My respects. RIP.
As if it was part of Halloween celebrations, the Greeks will be called to a Referendum (at least, until today’s news) to define whether they want to be rescued and sign a new deal, or not. Depending on the answer, the possible outcomes might be:
a) They continue under hard cut-down Economy measures, with no possibility of taking any action but those dictated from ECB and/or the franco-german coalition.
b) Greece is expelled from the EU, lose the euro as currency, and the country ends up left aside by the european community, to their own luck.
So, in fact, the true question underlying the referendum is whether they want to suicide themselves instantly with a shot in the head, or slowly and painfully, slashing their wrists.
What’s completely unusual and hard to justify is Government using the referendum to make people accountable of the decision, under the excuse of being democratic.
True democracy would have been to ask people through referendums, the creation and management of the whole debt from the very beginning.
The double standard of modern nations: “with the people, but without the people”.
I started early this week, to think about preparing a very innovative dinner, maybe on Friday, maybe on Saturday. I googled for a “revolutionary” meal. In fact what I wanted to cook was an authentic social revolution.
I searched throughout the news in the last months, getting at least a couple of promising options. I had made up my mind, and decided to move forward, inviting some friends, but then I realized I didnt have at least half of the required ingredients. It wouldn’t have been an issue, if the missing spices would be obtainable in my surroundings.
We are convinced or better said, persuaded, of being part of an organized and structured society. There’s no room for the unexpected, meaning by unexpected, evil. Society has, however, enough room for unpredictable events, which are somehow tolerated by citizens as a price to pay, for the benefits of civilization, should they come from within. It’s a “give and take” game, with more or less equality beyond some fluctuations and cycles, that had also been accepted as part of the deal.
But what the recent events in Egypt, Middle-East and Spain have shown, is that the revolutionary movements are driven more by a middle class that doesn’t want to lose the acquired privileges, rather than by a firm conviction that the world as we know it must stop.
We are still more like a flock of sheep being kept safe and alive for somebody else’s purposes and held together by means of few sheep dogs and even less shepherds. As long as we are taken out to pasture, we don’t really mind about how legitimate our democracies are. We can negotiate part of our freedom, if we still get our salaries, or else, unemployment benefit in return.
It’s annoyingly obvious we are still getting confused about what society is, what it ought to be, and even worse, what we aspire it to be. We constantly mix in a very rookie way, with absolutely no critical thought at all, our wishes or our points of view with what the “objective” reality is leaving unveiled. We are at the cutting edge of our respective professions, we handle everyday state of the art technology, but we still lack of sufficient severity, to become aware of where the true solutions to our society must be sought.
The most efficient organizations we are able to achieve today, at the beginning of the XXI century, are just small groups overlapping and having random connections according to each one’s interests at any time. There is still considerable amount of literature, trying to deal with the difficulty of working in teams, even when aligned behind common and agreed aims.
We cannot thus, think that there is full agreement on Democracy and procedure of governments, I’m sure any discussion would not resist the least analysis, without finding that the most basic concepts are becoming dissolved: Humanity, human rights, equality of opportunities, developing world, true democracy, faith, crisis, etc.
So, today I find more comfortable to describe Society as a mixture of individual aspects, erratic, like in a Brownian motion necessarily diverging due to each one’s interests, and with no true purpose of reflection on free will or the status of Autonomy in Society. This approach to a conception of Society, that will inevitably reject the idea of harmony, cohesion or brotherhood between people, is hard to swallow, but let’s face it, it’s more honest with the outcome of civilization and actual progress of mankind after 5.000 years of history, than the illusion of people having the power.
How can societies possibly work then?
How do they manage to result in a more or less predictable course?
We could say that the only consistency comes from the links between people, which are not laid in terms of empathy but convenience. Human beings are gregarious just because the other has something that may benefit me. Once I get what I want, my “brother”, my “neighbour” becomes disposable and new targets have to be searched.
The other reason is that power agents in society (being it leaders, government, corporations, bank system) settle a mainstream, while at the same time fixes a maximum diversion degree. Anytime we want, we can put to the test the fact that whatever or whoever might attempt to break out this unwritten and unsaid “envelope”, will immediately attract “forces of law”, but more effectively, will receive automatic rejection and skepticism of peers, like antibodies sent to attack strange “invaders” within it’s own body.
A revolution should be based on a situation that reached a critically unsustainable status, and since the new paradigms are already on sight, provokes immediate action. There is not a single second of time to be wasted under the same structure, once the right path has been found.
Civilization and revolution constitute an oxymoron.
We are currently undergoing a promissing period of change, or at least, so it seems.
There had been in the recent months, demonstrations in several parts of the world, in which, people gathered spontaneously in iconic public spaces, to send Governments a new message: “Not this way anymore”.
However I believe we need to stop and consider some essential issues before moving forward:
There’s a belief that the struggle is to regain a “true democracy”. This could or couldn’t be accurate, depending on what we call “Democracy”. If by Democracy we define a method by which people once a while express their preference by voting, and the outcome is the resulting government and opposition, then yes, we live in democratic states. But if we are more on the side that Democracy means Institutions running, and balance of power, inexistence of corruption, we must then admit, we are far from this idealistic situation.
The exercise of power, we must accept, has slightly varied along the last ….. two thousand years. Well, yes, nowadays the system is much more sophisticated, but not more people based. Can you name countries and states, that you could say live under a “true democracy”, in the terms defined in the previous paragraph?
This has been a topic since long ago. Politicians of any party being persuaded, stressed, tempted or even forced to legislate and govern more in representation of economic powers than in people’s, is a common picture. However, on one hand, the system eludes to accept the fact that 30% of citizen don’t vote as a symptom of rejection to politicians, and spreads the belief that it is more due to apathy and/or lack of interest. On the other hand, the rest of people, keep on voting under the self-explanatory relief that it’s the way to account for their own duty with Society.
Many aspects of our lives are changing thanks to the development of technology: commerce, work, travel, art, finance, medicine, R&D are being deeply influenced by the speed and scale that technology is imprinting to almost every human activity.
Although “power to the people”, has been an all-time claim, government in hands of people (i.e.: Direct Democracy) should have been virtually impossible to conceive and to carry out, throughout the history of Mankind.
Physical facts prevented this from happening: citizens live in territories, to make decisions they would need to meet in one single place, or at least, a system should be developed to create debate and allow every person to issue an opinion in order to determine the course of action. Like in a business company, the solution found was to entitle a few people to represent the interests of society.
But at this point, we need to clarify a significant difference in this parallelism: if a country, state or city are to be compared to a private company, citizens should stand for the “shareholders” and not for the “employees” in the orgchart. We simply just CANNOT GET CONFUSED ABOUT THESE CONCEPTS.
Through connectivity, social media, speed and scale, awareness of people potential strength and the possibility of designing social strategies without participation of political parties, technology is opening a vast field right before our eyes. It has already done so, in other aspects of our lives.
Maybe it’s time to integrate technology into politics and society governance.
Los políticos (y por tanto todos aquellos a quienes respaldan o por quienes son respaldados) están “blindados” por el sistema electoral.
Es, por tanto, lo primero que hay que atacar!
Hay una contradicción interna entre la propuesta de modificar la ley electoral e ir a votar en menos de 24hs.
La primera demanda de una asamblea popular debería ser, entonces, la suspención de las elecciones del 22M y exigir nuevos estatutos sociales, en los cuales se incorporen todas propuestas
No se sostiene una sistema electoral del Siglo XIX, con los nuevos paradigmas de la sociedad. No se puede, no se debe, realizar ni UNA SOLA ELECCIÓN MÁS, bajo el actual sistema.
SUSPENSIÓN DE LAS ELECCIONES 22M!
El lunes ya será tarde.
Like in most of countries today, politicians (and all those who they back or by who they are backed), are “armored” by the present electoral method (D’Hondt).
To develop a true democracy, this method is, therefore, the first thing we must attack.
Representativeness, if to be maintained, must be guaranteed in terms of proportion.
There is an internal contradiction in the proposal of reforming the electoral method and having to vote under it, within 24hs.
The first claim of a popular Assembly, ought to be then, the suspension of the 22-M elections in Spain, and demand new social statutes, in which to include all the supported proposals.
A method like the current, having been developed in the XIX century, is UNSUSTAINABLE, under the scope of the NEW SOCIETY PARADIGMS.
There couldn’t be, SHOULDN’T BE a SINGLE ELECTION MORE, under the current method.
SUSPENSION OF THE 22-M ELECTIONS.
Monday will be too late.