27/06/2013
Tenured lecturer of Philosophy of Law at the University of Granada
Starting a few weeks ago, different members of the royal family are being received with disapproving whistles and boos; the queen suffered them in Murcia, Merida and Madrid, with the grievances taking place both at the opening of the Book Fair and in the National Auditorium. The prince and princess suffered similar derision at the Liceo of Barcelona. It is true that sometimes they were accompanied by members of the government, and that such events have occurred in different events. I would like to refer only to what happened at the Liceo and the National Auditorium, places that involve certain characteristics related to both the people who go there, as to the conditions required to attend events held there, such as a ticket or an invitation. All this differentiates them from what may happen in other areas, such as the street, open to everybody without restriction.
This distinction between places and the public attending them, would accept as sensible the assumption that the people attending sites such as the Liceo and the National Auditorium have a higher-than-average cultural baggage, therefore one could suspect that, in line with the above-mentioned, their education is not limited to music culture, but could be extended to other areas, including politics. It has been written that the events at the Liceo showed that the mob had trespassed its doors, something which could also be applied to the National Auditorium, after what happened there. However, I think this assessment is incorrect. I do not think that's what happened: It's not that the mob took both centres, but rather that the elite, at least a significant part of it, has become "mobbish", it has rejected to pursue criticism the way it should in a social and democratic Rule of Law, adopting instead a behaviour fitting people living an angry life. Such behaviour shows that an important part of society --rather because of the role it plays than because of its number-- has abandoned their due place in a reasonable society.
A state or way of social organisation is justified if it is rational, and it is so insofar as it is based on the general interest. Two elements allow us to qualify it as such: democracy and individual rights and freedoms. This entails recognising the people as sovereign, while accepting that each of these individuals has a number of inalienable rights and freedoms. That is, individuals as sovereign decide, but their decision must be in accordance with their rights, which undoubtedly requires respect for the rights of others.
Civil society has a prevalent place in the act of origin, given that it founded the State, lifting it above and beyond the general interest. However, its work does not end with that institutional setting, but should continue instead by taking care of the institutions it created, especially those that set the reform procedures, so that they are pursued in accordance with the established principles and regulations. Society's elites should play a prominent role in this caring after, educated to preserve the universal requirements of the inception. This can only be done by means of the elements enshrined in the institutional fabric and which respond to the demands of freedom and reason. It has nothing to do with a lack of manners.