Is a better world possible? sitting, waiting, wishing…

ImageI took the bad habit to only write in this blog when I am overwhelmed by a situation, either happily or rather negatively. I am forced to admit that I am more and more inclined to write only when something affects me quite badly… I guess it is the effect of the ambient “sinistrose” after all…

Today’s post is motivated by an online conversation I had with a journalist specialized in European affairs in Brussels. I don’t really know the person and don’t really know what his background is, so my reaction is rather judgmental since online conversations are not the ideal ground for intellectual exchanges. But words are worth what they are worth, and “when spoken, can’t be taken back”…

It all started when I went planting my bad seed in a friendly online conversation between European affairs journalists about some feedback sent by militants from the French left party Front de Gauche, on an article my friend wrote.

I asked a simple question: “Despite the sometimes heated comments, isn’t there something to learn from the feedback of these militants”. My friend answered me cordially that he does interact with his readers, but that it is sometimes irritating to get heated comments all the time, and that Mélenchon’s attitude towards journalists doesn’t help. Fair enough, but suddenly the conversation took another turn with some other contributors and we ended talking about the cult of personality of Melenchon, the attitude of his supporters, why is Le Front de Gauche designated as extreme left by journalists, how the overall political panorama has moved to the right etc.

So far the conversation is alright although quite intense like all political discussions. It turned to vinegar (at least for me) when some comments became condescending. According to my debater, current leftist political positions (such as those held by le Front de Gauche) are worth those held in the 19th century while he considers that “modern” countries understood the complexity of the world and sailed away from these archaic ideals.

Well, the point of this blog post is not to report the conversation but what it has inspired me. I got the impression that the elite of the European society today, as represented by politicians, journalists and economists is somehow disconnected from reality and is not realizing the malaise in which entire populations are finding themselves in today: a mix of cynicism, hopelessness and laisser aller, in other words, the titanic syndrome.

Politicians and journalists are asleep while many thinkers such as Michel Serre predict a deep societal change fueled by the new possibilities offered by information technology, by the democratic access to information, and also by social media allowing citizens to speak up and rally. For others like Noam Chomsky, the unrest we saw these past couple of years is a global reaction to Neo liberal policies of the past decades. The people’s answer to the successive crisis and the loss of faith in the current social and economic model.

People do not trust their elite anymore and feel like nothing can possibly change because they think everybody in the political sphere is corrupt. A leaden horizon that makes everything look gray and inert. Then something happens and you have a major uprising, An immolation in Tunisia, defending a park in Istanbul, a baby in Sarajevo, contesting a security chief in Sofia, the closure of a TV station in Athens or a hike in bus fares in Sao Paulo… what’s next ?

At the end, it looks like we are going somewhere but nobody knows where we’re heading to, hopefully not straight in a wall. So even though I consider myself lucky (thanks to my professional and personal interests) to have access to positive initiatives working to create a better world, I still feel that I am affected by all the negativity around me. So how would someone looking at the world through the eyes of the current media and the current elite (politicians, journalist, opinion leaders…) see the world ? One color: black !

And this is why I am writing today, cause’ I had enough of the same soup served to me on a regular basis by those who are supposed to explain the world to me and to lead the global ship to a safe haven: “This what it is, we can’t do anything about it, this is the best system we got !”…

IMG_2711Well no, another world is possible ! The same way economical, political and social systems have changed in the history of mankind, the current one can be improved. Well, blame it on my naivety!

I’ll finish off with this declaration of failure and incompetence given by George Papandreou to act as the true representative people elected. The man who pulled the trigger on Greece, in his quality of prime minister, is now calling for a true direct democracy, taking advantage of the new possibilities offered by information technology because “Our democracies,” he says, “are trapped by systems that are too big to fail, or more accurately, too big to control”…

… A new dawn? Sitting, waiting, wishing…

A.

This entry was posted in Activism, freedom, Politics, Rants and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Is a better world possible? sitting, waiting, wishing…

  1. J.I. says:

    Content d’être une source d’inspiration🙂
    Vous soulignez l’éternel débat entre idéalistes et pragmatiques. La vérité c’est que les deux sont indispensables en démocratie. C’est même l’étroite collaboration entre ces deux manières de penser qui permet l’évolution d’une société. Un monde constitué uniquement d’idéalistes serait en guerre permanente. Toute paix sociale serait impossible, car il y aurait toujours des idéaux plus mauvais à combattre. A l’inverse un monde constitué uniquement de pragmatiques serait immobile. La collaboration entre pragmatiques et idéalistes a donné les démocraties modernes, combinées à l’économie de marché, qui malgré leurs innombrables défauts et imperfections, sont les systèmes les plus prospères et les plus justes dans l’histoire de l’Humanité. Toujours perfectibles, certes, mais un acquis qui mérite d’être respecté, et qui repose sur un équilibre fragile, par nature.
    Pour le reste, il faut se garder de caricature et de mettre trop facilement les gens dans des cases. Le seul objet de mon propos était de dire que le FdG et semblables donnent une image largement simplifiée des réalités économiques et sociale, et que leurs discours est souvent empreint de violence et de haine. Ce n’est pas une opinion, c’est démontrable. La thèse au fond était de dire que la violence et la haine ne sont pas le meilleur des carburants pour mener une politique juste. Et qu’entre les idéaux et les conséquences réelles de leur application, il peut y avoir un faussé.
    Oui, le pragmatisme crée aussi de la violence, plus indirecte. Mais au moins il fait son possible pour minimiser la casse. Et il prend en compte la complexité du réel. Il voit le monde en gris et non en noir ou en blanc. C’est là la principale différence en réformisme et révolution.
    Bien à vous,
    J.I.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s