|
What kind of Parliament? to manage "communities of ideas"
Jean-Marc FLAMENT
Monday, October 28, 2002 4:00 PM
Summary: The present structures of government are archaic and non
democratic. A world parliament based on the states will only serve to
perpetuate the differences of weight and responsibilities between the rich
and the poor countries. A parliament based on the cultures, will give, on
the other hand, more weight to the bigger cultures. We propose a tool to
manage in a WP what these cultures have in common, the "communities of
ideas" regrouping the main preoccupations of the inhabitants as "food for
all." This tool will substitute the political parties and the
parliamentarian will have for function to vote the motions concerning each
one of these consigns.
A Parliament of the human Community must not be based on the states
If we analyze the structures of government of the present world with the
eyes of a historian of the future, we should agree that they are archaic and
non democratic.
Archaic, because the states, the only entities having the right to sit in
UNO, have had their borders drawn in the past, sometimes a longtime ago,
when the means of locomotion and communication didn't permit to think or to
act on a global scale.
Undemocratic, because all states are not equal within the UNO. Some have a
right of veto, others do not. Some pretend to inspire, or even to order the
resolutions of the Security Council, while the role of others is only to
incline themselves.
Undemocratic again because most important decisions for the chance of the
humanity are not taken in UNO but at the level of the states or in
international organizations such as the IMF, which is, as everybody knows,
to the service of the enterprises of the United States of America.
A World Parliament that would be constituted on a state basis would have no
reason to exist. It would perpetuate the present mistake that can be
demonstrated by the fact that a citizen of the United States of America has
more weight and responsibility on the future of the world than does an
inhabitant of the Burkina-Faso.
Underneath this state structure, there is the world of the people. A
population is characterized by a common cultural identity. Sometimes,
several peoples coexist in one same state, and sometimes several states
separate only one populous.
Each people has the right, of course, to be recognized and to see their
values, their culture, their language, and their history protected, but the
past taught us the dangers of nationalism that could be encouraged by the
feeling of cultural unity.
To manage the common cultural values of humanity: the "communities of ideas"
This is true, according to our reflections, because the inter-cultural
differences come before the inter-cultural similarities.
If each culture deserves to be preserved, it is because each culture is part
of the common trunk of humanity, and the diversity that it brings to
humanity also enriches it.
In our opinion, a World Parliament whose goal would be to represent the
different peoples or the different cultures would not be anymore a right one
because some peoples, better represented in number, would succeed quickly to
a hegemonic position whereas others, represented less well and therefore
more in danger, would risk to be crushed by the majority peoples.
This is how our reflection went to the concept of "community of ideas,"
these being based not on what divides the men and makes them different from
the one another but on what unites them beyond the state-controlled borders
or the cultural differences because it is part of the aspirations of human
nature.
These "communities of ideas" would reflect the main preoccupations of the
inhabitants of the planet. They could include the following banners, for
example:
"Food for all"
"Right to lodgment for all"
"Egalitarian access to Justice"
"Protection of the minorities"
"Right to the health"
"Equality of educational opportunities"
"Respect of the childhood"
"Right to information" etc... etc...
These communities of ideas would play a bit the role that today is played by
the political parties, however they would not be necessarily antagonistic
but rather complementary and the parliamentarians representing a Community
of Ideas would have for unique responsibility to put to vote some motions in
direct connection to the preoccupation of their voters.
Each one would have the right of course to create their own "community of
ideas" under condition to sign a common charter to all communities and about
which I will express our reflections in a next intervention. However, at a
global scale, it is certain that the main preoccupations of humanity will be
represented in the World Parliament.
More than this, nothing would prevent a North American or European citizen
to vote for "food for all" if he or she estimates, as do i, that it is
effectively an important objective.
Concerning the method of voting (negative vote - fractional vote) and the
prerogatives of the World Parliament that were also the subject of our
reflections, I will talk in a next contribution.
Thank you to all for your attention.
Jean-Marc Flament
representing YHAD Le robin - The guarantee of a more human society
WP21 Alliance Forum on a World Parliament for the 21st Century
E-mail : world-parl@forums.alliance21.org
Fax 1 717 264 5036
Information, inscriptions, désinscriptions: germa@alliance21.org
|
|
|
english
[FORUM]
[DISCUSSION]
[SYNTHESES]
[DOCUMENTS]
[CALENDAR]
[PARTICIPANTS]
[SUBSCRIBE]
[CONTACT]
[HOME]