In contemporary definitions, society is defined as a group of unequal beings formed to meet common needs whereas; democracy is titled as a set of uneven demos (people) structured to meet their respective interest declaring equality as a realisable goal. ‘We the people’ is one of the modern tools to exploit the “people” itself by employing a complex matrix of democracy.
The dictum of ‘Democracy’ which claims to be or to establish “government of the people by the people and for the people” indeed intrigues the maxim of the masses. The history behind the concept of democracy is quite complex and is marked by a matrix of conceptions. This matrix creates plenty of scope for disagreement where conceptual problems exist within each element of the phrase of democracy: ‘Rule’? ‘Rule by’ and the ‘People’.
Varying democracies had been restraining the people in the name of class, colour, gender, race, affinity and identity, leaving a foggy state as to who is considered to represent ‘the people’? What kind and level of participation is envisaged from them? And finally, what conditions are assumed to be conducive for participation? Can the incentives and disincentives on one side and its costs and benefits on the other side be equal for all? At times varyingly white men, landed nobility, industrialists, feudal, upper class or only males were considered as ‘people’ having the right to vote while others were constrained legally or constitutionally. Despite this, all such democracies claimed to be equally democratic. Yet such sort of distinction between the people, the masters or rulers and the ruled had been made and is still being maintained invariably in all democracies. Almost everyone claims to be democrat or democratic no matter whether their views are on the left, centre or right. For instance, political regimes of all kinds say and do things which are radically different.
One also needs to know are the rulers and the ruled quite equal in their political nature? If yes, who is ruling whom? Are all ruling all? If no, are few ruling all? If so, are they ruling autocratically or aristocratically? Otherwise are many ruling all? If so, are they ruling politically or democratically? Yet in another way, if we all are people and are being ruled and ruling simultaneously, then it should be through some common instrument. One of these instruments can be a representation, again that might be a direct or indirect representation or proportional or commensurate representation. Whatever the case might be, ‘We the People’ should be quite cognisant about the whole milieu of democratic rule. Otherwise, we cannot understand the very nature of our rulers, their mechanism of ruling rather subduing us what to say about the range of possibilities of exploiting us or intriguing our interest in the name of us ‘the people’. I know one thing that none of our leaders fall into the definition of the people or the common man. Hence, they don’t qualify to be called or claim to be people.
This is simply why the policies formed by the ruling class are not made for the people. Rulers from any party, any community, ethnicity, ideology or institution belong to a particular cluster i.e. elite. They always protect their own vested interest and befool the people in the name of ideology, ethnic, sectarian or religious identities. As a matter of fact, their interests are common and this convergence of interest can better be served at the cost of the interests of the people. Thus here ‘We the People’ and ‘they the elite’ i.e. the ruling class fall apart. Realising your status is just like challenging or at least questioning the existing social contract and risking new thunderbolts assaulting your skull but it is inevitable either. Thus, the whole ruled class per se the people need to question the ruling class across the board. Mind it they have enough to answer for; the people need no answer from them.