Undemocratic democracy

This is what we get when we start to dig deeper in trenches in trying to defend our own individual causes, either as persons, groups or sectors.  The more specific the issue is, the harder we defend, as if the particular point we are fighting for is the only one that matters in the whole world.  Oftentimes, it's the general public which is caught in the crossfire.  Either the majority really doesn't care about the concerns argued about, or they get inexplicably affected by the outcome.  Or even the collateral damage of the skirmishes.

When Abraham Lincoln proposed for a new government "of the people, by the people and for the people," the very basis of modern democracy was laid down, although the concept started as early as the 5th century B.C., in Athens and other Greek city-states.  In essence, democracy advocates that all men are created equal and shall have equal rights and say in the governance of the state.  Easier said than done, since man, it seems, always wants to be better than the next, and would strive to have more, at the expense of the rest.  But the concept of democracy always institutes the greater good for the greater number.

It is this very idea of equity where sectoral agendas are fought.  First there were always "spatial" disparities, and hence, territorial disagreements leading to wars (still is, one just need to watch CNN for an hour, will all the killings and probable near-genocide in different parts of the world).  But the fight for individual rights crept in to sectoral levels, and most especially to minorities and the disadvantaged.  Which is perfectly alright, at the concept level because we will always have to protect the weakest among us for democracy to succeed.  Equality will not happen if a few are stronger than the others.  But this skewed and overly prominent defence of the weak sometimes get overboard to the point that it threatens the whole.

In the search for the ideal democracy we become undemocratic.  One scan on the social media in the internet and we get entangled with all sorts of causes mostly in defence of particular sectoral concerns.  Foremost nowadays is that of the environment, and there are many - trees, climate change, plastics, whales, threatened species, wetlands, polar bears, and others - the list goes on.  Then there are the socio-economic human issues - the women, the elderly, children, senior citizens, persons with disabilities, solo parents, anything that set the subsector apart from the mainstream population.  We have specific laws crafted for them and we even have provisions for "discounts" and other privileges.

Cause-oriented movements will tend to highlight the need for special attention to these sectoral groups and concerns and there is nothing wrong with that.  It is the excess energy spent in fighting for advances that oftentimes places the main population and the majority at a certain disadvantage.  For one, the general public certainly cannot claim being disadvantaged, that is the right of the minority.  But one cannot prevent two sectoral concerns to clash, or even more, and when they do, who takes care of the rights of the general public?