But democracy is not a static political form. Three key elements are democracy as a dynamic system: the institutions of democracy (parliament, elections, constitutions, rule of law, etc.), citizenship (the internalized sense of individual dignity, rights and freedom associated with formal membership of the political community) and public opinion (or open «space» for public debates and deliberations). On the basis of these three elements, popular domination can be exercised through a process of formation of the democratic will. A secondary act in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is about the relationship between the leader of the apes, Caesar, and Koba, whose life as a victim of medical experiments leads him to hate people and question Caesar`s attempts to find reconciliation with them. Until the moment of contact, monkeys are able to govern themselves by a moral code and mutual agreement on decisions. It is an ideal and peaceful pre-political society. A central principle of apes` moral identity was that «monkeys do not kill monkeys,» unlike those whose society disintegrated into violent conflict after the global pandemic. However, when Koba`s betrayal of Caesar leads to a war with men that threatens the survival of the apes, Caesar is forced to make an impossible decision: break the moral code and kill Koba, or risk further betrayals and other discords that undermine his ability to lead. Caesar`s solution is to kill Koba, but only after making a crucial statement that keeps the moral code of the apes intact: «Koba not monkey!» He explains in essence that the transgression of the koba monkey way of life was so monstrous that he could no longer be considered a monkey and therefore could be killed.
What is at stake in the revolution, therefore, is also the biggest question Max Weber asked about political action. In a way, the question of the role of politics in an entire way of life questions how an entire way of life is created. «We found ourselves in a deadlock quite early in the discussion because they were not ready to listen to our arguments and did not make counter-proposals.» As has already been said, power relations usually refer to a kind of strategic relationship between rulers and masters: a series of practices by which states try to govern the lives of their citizens, managers try to control the work of their workers, parents try to guide and raise their children, dog owners try to train their dogs, doctors try to manage the health of their patients, Chess players try to control the traits of their opponents, individuals try to keep their own lives in order, etc. Many of these places of exercise of power are outside of our normal conception of power because they do not seem «political» – they do not raise fundamental questions or disagreements about an «entire way of life» – and because the relations between power and resistance can be very fluid within them. There is a gift and a catch between the attempts of the rulers to direct the behavior of the masters and the attempts of the masters to oppose these instructions. In many cases, it is difficult to think of relationships as power relations unless they become firm or authoritarian. . . .