Democracy: the Rule of Nobodies

Morteza Dehghan-nejhad


In the article Oral history, Nobody’s History, in issue No. 10, I talked about the people who make history but their identities remain anonymous. The most significant and miraculous thing ever happened to nobody is the development of the concept “democracy” which in its Latin origin means the rule of demos. Demos in Latin mean common people, the people which Quran calls them nas. In this article I engage with the role of nobody in political history.   

Nobodies are everywhere in the field of politics. They constitute the texture of each political order. The formation of socio-political structures is dependent upon the existence of these nobodies. They inhabit these structures as soldiers, laborers, servants and, slaves. They were only recognized by their occupations. Their subjectivity was recognized only in terms of their service to the king. This is why they were considered as a shapeless mass throughout the history. The history of their lives was written from this point of view. And, their names were what the king chose for them.

The presence of nobodies could be felt only if they died for their king. Labels such as servant, devotee and, slave come from those times.

Looking at all the movements and rebellions at the course of history, one realizes that, in many of them the nobodies were actually fighting only to be recognized; even if it meant that they had to die in the battle field. They believed that if they died for their land and their king, their name and identity would become immortal. Their biggest fear was that of dying without ever being recognized. Nobody is like a passenger on a train without a ticket, a passenger who is afraid that the attendant might catch him anytime. Being nobody means having no identity. Nobody suffers from loneliness and is terrified all the time. Therefore, nobody reaches out to the ruling power or other groups in order to be able to fight his fears; to feel safe. He tries to claim a sense of identity for himself so that he can justify his being. Of course, only the ones who have not become absolute nobodies have such concerns for their identity.
Nobody saw his destiny identical to that of the ruler in order to have a sense of identity. This was the mere thing which gave meaning to the life of nobody. They were like zeros who only had a voice if they stood together. In such a society, the only identity recognized was that of collective identity.

Individuality was meaningless. God was the only individual. The subjectivity of nobody was only realized with having a master to conform to. Without a master, nobody resembled a lost animal which belonged to nowhere. Therefore, in order to set free from being nobody, nobody did anything. He became a soldier, a veteran, a victim, a devotee, an extra, a believer, etc.
The transformation of political orders in modern times is the result of the struggles of nobodies to assert their identity. Nobodies, tried to claim their identity through establishing unions and parties so that they could redefine themselves. A new mode of consciousness was developed which gave nobodies a chance to be heard. Nobodies, tended to inhabit collective lives. They now believed that if the hierarchy of power could be subverted, equality would be achieved. This new mindset resulted into a new political order which was premised on the idea of a democratic government. According to this framework, all citizens, regardless of their ethnic background, language, religion and material possessions enjoyed equal rights. This mindset asserts that no one is different and everyone should be equal before the law. All should be free to express their opinions. Even if these opinions are against the dominant opinions and that of the elite; even if they sounded absurd, people had the right to express them. A class conscious nobody, believed that the elite were not born privileged and rich. For whatever thing they possessed, others lost many. Along with the rise of this consciousness, nobodies started to try to make their voices heard. They began to talk about the hardships of a mine worker down in the mine; the pathology of education from the point of view of a teacher; and the problems with the education system from the point of view of a student. In other mindsets such as patriarchal mindsets or elitist ones, no one cares about equality of all people because the rights of nobodies are not recognized. Democracy is a form of government in which all enjoy equal rights to political leadership. The concept of democracy was born in response to aristocracy and oligarchy. For this reason, the elite and the privileged of the time were against any democratic encounters.
The official history usually consists of the history of the ruling class (aristocrats and oligarchies). Such classes had the means to hire professional historians to set documents to authenticate their rightfulness. To construct such history, or any other history for that matter, there are always enough means. Document is actually an instrument, produced by the official institutions affiliated with the ruling power. Many documentation centers today produce any document in return for fast money. (See for example the issue of the Persian Gulf naming dispute and the documents published by the National Geography)

Who recorded the voice of people whose needs and desires were silenced by the dominant voice? Nobody was basically, historically denied. When Rome, repressed the rebellion of slaves and slaughtered them, the official historians in Rome, considered it as a victory. But, was there anyone to tell the other side of the history? The slaves were invisible. They were simply slaves who had to kill one another to entertain the people of Rome. If they refused to do so, they had to die. No text was to be produced about this. Even if some documents were there, they were considered to be unauthentic. 

Now, the only way to challenge this dominant narrative of history is to recognize the memoirs of those who lived in the hidden spheres of the society, who suffered and engaged in the lowest occupations, who were humiliated and, deprived form their civil rights. The first and foremost condition of such historiography is freedom of speech. Unfortunately, when it comes to historiography of such classes, there is usually a vicious cycle. In the sense that, there is no people’s history because there is no freedom for such history to be written. When there is no freedom for these histories to be written consequently, there can be no people’s history anymore. In other words, the type of political order somehow defines the mode of historiography. In a democratic society, everyone is “someone” and every “someone” has the right to question the other. Everyone has the right to question the rulers. However, in a non-democratic society, people are divided into two categories: the ones who have the right to do whatever pleases them without the fear of being questioned and, the ones called nobodies whose presence can never be asserted. Therefore, the dominant, official history needs to be revisited in order to engage with the people’s history or a people oriented history or nobody’s history. Perhaps, the production of such history can provide the grounds for the emergence of democratic political orders in which the mass are the leading actors. Perhaps, in this way, we can accept the fact that the life of each person, is worthy of being documented; by virtue of the person being a human. For that, without man, power, government, and nation are mere meaningless concepts.

Translated by: Jairan Gahan



 
Number of Visits: 4384


Comments

 
Full Name:
Email:
Comment:
 
Book Review

Kak-e Khak

The book “Kak-e Khak” is the narration of Mohammad Reza Ahmadi (Haj Habib), a commander in Kurdistan fronts. It has been published by Sarv-e Sorkh Publications in 500 copies in spring of 1400 (2022) and in 574 pages. Fatemeh Ghanbari has edited the book and the interview was conducted with the cooperation of Hossein Zahmatkesh.

Is oral history the words of people who have not been seen?

Some are of the view that oral history is useful because it is the words of people who have not been seen. It is meant by people who have not been seen, those who have not had any title or position. If we look at oral history from this point of view, it will be objected why the oral memories of famous people such as revolutionary leaders or war commanders are compiled.

Daily Notes of a Mother

Memories of Ashraf-al Sadat Sistani
They bring Javad's body in front of the house. His mother comes forward and says to lay him down and recite Ziarat Warith. His uncle recites Ziarat and then tells take him to the mosque which is in the middle of the street and pray the funeral prayer (Ṣalāt al-Janāzah) so that those who do not know what the funeral prayer is to learn it.

A Critique on Oral history of War Commanders

“Answering Historical Questions and Ambiguities Instead of Individual-Organizational Identification”
“Oral history of Commanders” is reviewed with the assumption that in the field of war historiography, applying this method is narrated in an advancing “new” way, with the aim of war historiography, emphasizing role of commanders in creation of its situations and details.