Are Uniunea o problema politica majora?

Citeam pe facebook-ul D-lui. Cristian Preda urmatoarea fraza:

„Comunistul Țipras a obținut un sprijin popular masiv, Uniunea are o problemă politică majoră.”

Nu spun doar ca Tsipras n-a dovedit talente de sluga, in acord cu maestrul Ion Cristoiu, dar mai e si un alt aspect al problemei ce pare nebagat in seama de cineva… N-am auzit ca Tsipras sa aiba probleme cu Justitia sau sa fie anchetat in cazuri de coruptie.
Adevarul e ca nu e vorba de o problema politica majora in cadrul Uniunii, ci de democratie! Nu toata lumea trebuie sa fie de acord cu politicile FMI si interesele care-l guverneaza, asa cum nu toata lumea trebuie sa fie de acord cu PPE si interesele care guverneaza acest partid (ce par cam aceleasi cu cele ale FMI). Pentru ca nici PPE si nici FMI nu dovedesc o apetenta pentru democratie si dialog, ci doar pentru Putere.

Tsipras ce trebuia sa faca? Sa faca pe sluga, vorba D-lui. Cristoiu? Sa se plece pana la pamant in fata Troicii si sa le pupe bombeurile pantofilor? Daca pentru ca nu a facut asa ceva, avem o problema politica majora in Uniune, m-am lamurit cat de iubitori de democratie, de respectarea drepturilor si libertatilor, sunt cei de la PPE.

Adevarul este ca o astfel de pozitie – democratia sa fie o problema majora a Uniunii – dauneaza atat PPE cat si FMI.

Nici FMI nu este o institutie democratica, iar daca cineva considera ca e bine asa, mie mi se pare ca se insala. Cei care il guverneaza i-au impus Consensul de la Washington drept norma, iar FMI trebuie sa respecte cat se poate de rigid aceasta norma. Rezultatul: s-au vazut rateurile pe care le da FMI in ultima vreme, ma gandesc si la criza din Argentina, esec major al Fondului prin politicile pe care le-a promovat. Si sunt tot mai multe voci publice importante care afirma ca FMI nu e solutia problemei ci parte din problema. Inclusiv prestigiul acestei institutii a scazut.

Pare a fi destul de clar ca FMI, Comisia Europeana, Banca Central Europeana, PPE reprezinta aceleasi interese oculte. Ar fi foarte bine daca nu ar promova doar un unic punct de vedere, daca nu ar avea o viziune atat de unilaterala. In orice caz, se pare ca au mers prea departe incercand sa impuna o dictatura, renuntand la democratia occidentala care a functionat foarte bine daca a fost lasata sa functioneze dupa legile ei de drept. Eu nu cred ca e bine, ca e constructiv, ca trebuie sa impingi lucrurile prea departe, mai mult decat ti se cuvine. A impune un capitalism fara democratie in Europa nu cred ca e o solutie optima, in ciuda dificultatilor prezente. Iar o astfel de „solutie” nu va fi acceptata de catre cetatenii Uniunii, cu toate ca, actualmente, sunt mintiti in multe feluri.

Pe de alta parte, Dl. Preda pare a avea dreptate: avem o problema politica majora in Uniune – unii nu vor sa mai respecte jocul democratic, ci sa impuna reguli dictatoriale…

Va recomand sa cititi excelentul articol semnat de Eugen Ovidiu Chirovici:

Democracy and capitalism

Se arata ca:

„Confronted by the most preoccupying economic crisis of its recent history, the capitalist system will be faced, in the coming decade, with certain dramatic choices. One of them may in fact have to do with the future of its presumably twin “sister”, that is to say, democracy. In order for you to understand what I am talking about, I must first make a short incursion into history.

This incursion aims to return to the origin of the meaning of these two concepts, “capitalism” and “democracy”. Both are relatively new, compared to the span of natural history. Neither one has even accompanied mankind in its most recent historical cycle, the one that has begun ten to twelve millennia ago, after the last glacial age.

The age of the hunter-gatherer populations, then the age of the sedentary agricultural civilizations, and even the medieval era came to be and passed out of being without either of these concepts. There are certain historians who have sought the history of modern democracy in Antiquity, in the political system developed in the great cities of Ancient Greece (mostly Athens) and, partly, in the era of the Roman Republic, and thereby attempt to show a kind of genealogy and continuity over time. But beyond the etymology, it is very difficult to find similarities between the modern concept of democracy and, for one example, the Athenian regime.

The ancient sense of elite – the elect –, derives more from the concept of aristocracy (taken over into the Middle Ages), but it does not seem to comport with the concept of meritocracy. Slavery was widespread, they had few rights, which was also true with the women and the poor, throughout the Mediterranean area. The roots of our democracy must rather be sought in the area opposed to the Mediterranean, that is to say, Northern Europe, with the Celtic and Germanic peoples.

Slavery was a rarity with them – only prisoners of war were enslaved – the women enjoyed equal status with men (Romans were shocked at the women who fought alongside their men in the German and Celtic armies) and their leaders were elected on the basis of merits in war, heedless of the idea of hereditary monarchy or peaceful, stable rule. Consequently, their power was greatly limited.

Only when Clovis I of the Franks suffered himself to be Christened and anointed king (circa 500 A.D.), bringing into being the first dynasty, as Charlemagne did three centuries afterward, or Otto the Great rising from among the Teutons, four centuries after that. European feudal rule itself, the described by this paradigm, is rather a pact than a tyranny.

Farmers worked the land for food, receiving in exchange secular security from their lords and spiritual assurance from the clergy and the Church. The ancient sources of this law, such as the Merovingian Code (The Salic Law) or the Schwab Code assured, at least promised, equality before the law. But this mode and order was dramatically different from the one of the Russians, when they freed themselves from the Tartar yoke. Or from that of the Turkish empire.

Or from the Chinese Empire of the time. The Magna Carta, imposed by the English barons on the monarchy suggests the attitude is triumphing which Henry II Plantagenet had attempted to crush by concentrating power in his own hands. Over the centuries, the power of the Parliament over the king will be asserted by the “Petition of Right” addressed to Charles I Stuart, who ended on the scaffold. The idea that runs is that not even the king can dispose at whim of the property or bodies of his subjects.

The concept of habeas corpus limits as well the discretion of the potentates in the dispensation of justice. The anecdote has it that Friedrich the Great was warned by some small shop-owner: “There are judges yet in Berlin”. In France, the Estates-General take power, in England is consecrated the Parliament.

The political philosophy provides the insight into natural rights that guided the American War of Independence; meanwhile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s version of the social contract leads to the French Revolution of 1789. Capitalism also came into being in the same area, after commerce moved from a barter economy to a monetary economy, and only after the Protestantism of England especially broke free from scholastic teachings and adopted the newfangled theories that unleashed the acquisitive passions.

The Company of the Indies and the first stock exchange in Amsterdam set the framework for the system, as Smith or Ricardo were later to conceive of it. In Scotland, the first insurance system is contrived. I have taken you on this short, sketchy and episodic historical route in order to underline three things. Primo: the modern concept of democracy practically comes into being at the same time as the concept of capitalism, as it first emerged. Secundo: both concepts are in fact concentrated in a very small geographical area, which is diminutive, if one considers the scale of the entire planet.

More than one – more than two centuries later, and even in our own age, they bear little fruit in vast areas of Asia, Africa or Latin America. Terzo: it has always been thought that capitalism and democracy are, p olitically speaking, “twin brothers”, one taking strength from the other. In our own age, however, tyrannies have proved that they cannot perform adequately, not even from an economic point of view. Communism, for example, imploded first of all for economic reasons, almost no military. This happy marriage between democracy and capitalism lived its “honeymoon”, in the fullest sense, only in the age that started in the wake of WWII and ended with the century.

This was the age of the Cold War, but nevertheless it meant a prosperity that had never before been seen, concentrating in the area which had given birth to the two concepts. Never in the history of mankind had so many people enjoyed such untrammeled access to economic welfare, education, a powerful healthcare system and so on and so forth, as did those who lived in the West (Western Europe, the USA). The “Kodak moment” must reckon somehow with the rule of Pinochet in Chile, of Franco and Salazar in Spain and Portugal respectively, that is to say, capitalist regimes with only a semblance of democracy, but on the whole, the picture was convincing.

So convincing that one famous scholar was put in mind of the End of History. In other words, democracy and capitalism had won the decisive battle, it was now validated world-historically, there could no longer be any alternative organization for the human beings either in the present or in the future. However, two things happened after the great enemy, Communism, was left on the ash heap of history, starting in 1989.

Primo: large geographic areas proved to be incapable to adopt these twin concepts; or at least did not want to adopt them. Secundo: the age of welfare seems to have come to an end even in its own home and therefore the force of seduction of both these concepts has begun to wane. The current Oriental revolts, for example, are attempts to create at least the germs of democracy; or might they be mere revolts against old rulers? or tribal power struggles?

Will China abandon one-party rule for pluripartidism? Will India change its deep-seated anti-democratic Hindu culture? Will the democratic plant take root in black Africa without mutilating mutations? It will reduce the terrible economic differences within the Latin American societies, differences that have no real connection with what we call democracy and/or capitalism in the original meaning? However optimistic the observer, a serious study will incline him to answer all these questions negatively.

Worse, the model is taking hits at home. Greece is one example. Talk of the failures of multiculturalism, from Berlin and Paris, could be the beginning of the end for the opinions we believed unquestioningly throughout the twentieth century. Islamic pressure, the Chinese model, the weakening of the nation-state, quakes in the global economy that threaten to break it to pieces, the current food crisis: all these are reasons to believe the twenty-first century will see democracy on the defensive: some of the old ideas, “the welfare state”, “the rule of law”, “the pursuit of happiness”, will have to be abandoned as a failed experiment.

The alternative is a new model of “harsh capitalism”, a characteristic, for example, of nineteenth century, more devoid of inhibitions in accepting the blatant inequalities and important limitations of “human rights”. It is already beginning to take shape among us, with each political decision that would have created outrage more than three decades ago. But mankind’s history teaches us that men accept a “transfer of liberty” when their military and economic survival is threatened.

Remember Franklin’s words: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Will this become the saw of some idealist living through what future centuries may end up calling “The Age of Illusions”.” (subl. mea)

Dvs., stimati cititori, credeti ca oamenii vor accepta acest „new model of “harsh capitalism””? Cu limitari ale drepturilor omului? Eu nu cred.

Recomand citirea integrala si in original a tuturor articolelor.

Despre referendumul din Grecia…

S-a vorbit mult si inca se vorbeste despre recentul referendum organizat in Grecia, punandu-se accent pe democratie. De asemenea sunt si care vorbesc despre premierul grec, Alexis Tsipras, in termeni de genul: „aventurier, iresponsabil”, mai mult decat probabil stiindu-se pe ei insisi… Desigur, astfel de incercari de discreditare a premierului grec nu prea au legatura cu democratia si bunul simt.

Insa nu am intalnit sa se observe faptul ca, de fapt, nu e vorba doar de democratie. Tin cont ca o cultura democratica nu trebuie sa se bazeze neaparat pe referendum, desi la un referendum participa poporul, exercitandu-si democratic un drept, acela de a-si spune, oficial, parerea.

Sunt de acord cu referendumul organizat de Guvernul grec si pot sa-l inteleg pe Tsipras. Eu cred ca acest referendum are trei motivatii:

1. In primul rand era vorba de o chestiune de ordin moral pentru ca populatia trebuia sa duca in continuare tot greul austeritatii impuse de creditori. Populatia a suferit foarte mult de pe urma austeritatii, somajul a inceput sa creasca si a atins cifre record. Intr-o asemenea situatie e normal si moral sa intrebi populatia daca doreste sa continue asa sau nu. In caz contrar Tsipras ar fi putut fi acuzat ca doreste raul populatiei.
2. Eu cred ca Tsipras a dorit sa stie foarte clar ce crede populatia: accepta sau nu masurile Troicii? Da sau nu. Desigur, ar fi putut consulta sondajele de opinie. Dar acestea pot fi manipulate si s-au mai vazut si sondaje gresite. Votul e vot, e oficial si are un caracter clar: atatia au raspuns cu da, atatia cu nu. Aritmetic. Tsipras avea nevoie de acest rezultat pentru ca sa stie daca are sau nu sprijinul populatiei, spre exemplu pentru efectuarea reformelor impuse de Troica.
3. Grecia face parte din Uniunea Europeana si Zona Euro. Grecia nu e o tara izolata si e normal sa comunice cu creditorii, cu Germania si Franta, tarile initiatoare ale Tratatului de Guvernanta Fiscala. Urmau sa aiba, oricum, loc negocieri. Eu cred ca era mai mult decat normal din partea lui Tsipras sa arate creditorilor si celor doua Puteri care au consfintit Compactul Fiscal, care e parerea populatiei. Clar. Fara dubiile ce se pot naste dintr-un sondaj de opinie. Altminteri ar fi putut fi acuzat ca ascunde adevarul Puterilor cu care negociaza sau ca a dat dovada de o regretabila neglijenta neinteresandu-se de ce anume vrea poporul grec.

Dupa cum se poate observa, acest referendum era cat se poate de logic sa fie organizat de catre Guvernul grec. As fi procedat la fel, fara indoiala. Nici nu poti sa sustii niste reforme daca nu ai sprijinul populatiei. E o chestiune politica elementara.

Un raspuns apropo de Grecia

As dori sa prezint aici un raspuns al D-nei. Andreea Paul la un comentariul al meu prin care o intrebam ce parere are despre Grecia:

Romania este in afara deciziei Eurogrupului cu privire la Grecia. Impartasim problemele, dar nu si deciziile pentru ca nu suntem membri ai zonei Euro.

Se arata ca:

„Grecia are cea mai mare datorie guvernamentala si cel mai mare somaj din UE. Grecia are o datorie guvernamentala de aproape patru ori si jumatate mai mare raportata la PIB decat Romania. Somajul elen oficial este de 25%, de trei ori si jumatate mai mare decat in Romania.

• -6 puncte procentuale ajustare bugetara in ambele tari, la timp in Romania, prea tarziu in Grecia

Deficitul bugetar s-a redus cu 6 puncte procentuale in România, de la 8,9% in 2009, la 2,9% in anul 2012, la timp si cu costuri majore. Cu intarziere de trei ani, Grecia isi ajusteaza deficitul cu un salt similar, de la 10,2% in 2011, la 3,5% in 2014, dar rateaza grav onorarea platii datoriilor publice.

• +6 puncte procentuale crestere a datoriei guvernamentale in ambele tari intre 2011 si 2014

Romania si Grecia au continuat sa se indatoreze in ultimii 3 ani, dar au pornit de la niveluri diferite de indatorare. Cresterea datoriei guvernamentale a Greciei de 6 puncte procentuale, de la 171% la 177% din PIB intre anii 2011 si 2014, este identica cu cea a Romaniei, dar de la 34% la 40% din PIB, in aceeasi perioada.

• Grecia in Euro, Romania nu

Grecia este membra a UE de 25 de ani, in timp ce Romania a intrat de-abia in al noualea an de apartenenta la spatiul comunitar european.

 

Grecia este de 15 ani in zona Euro, Romania nu e. Asadar, Romania nu participa la deciziile Eurogrupului care vizeaza Grecia. Dar, tot ceea ce se intampla in UE ne vizeaza in mod direct. Impartasim problemele, dar nu si deciziile Eurogrupului pentru ca nu suntem membri ai zonei Euro.”

Evident, recomand citirea integrala si in original a intregului articol.