Chronicle of a failed politics.

The Old Politics is one of those aspects of life that never stops creating problems. Between caste decisions, wrong policies, lack of oversight, or simple incompetence, we find ourselves in every legislature criticizing those "in power" because they do nothing or, worse, do the wrong thing.

Since I was born, everywhere I have looked, politics has always missed the mark. It is hard to find a country where institutions have worked well and citizens are truly happy. Between wars, cyclical crises, and scandals of every kind, we’ve seen it all.

What I ask myself today, after 35 years, is this: how is it that I have yet to witness a political model that actually works? A system that is finally a source of pride for its citizens rather than a burden?

What is Politics?

Before any reasoning or discussion on the matter, one must always start from the beginning. In this case, the beginning is only one: the concept.

"Politics" as a concept was a stroke of total genius by the ancient Greeks—more precisely in Athens, a city-state that was a source of great artistic, philosophical, and literary development, as well as great female oppression... but that is another story. "Politics" was not born as a career, but as a necessity: the art of managing the polis, the place where the citizen stopped being an isolated individual to become part of a community.

Politics was philosophy in action, debate, vision. The concept was very simple: all male citizens were a fundamental part of the city and everyone had the right to have their say, present their idea, and share it with the community, with the aim of making Athens the best version the city could be.

Politics was so important that those who did not concern themselves with public affairs were called idiotes (one who cares only for their own private business). It makes one think that back then, the "idiot" was the fool who didn't care about public matters, whereas now "idiot" is used to identify the person in power.

The politics of Athens, the original version, was based on direct participation. There was a designated place for all citizens to attend and present their case before everyone. Then they would vote, and the majority won. If Athens is considered the cradle of democracy, this is the reason.

Today we have a democracy based on voting. How did we get here? Well, the journey wasn't exactly linear. In fact, it was a violent path tinted red.

The Death of Politics?

That light lit in Athens was not destined to last. As borders expanded and centuries passed, that direct participation began to fade, giving way to structures where power returned to closed, narrow rooms.

After Athens, we witnessed a vertical philosophical collapse. With Ancient Rome, there was a semblance of democracy, especially during the Republican era, with popular assemblies (comitia), consuls, praetors, and aediles. However, the true heart was the Senate, an assembly of male members belonging to the aristocratic caste. If the people had maintained that idea of "polis" as participation in public dynamics through debate, what really mattered was only the Senate—literally an assembly of patrician families (the "caste")—and the vote of the popular assemblies was weighted based on wealth (those with more money counted more). A caste that passed "the seat" from father to son. It was a case of "the poor can scream, but the rich hold the reins." 2,000 years of history and society seems never to change.

Then, with the Imperial phase, the Senate became merely a screen for the Emperor's will. A bit like modern dictatorships: blatantly rigged or forced "democratic" elections, where the parliament "works," but it is the president who makes the policy, calling the shots.

Then came the Middle Ages, an era where monarchs reigned but were in turn controlled by local lords and a Church that spoke in the name of God. A literal Matryoshka doll of power, where the citizen disappeared to become a subject without a right to speak, given that no popular assembly existed. Power was divided between local lords, the King, and the Church. Much like in America, where the monarch seems powerful, only to clash with the lobbies that financed them and Christian morality (often just a facade).

Even the Renaissance, with all its artistic splendor and return to the classics, preserved only the books of democracy. People sculpted like Athens, painted with the idea of classical proportion, and reasoned like Athens, but power was not like Athens. It remained exclusively a family affair, passed down between rulers who often, rather than relinquish it, married among blood relatives.

Monarchical Democracy (1600–1900).

For three centuries, France, Spain, England, Portugal, and the Netherlands ruled the entire world through colonialism. These great monarchical and colonial powers dominated the planet unopposed from the 1600s until practically the First World War, where they lost both world hegemony and, gradually, their colonies. Aside from the Netherlands, controlled by merchants and the bourgeoisie, the other monarchies held power over life and death for centuries.

While in Spain the dominance of the Habsburgs and later the Bourbons was total, it was different in England and France, where the first signs of "democracy" resurfaced.

England.

In England, rulers held absolute power. One need only think of Henry VIII, who had his wives killed simply because they didn't give him male heirs. However, democracy "resurfaced" as early as 1215 with the Magna Carta. "Excuse me, we are in the 1600s and you're talking about the 1200s?" Yes, it is fundamental to take a small step back.

King John "Lackland" was an incompetent and greedy tyrant. In his failing reign, he stole from everyone to finance successive failed military expeditions in France (losing all territories, hence the nickname "Lackland") and decided on his own whom to imprison and whom not to. The barons would not stand for it and started a civil war, "the First Barons' War."

Defeated, the King was forced to sign a document stating: "The King cannot tax anyone without the counsel of the nobles." It wasn't modern democracy, but it was the first step.

During the following century, the first Parliament was convened, where barons and citizens from cities and counties sat (today's House of Commons), and then in 1341, Parliament divided into the House of Lords (Nobles and Clergy) and the House of Commons (wealthy citizens). That was a balance where the King was bound by a Parliament that decided on practically everything. For the sake of record, the King still had immense power (he could declare wars, appoint ministers), but Parliament held the money. Without Parliament’s vote, the King had no budget. It was continuous economic blackmail.

In the 1600s, after centuries of "democratic oppression on the monarchy," the Stuart Kings (like Charles I) rebelled against this control and tried to act as French-style "absolute monarchs," ignoring Parliament. The result? A civil war and the decapitation of the King in 1649. Perhaps it was better not to even try, but we know monarchs aren't always clever.

From there, there was a brief republican phase without a king, led by Oliver Cromwell, followed by a series of problematic kings. At that point, Parliament, fed up with the chaos, made a brilliant move. They called a foreign king (William of Orange), offered him the crown in 1688, but forced him into a pact. More than a pact, it was a true oath of loyalty to the law: the "Bill of Rights." For the first time in history, a King admitted he was not above the law. From that moment on, Parliament had total power over everything, and the King BY LAW could do nothing without Parliament’s authorization.

How was that bicameral Parliament (Lords and Commons) created? The ancient concept of Athens was impossible to apply: too many people. Something sophisticated was done: men were called to vote for people to represent them in the two chambers. Furthermore, citizens had the right to speak in Parliament. In 1689, the idea of modern representative parliament by delegation was created.

Thus, from the 1600s onwards, England was a monarchical democracy, which lasts to this day.

France.

If England had found a way (violent but effective) to let King and Parliament coexist, on the other side of the Channel, the rope finally snapped. In France, there was no room for pacts: they chose a total break.

In France, blood was spilled. The story can be summarized as: "if you don't understand the easy way, I'll make you understand the hard way!"

First came the Enlightenment, seeking to change the mentality of the entire society through reason. Philosophers like Montesquieu theorized the separation of powers (Legislative, Executive, Judicial) to prevent one person from commanding everyone. Rousseau, instead, took up the concept of the "General Will": power does not belong to God or the King, but to the people. After centuries of "Matryoshkas of power," it was said once again that politics is everyone's business.

The King, meanwhile, listened with one ear and let it out the other, continuing to do as he pleased. Add to this that France was experiencing a heavy economic crisis at the time, where people were literally starving while the aristocracy was having a great time (famous is the legendary phrase attributed to Marie Antoinette: "If they have no bread, let them eat cake"), and words turned into actions. The people were tired of suffering while kings enjoyed life.

With the French Revolution, the goal was no longer to limit the King (as the English did) but to tear down the entire system. First, the Tennis Court Oath on June 20, 1789, with the demand for a Constitution; then "The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" in August 1789. These were two iconic moments for history in its entirety. Already in Article 1, the "declaration of war on the monarchy" appeared: "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights."

To assert freedom and democracy, France went through the Terror and thousands of executions. Politics became, for the first time in the modern era, a matter of life or death in the squares.

The revolution led to the flight of the King and Queen in 1791. When the people found out, the First Republic was declared. Then the King was stopped, captured, brought back to Paris, and decapitated along with the Queen. It was the symbol of the end of an era... for that moment. Then Napoleon arrived, established a totalitarian regime, then fell, and the old rulers were reinstated. The old guard tried to seize total power again; the people wouldn't have it, they were forced to flee, and the Second Republic was born.

The Second Republic fell under the blows of the same people. Under the Second Republic, "Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte" was voted in as leader, nephew of the famous Napoleon Bonaparte. In a case of "like uncle, like nephew," he proclaimed himself Emperor (Napoleon III) and ruled with an iron fist for twenty years. Well, what can I say? Voting for the wrong person is not exactly a modern concept. His reign ended with the defeat by Prussia in 1870.

At that point, Napoleon III fell, and the Third Republic was instituted, lasting until 1940 with Hitler’s invasion during World War II. The period between the end of Napoleon III and Hitler was long and fundamental because this is when parties, trade unions, and secular public schools were consolidated. All these concepts involve representative politics, where the people vote for those who must sit in parliament through male suffrage.

The Rest of Europe?

While these two powers blazed the trail, the rest of Europe watched, still prisoners of monarchies that did not want to let go. Aside from England perfecting democracy and the French drama that led to a democracy—albeit a very fragile one—until the 19th century, monarchy was present everywhere and was often the true center of power.

Despite the thousand flaws London and Paris might have had, they were the inspiration. The people understood that monarchy was oppression and democracy the way to freedom. The 1800s was the century that laid the foundations for the final blow. The first stirrings of discontent and the first riots began. Monarchies were often seen as foreign entities of oppression that had to be driven out to make room for the voice of the people. In states like Italy, Austria, and Hungary, people began to fight for independence against the Bourbons and the Austro-Hungarians to obtain the independence they so desired. Unfortunately, the price paid was much blood spilled, and in many cases, the riots led to a grand total of nothing.

Only after the end of the First World War—an absurd war in how it broke out and how it was fought—did monarchies fall one after another. A new restoration was impossible, given the general malaise of a people who no longer wanted one man at the helm deciding for everyone. The people wanted to be self-determined and walk on their own. Finally, those independent states and those parliaments controlled by the people, so long desired, were created.

The Delegation of Discord.

Once the will of Athens achieved its definitive victory (like the Will of "D" in One Piece), the great dictatorships of the early 20th century fell, and the drama of World War II ended. Democracies and republics were established, and the people could finally think only about managing their country and living a happy life, knowing they had the right to speak and decide. A noble thought, but the reality was less so.

The concept of democracy is a truly wonderful thing. The idea that every citizen has equal rights and duties, as well as the right to speak and the opportunity to shape the State as they wish, is something beautiful. There is nothing better than being free and having one’s voice heard. However, the modern world had dynamics that did not exist in antiquity.

In Athens, direct management by the citizen was simple: there were very few of them, and they could all gather together and discuss. In the 20th century, every democratic nation counted millions of people. Try putting ten, twenty, fifty million people in the same place and letting them talk. First of all, no such place exists; second, how long would a debate last?

What was done was to follow the English example: voting by suffrage (this time universal, not just male) and electing delegates to represent a portion of the citizens and act in their interests.

Aside from France and England, for the rest of Europe, the concept of democracy was entirely new. The new democracies began to learn the concepts of representation, government, mandates, and so on. This is where the figure of the politician and popular associations called "parties" were born in their modern sense.

Being a politician began to become a profession, redefined over and over, giving the image of a full-time job, shifting from the original concept of "servant of the city." Parties became massive structures that found enormous wealth through donations and public funding.

Furthermore, the politician and the party very quickly discovered the concept of "convincing someone"—namely, the voters—to get themselves elected. From that moment, the art of "seduction" began to develop and refine in public rallies where the candidate confronts citizens, whether they are in favor or against. Here is the election campaign for you. At the end of the election campaign—which turned out to be a chaotic period lasting months—it would be decided who was the best "flatterer" through elections. Whoever reaches the majority wins and governs FOR EVERYONE.

The Essence of Politics.

It seems like an infallible system. Yes, as long as everyone does their part. When one side forgets to do what it must, everything breaks down. There are two enormous problems with this apparently infallible system.

This system of delegation has led us to think that politics is a "world apart." But if we strip politics of its palaces and complicated terms, what remains is a mechanism we all know very well: a working relationship.

The first problem is the delegation itself. There is a common joke: the politician only thinks of their own interests and doesn't do what they were voted for. This delegate could be a member of parliament or the prime minister. True, there have been various cases of politicians who thought of their own personal gain rather than the collective well-being. The question I ask myself now is: how? That is, why was a delegate allowed to do whatever they wanted?

And here comes the second problem. What people think of politics is that it is something far away, detached, and unreachable. It is absolutely not so. Politics is delegation, not absolute power.

We must absolutely change the vision of politics and look at it for what it is: an employment contract.

Let’s reason together. Imagine you are the president of a company and you need a CEO. What do you do? You look for the best people, you conduct various interviews, you evaluate them, and you choose the best one. Once the CEO starts working, they must do what they were appointed for, and the president monitors their work from above. If the CEO does well, they stay in office; otherwise, they are fired.

Politics is the same thing. We are the bosses (the presidents), and every four years we choose the party (the CEO) to manage the company (the State). The interview with the various candidates is the election campaign, the contract is the political program, and the appointment is the election. Once the party (the CEO) starts working, the citizens (the president) must monitor the work. If at the end of the legislature the party has done well, they are re-elected; otherwise, on to the next one.

This is politics. Nothing more, nothing less. There should be no parochialism or biased stances that prevent us from reasoning clearly and objectively about the country. Politics is not a football match where if your team loses, nothing changes. If the government loses, we all lose. We just need to analyze the facts and be spiritually and intellectually mature and adult enough to say: "The party I voted for, according to my idea of the State, has failed! It’s time to vote for another." Only with oversight and intellectual honesty can we reach heights of greatness never seen before!

This is the freedom for which English barons challenged a King, for which the French took to the barricades, and for which in Athens one risked being called an idiot. Voting for the best candidate to make the State the best version of itself, regardless of "color" or origin.

Final Reflection.

Throughout history, we have fought, shed blood, tears, and sweat to have the freedom to express our opinion and change what we do not find correct or just in the State. It is a sacrosanct right of the citizen to be part of that public debate that enriches everyone and improves the State as a very complex living identity, made of shades of every color.

In these first 35 years of mine, I have seen the "State" company miss one mark after another. I have often wondered whose fault it was. Today the answer seems clear: it belongs both to an incapable CEO, who stays in their place even if they do poorly, and to a President of the company who is sleeping, ignoring the CEO's bad faith and having stopped looking at the balance sheets.

We have surrendered the fight. Or rather, we haven't understood that now the fight is not with pitchforks, but with persistent demands. We made the mistake of delegating more than we should have. Now we passively watch politics, which has taken on enormous power, performing dramas and disasters, wondering why nothing changes. Change should come from the boss—meaning us—who have forgotten that the power and well-being of the State belongs to us and us alone.

Let’s stop treating politics like stadium cheering or a distant deity. It is a contract. It is work. And if the results don't come, the responsibility for the next "hiring" is ours alone. We are the masters. Shall we go back to the office?

M.