There are many definitions of democracy.
So which one should we take seriously?
More importantly: If we really want to solve the problems, through which definition of democracy should we develop a demand?
Because the meaning we attach to democracy determines what we see as a problem and what we want to change.
If we define democracy only in terms of the ballot box, the problem is reduced to the fairness of elections.
If we see democracy only as freedom of expression, the issue is confined to the limits of being able to speak.
But if we define democracy in its simplest and truest form as the freedom to seek rights, then everything changes.
Because this definition leads us directly to the question:
What is the greatest injustice in a society?
The answer is clear: Exploitation.
The fact that human beings cannot own all the value they produce, that they have to surrender their labor for the benefit of others in order to survive... This is not only an economic issue; it is also the most fundamental violation of rights.
So we have to come to this conclusion:
The more exploitation there is in a society, the less democracy there is.
Because it is a contradiction to talk about the freedom to claim rights where the greatest injustice cannot be eliminated.
Today, the discussion is being deliberately taken somewhere else. Injustices are talked about, yes... But always in terms of results.
Are wages low? Let's raise them.
Is there poverty? Let's help.
Is income unfair? Let's share better.
What all these proposals have in common is this:
All remain in the sharing space.
But the reality is this: Injustice in sharing is the result of injustice in production.
If people are exploited while they are producing, that is, if a part of the resulting value is systematically taken away from them, no matter what you do in terms of sharing, that injustice will not disappear. It only changes form, is postponed and reappears.
Therefore, the search for justice in sharing is temporary as long as it does not touch the injustice in production.
Today, you can raise workers' wages as much as you want.
Make it a hundred billion, make it even higher.
If that worker still does not receive the full value he or she has created in the production process, that is, if he or she continues to produce surplus value, that balance will be disturbed after a short period of time.
Prices go up.
Inflation kicks in.
Debt mechanisms work.
And after a few months, the balance, which at first seemed to have been restored, falls apart again.
Because you have corrected the result, not the cause.
It is at this point that the question of democracy becomes clear.
If democracy is the freedom to seek rights, then the question must be asked:
Can people really claim rights against exploitation in the production process?
Most of the time, no.
Because the system excludes the greatest injustice from discussion. People can talk about their wages, discuss taxes, criticize benefits... But when they touch the relations of production, they hit an invisible limit.
This is the real limit of democracy.
There is freedom to seek justice, but the most basic injustice is excluded from this freedom.
So what is happening today is a clear contradiction:
On the one hand they say there is democracy,
exploitation continues on the other side.
But these two states cannot coexist.
Because where there is exploitation, the search for rights is incomplete.
Democracy is incomplete where the search for rights is missing.
Let's say it more clearly:
Where there is exploitation, democracy is either incomplete or an illusion.
This is the reason for the injustices that are constantly reproduced in society today. Injustice is not only in the results, but in the source, that is, in the sphere of production. And as long as that source remains unchanged, no correction can be permanent.
So it is not just about fairer distribution; it is about fairer production.
Because if there is no justice in production, justice in sharing cannot be sustained.
And if there is exploitation in production, democracy withers before it can take root.
It is time to ask the right question:
Which democracy?
If the answer is really freedom to seek rights,
then we have to look where that freedom is most needed: in the sphere of production.
As long as we don't look, what we are talking about is not democracy; it is its shadow.
And shadows are no substitute for reality.