Be it a crematorium or a hospital, a crowd or public transport – political analysis is going on everywhere. Social media has made everyone an instant commentator. On the surface, this activism seems lively. However, a serious flaw is clearly visible in it – a lack of depth and responsibility.

We live in a time where politics is present everywhere. Everyone has an opinion, a reaction to every event, a comment on every decision. However, when it comes to taking responsibility, a strange emptiness is visible all around. Those who comment on big issues are not able to show the courage to stop the government mismanagement around them, the delays in service delivery, or the shortcomings in public works under construction. This contradiction is not a coincidence, but a sign of a serious crisis developing within our democratic society.

The irony of today is that people have neither completely distanced themselves from politics nor are they connected to a healthy political consciousness. In fact, society has lived between two extremes at the same time. On one hand, the claim of being ‘apolitical’, on the other hand, ‘hyper-political’. In the first, there is distance, indifference and disillusionment with politics. In the second, there is constant reaction, commentary and excitement on every issue.

On the surface, these two trends appear to be opposite to each other. However, when we look deeper, these are two forms of the same problem – the lack of conscious civic consciousness.

The claim that ‘I don’t care about politics’ has now become a myth. However, this distance is not real – it is only a distance from participation, not from influence.

Even if a person stays away from politics, politics does not stay away from him. The state’s policies, power structures and decision-making processes continue to affect his daily life. The claim of apoliticality is actually a symptom of distrust in politics. It is a sign of a legitimacy crisis, where citizens' trust in political parties, processes, and institutions is weakening. However, there is no impartiality in it. It is a kind of passive acceptance, in which citizens withdraw from their role and leave the decision-making process to others. From the perspective of political theory, this is a prohibition of active citizenship.

When citizens declare themselves separate from politics, they unknowingly make power unchallenged. Thus, 'apoliticality' is not neutrality, but rather a tacit acceptance of the status quo. However, the problem is not limited to apoliticality. Its other extreme form is hyperpolitics. In such a trend, politics begins to dominate every area of ​​life to the point that the individual becomes involved in commentary and reaction more than his profession, competence, and responsibility. Superficial opinions and constant reactivity become dominant instead of deep political understanding.

Today, social media is turning every person into a ‘permanent commentator’. As a result, the distinction between knowledge and ignorance has begun to blur. Availability of information and knowledge are not the same thing. However, in contemporary society, the rapid availability of information has created a dangerous illusion – information is knowledge. There is a growing tendency to consider superficial information about political events as analysis. This not only weakens political understanding, but also erodes the intellectual standards of society.

 Every person has an opinion, every event has a reaction, every decision has a comment . There is a similarity between apoliticality and hyper-politics. Both provide a way to avoid responsibility. An apolitical person says, ‘I am away from politics, so I am not responsible.’ An hyper-political person says, ‘I am speaking on every issue, I have fulfilled my role.’ However, democracy does not work only by giving feedback. It works through responsible participation.

This is where the concept of ‘dopamine government’ becomes important . A dopamine government is a government whose power comes not from long-term ideological consensus, but from continuously created excitement, fear, anger, entertainment and digital visibility . Such a government sees citizens not as ‘thinking political beings’, but as ‘consumers who respond instantly’ . In this sense, dopamine government is not just a political style, but a psycho-political structure . It requires neither a deep political culture, nor an aware citizen . It requires either an indifferent audience or an excited crowd . Because in both of these cases, the real elements of democracy, conscious and responsible and active citizen participation, become weak . The apolitical person ceases to be an active citizen, he begins to become only a ‘political spectator’ . He starts seeing politics like a cricket match, where there is excitement, support, opposition, but no participation.

An apolitical society is the most favorable ground for elected authoritarian tendencies. When citizens distance themselves from politics, parliament weakens, the ruling party becomes inactive, the level of public debate declines, and the accountability of the government decreases. Democratic processes begin to be limited to formalities. In such a situation, the ‘individual’ becomes bigger than the ‘institution’. Even though the structure of democracy appears to be maintained, power gradually becomes concentrated in the hands of a limited number of people. This is the basic character of elected authoritarianism.

Apoliticality and hyper-politics— both transform a person from a ‘citizen’ into a ‘crowd.’ An apolitical person becomes a passive part of the crowd, an hyper-political person is part of the noise of the crowd. But, a citizen is someone who does not just speak, he understands, participates, and bears responsibility. The soul of democracy resides in this active and responsive consciousness. Dopamine politics gradually turns debate into spectacle. Politics becomes less of a ‘policy’ and more of a ‘continuous performance’. Every event is transformed into material that produces emotional reactions. As a result, even serious criticism begins to get lost in the noise. This situation can be called ‘noise saturation’, where the voices are so numerous that even the truth begins to seem like just another opinion.

Another serious impact of this is seen in professional life. When a person starts becoming more of a ‘commentator’ than their primary identity, then it is natural for professional quality to decline. Efficiency and honesty in one’s work are also democratic actions, because strong societies are built from strong professional institutions. The strategy of the dopamine government is to keep citizens constantly stimulated. This turns society into a ‘reactive society’, where reaction is more important than thinking. Such a government ignores the opposition. It portrays criticism as ‘work-resistance’ and seeks to build a direct emotional connection with the people.

However, the real power of democracy lies not in emotional excitement, but in the conscience of citizens. Therefore, the biggest democratic struggle today is not just a struggle to change power, but also a struggle to re-establish civic consciousness. Politics needs to be understood not only as an event, but as a process and structure. A culture of speaking less, but speaking based on logic and facts should be developed. Instead of reacting to every issue, responsible participation is necessary where one can contribute.

In fact, politics is not only within parliament. It is present in the invisible structure of a person’s daily life. The street a person walks on, the hospital he gets treatment at, the high prices he experiences in the market, the places he wanders for employment – ​​behind all of these, the state’s policies, priorities, and power relations are active. Politics is basically the process of distributing resources, opportunities, and rights.

A dopamine government is a government whose power comes not from long-term ideological consensus, but from continuously constructed excitement, fear, anger, entertainment and digital visibility. Therefore, to say ‘politics has no meaning in my life’ is often to ignore the deep social impact of politics. The real test of democracy is not during elections, but in the daily behavior of citizens. If citizens either start staying away from politics or limit politics to superficial reactions, then democracy gradually becomes hollow. Therefore, the greatest need today is to get out of the extremes of apoliticism and hyper-politicization. Otherwise, we may be pushed towards a society where everyone speaks, everyone responds. But, no one takes responsibility. This may be the most dangerous situation after the Panchayat system.

If the House of Representatives is weakened in the name of ‘doing the work’, selective retaliation is taken or immunity is granted in the name of ‘anti-corruption’, and party-affiliated MPs are instructed to remain silent in the name of ‘party discipline’, then it may not be a strengthening of democracy, but a process of democratic contraction. The success of democracy is not ensured by the constitution, elections or institutions alone. The real power to keep it alive lies in the consciousness, self-restraint and public responsibility of the citizen. Where the citizen is limited to a mere reacting creature, democracy gradually starts losing its soul. Because the essence of democracy is not only in freedom of speech, but in the culture of speaking with truth and conscience.

A person is not complete just by being part of the crowd. The crowd is driven by momentary excitement, the citizen by long-term consciousness. Slogans are enough for the crowd, the citizen needs logic. When excitement becomes more influential than patience in society, reaction than study and demonstration more than conscience, then that is a worrying situation from the perspective of democracy. The current challenge is the expansion of a social psychology where people appear free but stop thinking. Dopamine politics keeps people busy, but does not deepen them. It excites citizens, but does not make them responsible. Thus, politics gradually shifts from a discussion of public interest to a game of appearances, emotions, and momentary sensations.