DEBATE ON THE FUTURE OF THE LEFT and political disaffection
Meritxell Batet, Barcelona, \u200b\u200bUPEC, 16 July 2010.
The institution of politics is a human institution, such as friendship, marriage and family ... There are divorces, separations and quarrels between friends ... but this does not mean we have to destroy the institution, in fact, married people every day, every day we make friends, every day we plan to share life with someone else. With the policy is the same, we can not put away with the institution and we are wrong when we refer to it as an abstract alien to us.
Now we talk a lot of disaffection, but honestly I think there is not so. I mean that Catalonia is more or less like all the surrounding countries.
is important that all the surveys also show a fundamental fact: the discrediting and criticism aimed in any case, the politicians, however, there is a sign of confidence and support democratic institutions. Of course the danger, as pointed Wolin, is to have a "democracy without citizens," who works for the inertia of existing institutions ... will work, therefore, avoid this.
So the first conclusion I wanted to point out is that there is so tired, that is, there is so much hostility, and in any case, perhaps something that cyclical changes with small changes circumstantial (such as the appearance thrills or a leader who made decisions that motivate a massive vote, etc.). Two
data to consider
respect and trust in democratic institutions is not always so
eg Latin America (see Latinobarometer appears on the preference for a dictatorial regime if it leads to a direct improvement in my life)
also varies greatly confidence in democratic institutions depends on the policy option (see statistical CIS): if one is left and 10 right-wing is the percentages are the following distribution: 80%
1-2 3-4 88
% 7-8 72% 90-10 54%
In any case, we do not (yet) and we must avoid is an institutional crisis: the indifference, the moment has to do with the actors and more with an ideology. It remains the right strategy, the talk of disaffection. It is them who should promote further distancing of the citizens with the public.
This means that we should not worry or do not have to address the issue? Not. The debates are shows like this. Are necessary and useful to raise awareness.
part of our ideology, the ideology of the left, improving the quality of democracy and citizen participation in public life. Because we know that nothing is eternal and even think we are a consolidated democracy (they are) does not mean that we should not care. Think of Stefan Zweig's book yesterday when the world tells us how his world a virtually disappeared overnight. Why do we care and we just left formations which have more conscience
Because democracy and the rule of law is the most valuable and we can not do without it because it is what gives us the freedom (Cicero).
For consistency with the discourse of values \u200b\u200band principles that we are advocating. For more legitimacy
third front.
To prevent disaffection from society.
Allow me to point that there are many and complex factors that help citizens feel more distant and is the confluence of these factors that cause it. It is never a simple answer or simple (such as the electoral system) and is not circumstantial, own or Catalonia.
But there is one combination particularly harmful because they increase the feeling of estrangement: Lack of Transparency
exemplary
Honesty & Authenticity
only concerned political parties for votes
+ media only concerned about profit and loss account
The left has a civic responsibility to develop advanced societies in the XXI century. Her, our main task is to combat indifference and neutralization of the desire for justice and social change that weigh on the day of our societies. We must be able to move the epic work by these values.
is no doubt that the economic crisis is currently the main concern of the left. But we must be clear that this priority, say material must be accompanied by an intense civic. Given the difficulties need more and better participation of public institutions, precisely to prevent the severity of the crisis causes:
1. a social divide between democratic politics and the new disadvantaged by loss of welfare.
2. that this gap does not lead to a sharp divide suffering due to a collective aligned with a climate of public indifference that we dragging on the shoulders of democratic societies for many years, long before the economic crisis occurred.
The sum of these factors can lead to a dangerous political equation for the future of democracy and maintaining the structure justice built in recent decades: the sum of indifference and social and economic marginalization can lead hostility to democracy, or put another way, can lead to entry populism. This tipping point is really serious.
Now as I said, I think there was always disenchantment or indifference or abstention:
When politicians had better opinion by the citizens?
Whenever there was no public interest in public matters, nothing in public.
And again there are significant differences in positions (we have seen the survey of CIS without going further).
So
The Left: We put emphasis on civic engagement, the assumption of responsibility by the people, the quality of citizenship and its role in society beyond the individual. The
right: they have this concern and this target as a policy to govern when developing ... exacerbates the danger and so perhaps now more talk of disaffection when the sociological phenomenon becomes political strategy, when it becomes an instrument in the hands of a political option -> ol'extrema the ultra right it also has the complicity of certain media. The maximum known neoliberal "state and the market is the problem solving" this exercise aims to discredit rain of the public: the idea neoliberal lives in a paradox: that politics is still an option actually anti-political and this is populism.
can make another approximation: Vector
liberal civil rights that individuals premium obligation of the State to respect them and protect them. (Paradoxically, also boosted by the left, acknowledging the new civil rights and gay marriage, or improving the law on abortion or accelerating the process of divorce ...)
Vector Republican, that emphasizes the political rights of citizens who, in exercising their public autonomy, are called to exercise these rights must also participate in the governance of society. In developing
of European democracies in general individuals have more dump in the deployment and enjoyment of their private autonomy in exercising their public autonomy compromised. Probably from public institutions has not been promoted enough Republican vector.
This imbalance between the components of liberal and republican democracy is added to the discredit of the public and fed with everything we already have the breeding ground of political disaffection.
values \u200b\u200bof rationality and participation linked to a virtuous republican discourse of affirmation of an idea of \u200b\u200bpositive freedom must be elements of change and transformation that the left claims in a context as I have outlined.
Rationality, because the Enlightenment and the old maximum Kantian emancipatory struggle so that men reach a critical and conscious of age must be an essential instrument of political action. Men
we should continue talking in the XXI century as citizens and that means invoking the reason (not the viscera), appealed to the best of themselves (not to lower feelings) and use a rational narrative structure in the stories we stand politically. This is not to say or defend what people want to hear, but what we think is best for defending the general interest.
feelings and the image is not a goal but a tool for a rational discourse with rational purpose.
Indifference and populism often born of the resentment that people feel it is treated when the object is a kind of emotional pim-pam-pum, that manipulates and uses object-sensitive consumer and marketing policy ... to be reduced when customers or consumers.
participation, because based on what you've said we have to add that democracy develops in the forum, the public debate in daily presence in the affairs which define the general interest. Deliberative democracy is participation (Habermas) and that means language, intelligent exchange of arguments and contrast using the same reasoning which participated comparable and equal dignity of the participants is a sine qua non of the process.
Respect for others; the measure, which allows the coexistence must be present in our debates. In fact, Parliament is the temple of freedom of expression, speech, debate and, instead, certain words may be cut. Moreover, even the newspaper can disappear session and no one thinks that this infringes on freedom of expression. Why? Because we know that freedom of expression is not unlimited and there are other values, other freedoms and other rights that should prevail.
is curious when we try to do this exercise and apply these settings in most discussions that take place here from time to certain media: neither respect nor far, neither empathy nor spirit agree: to be devastating is the goal.
Speech Republican, that is, assuming that governs for the people and the people, this being the political will that is built on sovereignty and that subordinate institutions, which must be controlled by citizens through an ability to direct and transparent dialogue with governments. However, they must learn to treat people with the dignity it deserves and, therefore, nothing better than to be virtuous copies to the defense of its own representation: self-discipline, responsibility and rationality in the use of arguments and the appeal to citizens to participate this: freedom to participate in and feel treated as an equal, as someone who listened and handles.
Recovery of Utopia, the left should back the utopia understood as the exploration possible acceptance of that deal than we are given.
Given the uncertainties and fears (of economic crisis, the constant changes, the heterogeneity of society ...)
face injustice, intolerance, exclusion, violence, hunger ...
There is only one path, a path that all members share this table: more political, more left-wing political action.
Meritxell Batet, Barcelona, \u200b\u200bUPEC, 16 July 2010.
The institution of politics is a human institution, such as friendship, marriage and family ... There are divorces, separations and quarrels between friends ... but this does not mean we have to destroy the institution, in fact, married people every day, every day we make friends, every day we plan to share life with someone else. With the policy is the same, we can not put away with the institution and we are wrong when we refer to it as an abstract alien to us.
Now we talk a lot of disaffection, but honestly I think there is not so. I mean that Catalonia is more or less like all the surrounding countries.
is important that all the surveys also show a fundamental fact: the discrediting and criticism aimed in any case, the politicians, however, there is a sign of confidence and support democratic institutions. Of course the danger, as pointed Wolin, is to have a "democracy without citizens," who works for the inertia of existing institutions ... will work, therefore, avoid this.
So the first conclusion I wanted to point out is that there is so tired, that is, there is so much hostility, and in any case, perhaps something that cyclical changes with small changes circumstantial (such as the appearance thrills or a leader who made decisions that motivate a massive vote, etc.). Two
data to consider
respect and trust in democratic institutions is not always so
eg Latin America (see Latinobarometer appears on the preference for a dictatorial regime if it leads to a direct improvement in my life)
also varies greatly confidence in democratic institutions depends on the policy option (see statistical CIS): if one is left and 10 right-wing is the percentages are the following distribution: 80%
1-2 3-4 88
% 7-8 72% 90-10 54%
In any case, we do not (yet) and we must avoid is an institutional crisis: the indifference, the moment has to do with the actors and more with an ideology. It remains the right strategy, the talk of disaffection. It is them who should promote further distancing of the citizens with the public.
This means that we should not worry or do not have to address the issue? Not. The debates are shows like this. Are necessary and useful to raise awareness.
part of our ideology, the ideology of the left, improving the quality of democracy and citizen participation in public life. Because we know that nothing is eternal and even think we are a consolidated democracy (they are) does not mean that we should not care. Think of Stefan Zweig's book yesterday when the world tells us how his world a virtually disappeared overnight. Why do we care and we just left formations which have more conscience
Because democracy and the rule of law is the most valuable and we can not do without it because it is what gives us the freedom (Cicero).
For consistency with the discourse of values \u200b\u200band principles that we are advocating. For more legitimacy
third front.
To prevent disaffection from society.
Allow me to point that there are many and complex factors that help citizens feel more distant and is the confluence of these factors that cause it. It is never a simple answer or simple (such as the electoral system) and is not circumstantial, own or Catalonia.
But there is one combination particularly harmful because they increase the feeling of estrangement: Lack of Transparency
exemplary
Honesty & Authenticity
only concerned political parties for votes
+ media only concerned about profit and loss account
The left has a civic responsibility to develop advanced societies in the XXI century. Her, our main task is to combat indifference and neutralization of the desire for justice and social change that weigh on the day of our societies. We must be able to move the epic work by these values.
is no doubt that the economic crisis is currently the main concern of the left. But we must be clear that this priority, say material must be accompanied by an intense civic. Given the difficulties need more and better participation of public institutions, precisely to prevent the severity of the crisis causes:
1. a social divide between democratic politics and the new disadvantaged by loss of welfare.
2. that this gap does not lead to a sharp divide suffering due to a collective aligned with a climate of public indifference that we dragging on the shoulders of democratic societies for many years, long before the economic crisis occurred.
The sum of these factors can lead to a dangerous political equation for the future of democracy and maintaining the structure justice built in recent decades: the sum of indifference and social and economic marginalization can lead hostility to democracy, or put another way, can lead to entry populism. This tipping point is really serious.
Now as I said, I think there was always disenchantment or indifference or abstention:
When politicians had better opinion by the citizens?
Whenever there was no public interest in public matters, nothing in public.
And again there are significant differences in positions (we have seen the survey of CIS without going further).
So
The Left: We put emphasis on civic engagement, the assumption of responsibility by the people, the quality of citizenship and its role in society beyond the individual. The
right: they have this concern and this target as a policy to govern when developing ... exacerbates the danger and so perhaps now more talk of disaffection when the sociological phenomenon becomes political strategy, when it becomes an instrument in the hands of a political option -> ol'extrema the ultra right it also has the complicity of certain media. The maximum known neoliberal "state and the market is the problem solving" this exercise aims to discredit rain of the public: the idea neoliberal lives in a paradox: that politics is still an option actually anti-political and this is populism.
can make another approximation: Vector
liberal civil rights that individuals premium obligation of the State to respect them and protect them. (Paradoxically, also boosted by the left, acknowledging the new civil rights and gay marriage, or improving the law on abortion or accelerating the process of divorce ...)
Vector Republican, that emphasizes the political rights of citizens who, in exercising their public autonomy, are called to exercise these rights must also participate in the governance of society. In developing
of European democracies in general individuals have more dump in the deployment and enjoyment of their private autonomy in exercising their public autonomy compromised. Probably from public institutions has not been promoted enough Republican vector.
This imbalance between the components of liberal and republican democracy is added to the discredit of the public and fed with everything we already have the breeding ground of political disaffection.
values \u200b\u200bof rationality and participation linked to a virtuous republican discourse of affirmation of an idea of \u200b\u200bpositive freedom must be elements of change and transformation that the left claims in a context as I have outlined.
Rationality, because the Enlightenment and the old maximum Kantian emancipatory struggle so that men reach a critical and conscious of age must be an essential instrument of political action. Men
we should continue talking in the XXI century as citizens and that means invoking the reason (not the viscera), appealed to the best of themselves (not to lower feelings) and use a rational narrative structure in the stories we stand politically. This is not to say or defend what people want to hear, but what we think is best for defending the general interest.
feelings and the image is not a goal but a tool for a rational discourse with rational purpose.
Indifference and populism often born of the resentment that people feel it is treated when the object is a kind of emotional pim-pam-pum, that manipulates and uses object-sensitive consumer and marketing policy ... to be reduced when customers or consumers.
participation, because based on what you've said we have to add that democracy develops in the forum, the public debate in daily presence in the affairs which define the general interest. Deliberative democracy is participation (Habermas) and that means language, intelligent exchange of arguments and contrast using the same reasoning which participated comparable and equal dignity of the participants is a sine qua non of the process.
Respect for others; the measure, which allows the coexistence must be present in our debates. In fact, Parliament is the temple of freedom of expression, speech, debate and, instead, certain words may be cut. Moreover, even the newspaper can disappear session and no one thinks that this infringes on freedom of expression. Why? Because we know that freedom of expression is not unlimited and there are other values, other freedoms and other rights that should prevail.
is curious when we try to do this exercise and apply these settings in most discussions that take place here from time to certain media: neither respect nor far, neither empathy nor spirit agree: to be devastating is the goal.
Speech Republican, that is, assuming that governs for the people and the people, this being the political will that is built on sovereignty and that subordinate institutions, which must be controlled by citizens through an ability to direct and transparent dialogue with governments. However, they must learn to treat people with the dignity it deserves and, therefore, nothing better than to be virtuous copies to the defense of its own representation: self-discipline, responsibility and rationality in the use of arguments and the appeal to citizens to participate this: freedom to participate in and feel treated as an equal, as someone who listened and handles.
Recovery of Utopia, the left should back the utopia understood as the exploration possible acceptance of that deal than we are given.
Given the uncertainties and fears (of economic crisis, the constant changes, the heterogeneity of society ...)
face injustice, intolerance, exclusion, violence, hunger ...
There is only one path, a path that all members share this table: more political, more left-wing political action.
0 comments:
Post a Comment