man?

Omar Alansari-Kreger
The most provocative statement can provoke unprecedented unrest in a nation. As a
standard of principle, the developmental model observed by the underdeveloped world is one of
democratization. The basis of which demands that the greatest good serves the greatest number.
What does that reality mean to the lowest common denominator in developmentally challenged
societies? Isolation is a form of illiteracy which explains the main reason behind blissful
ignorance. A rejection of modernity is a common sociological reaction of fear. The catalyst in
question arrives with the reality of a changing world. Since the end of the Second World War,
democracy has been adopted as the primary precedent for the modern development of man. In
light of this tradition, any other narrative is typically rejected which confirms the authorship of
the international balance of power by the developmentally elite. How is it possible for a nation to
make sound democratic decisions when its people or leaders know little to nothing about
democracy?
An underdeveloped locality is primarily populated with the feebly meek; that creates a
sociological advantage for an opportunism of power which insidiously leads to a dictatorial
obsession of power. Salvation is entertained as a promise of livelihood. This is the origin of the
father knows best state. An educated elite are the originators of its authoritative rule; the end
game demands the totality of absolute control. It is for that reason why it can be maintained that
authoritarianism and totalitarianism are reciprocal to each other through channels of
overshadowed control. The reality of democracy is never more illusory when applied in its most
formative applications. The shock and awe that is extracted out of the shared pain and suffering
of a population is condemned to avenues of tokenistic opportunism. The same democratic edifice
of government that promises to deliver the vote defaults on it simultaneously. The interests of the
people mean nothing once the popular vote attributes victory to the dictatorial elite.
If there was such a thing as free elections, why do oppressed populations continue to vote
themselves into a future of oppression? It can be maintained that from the vantage point of the
educated elite, there is no greater source of ecstasy than illusions of democracy. The idea is to get
a population to succumb itself to the politics of trust where revolution is forever confided to the
everlasting promise of democracy. The deception of a nation is found in the trust of a population.
There is this universal presumption that transcends human nature in its simplest form; the people
on top speak the same language, share common cultural values, and maintain similar aesthetical
features to each other. The worst oppressors derive originate from the same national locality
which is why they, as an elite body of the establishment, excel at the localization of deception.
That describes one of the greatest dilemmas of sociological aesthetics. Democracy is commonly
fashioned as a front used for exploitation.

Its greatest alibi is hidden in the ambiguity of freedom which in turn is lamented with
claims that purport to serve the best interests of the masses. That does not imply that democracy,
as a system, is inherently evil, but the gullibility of an otherwise developmentally challenged
people entertains a dark reality of dictatorship as a future of inevitable encroachment. From the
vantage point of the underdeveloped world, it can be argued that the democratization of man has
leads to his primitivization.
A world where posterity is seized by the tyranny of the majority only to be seized,
opportunistically, by educated elites leads inextricably to a dystopian reality. It should be no
surprise why the latter folds into a sociological vacuum of dictatorial power.