|
(1/2) Re: To create a wide coalition or to change the political class?
Germà PELAYO
Friday, 30 May 2003 02:48:57 +0200
(The tranlslation of this message has been edited by the author)
Hello all, hello Fernando,
I respond you with some delay because of my few free time... it is well, I apologize for expressing myself maybe a little abruptly and I hope that don't see my previous message as an attack but just as an intent of understanding a position or attitude that I feel anyway different than mine.
I will respond to you by each one of your 4 points.
1 - you told that the situation is simple: it is enough with agreeing around the need of building global democratic institutions in which the different points of view could be expressed and the problems treated.
My feeling is: it is enough with agreeing around the fact that the humankind confronts a series of serious problems to be solved, and also that this humankind is part of this problem (if not the whole problem). Concerning the politics (which is not the only field to be rethinked), it seems that the better instrument to deal with is a global democracy implemented explicitly by democratic institutions as a parliament.
In order to build them, it is necessary an explicit or implicit agreement of everybody, or of a majority, or at least of those that show an interest or an opinion about global politics, because if such agreement doesn't exist, there is not democracy, this is just an imposition
Such agreement can be obtained: a) through a social movement lobbying in order to obtain an agreement of the global political class, which in turn takes this to the acceptance of a majority of people. b) with a social movement that, with or without agreement of the political class, will be ready to act for obtaining such a change, becoming itself, if needed, a majority.
I believe that your are proposing the a) option and what I am proposing to you is the b) option. b) option includes a) option, but it is larger than this. It is to the politicians to following society and serve them and not at the opposite. If the people are sovereign, that means that in a given moment them can make decisions by themselves even if they lack of appropriate political means (the party systems in Europe or wherever are inappropriate - of course dictatorships are much worse but to fight these doesn't force us to forget the mistakes of those)
2 - You say that we should focus ourselves in discussing * how to create the parliament * and that to deal with other topics is to lose the time or to divide the forces. You are also saying that groups with different ideologies don't have their place here because their interests are not relevant for building a WP.
I would give the reason to you, but the problem is that not everybody thinks like this. That is to say, they are very few people interested in discussing * how * to create a WP. Have a look to our archives, for example, to the descent in the volume of contributions which took place in January and February where we have dealt with such topics. On the other hand, there are many people that would like simply to see a WP working in order to solve many real problems of the world. WP is a mean and not a goal in itself. I suppose that your believe the same, but what I mean is that the image of a group discussing on * how to create * a WP, is such of people who see it like an end in itself, people with more political than social ambition, people in which the rest distrust. For that reason the small federal globalist groups, after the 50s, have never been successful, neither in USA.
And precisely for that reason Porto Alegre have been successful instead. That is to say, it has been able to mobilize a lot of people that are interested in looking for concrete solutions to real problems beyond the politics. What you are proposing seems to be to repeat the globalist strategy: to propose to the people to believe again in politicians while, in fact, is to the politicians to change first and not to the rest of the people. First was the MST, the PT and Porto Alegre, and then has been Lula. But he will stand only if such strategy is repeated in many other countries.
Finally, to attract different groups worried about global problems and reaching other conclusions different than ours, other ideological or functional groups, helps in inviting them to take a favorable or unfavorable position about global democracy and WP, creating a wide debate among different social sectors and not only between a reduced number of activists trying to influence politicians, without having any real support behind them. Political neutrality doesn't mean to me political isolation but dialogue with a big part of the current political spectrum for to obtain a wide front for a real change.
I stop there and continue in another message for not doing this too long,
Best,
Germà
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]