As a self-destruct system. 
This reflection comes from these past two years and the imaginary Italian (as well as the experience of the viewer-citizen) over the last 5-6 years. We intend to primarily as "regime" is a generic term referring to an ethical status of a nation that is democratic or authoritarian (so the system can be a parliamentary democracy, a popular dictatorship, a monarchy, etc.). I was interrogated at length about what are the "terms in the game" for life, the life and health of a system. I concluded (without any study of political science) with the reflection of similar assessments in some of the basic economic theory, applied ethics.
We are therefore in my opinion much in gambling in a state that makes the difference. But identifying the life of a regime as a "life cycle", we could draw a bit like a parabola. Being on a sheet, only and exclusively in two dimensions, we must abstract from these essential items only.
I have identified three , which are the fundamental elements involved in any scheme: The command, the recipient and the message. Simplifying these very general notions we might call them the majority leader, the citizen-subject-propaganda and communication.
The "Chief" may be a dictator in a dictatorship, a king in a monarchy, a government in a democracy, whether parliamentary or authoritarian. The balance (which represents the degree of tilt of our parabola) is in the consistency between the policy of the head (and his real identity), the communication of that policy and the satisfaction of the people. If this balance remains over time, a very flat parabola ensure a shared status quo for a long time. But it is still a parabola, and the downturn is inevitable. Politics is made of compromises and propaganda
(identifying propaganda in our system as the communication gap between identity politics and committed message to citizens, thus inconsistent with the identity withheld from the subject line). Over time is inevitable as the propaganda is initially used as a bonding where the policy does not work, up to the critical point of stalemate, the time that people recognize the lies and bias of information (and therefore the inconsistency of the third factor above above). So the people began to complain, to clear your mind of any political bias and want more transparency and equality. Here is the ultimate choice of the "regime":
the three factors are no longer agree . Or change the head or change the message, or change the people. The people can not change if not in the long run (and this can be thought and thought the television in the last 15 years, for example) but only up to a certain limit. The other two factors, once understood the basic inconsistency of the system must change together.
Now, the West has become democratic because it has recognized the ability of democracies to change background factors "head and shout" when it is deemed necessary to ensure a parable of their regime as long as possible. In some states (think of the history of twentieth-century), instead they forced our hand to change over time through the factor people (mainly but not only)
control media (remember the radio regime of Mussolini). Who chose the first route stretched the life cycle of the status quo, who chose him second permanently shortened. In some cases you could not make it too short with a clever game to transform and blackmail, but the road is still marked.
The parable then rises and reaches the point of stalemate. Citizens protest and power, however, made (Dictatorship, democracy, monarchy, etc.) must find a solution
NOT censorship, but dedicated to listen and to compromise (note: true compromise, not through the front of the same communication that the people have already identified as not credible). If it fails, is the descent. If the squares democratic (many, regardless of majority or minority politics formed) are left "only" the fall begins, and is even more sudden as the severe discomfort. From now on, shoot
urbi et orbi propaganda is a partial remedy and inconsiderate, as more violent and will be incurable the fall. If citizens are left alone their problems, thanks "maybe" an economic downturn, or near a conflict, no matter that the element "message" may be reassuring or propionate as the incredible true consent to the king / chief / government must first understand that if the descent began, everything becomes transient. Do not put a piece, without means to attract new horizons vent non-democratic (in democracies) and actual violence where the regime is authoritarian. Both the long years of Mussolini as fast as the moments of tumult and violence that led to his death. If indeed the system of a state repudiates war and violence, not the people but the institutions themselves and in particular the element "head" are responsible order and dialogue.
The discomfort is never the son of a whim. The institutional right messages, the real ones, healthy ones, can lead to a distenzione. Propaganda only exacerbating the curve of the parabola.
Now, it is for the reader to adapt this model to the situation of any government / state and of course Italy in 2009, at a time beyond which frankly views intimidates all those democratic and intelligent. If I say it all, in a moment of tension is considering censoring the internet and to indicate the enemy as responsible for the violence. Stop the spiral, and that those responsible think to flatten the parable, accepting once and for all that you are now in decline, an increase of speed. The popular consensus and stability of a country are not so rigidly associated, especially when the propaganda, as mentioned, is by definition not in line with the identity of the head. Mussolini has to teach us, except that increased democratic, and almost to the last democratically administered with the consent (implied or absence) of the people. And perhaps he was more consistent messages and actions. But we know the consequences. Doing some more comparisons that can not be done in 2009, the system examined above, but fully
questionable, for those who share remains the same. We talk to stop the spiral. Well, but after a civil and democratic renewal in the parable, restoring coherence to the system head-citizen message.
If (for example, and said that I am not hate anyone) a party agrees to talk to the head and continues to do so without compromise that created the problem (remember the beginning of the last term) is not in
"enemies" that find the answer to the question "but why do some people hate me."
Andrea Tuscano
