Definhamento Democrático

DEFINHAMENTO DEMOCRÁTICO

O chefe da burocracia da União Europeia, o inefável Durão Barroso, declarou na semana passada que seria bom que PSD, PS e CDS apoiassem o mesmo candidato à Presidência da República em 2016. Durão foi mais longe incluindo na sua lista de desejos (exigências?) um consenso entre os 3 partidos para as eleições legislativas de 2015.

Se se tratasse de um mero delírio de um homem em fim de ciclo, seria algo descartável que provavelmente nem mereceria referência em Tempos Interessantes.

Porém, não é assim.

Assistimos há anos na Europa a uma crescente vertigem pelo chamado consenso. Mais exactamente, pelo consenso alargado.

Em Portugal temos sido martelados pelo famigerado consenso ao longo do último ano por Cavaco, Coelho, Portas, pelos burocratas de Bruxelas e por personagens ligados à finança e a grandes empresas.

Mas há mais exemplos:

A Áustria foi governada por uma Grande Coligação dos seus dois maiores partidos (SPO – Partido Social-Democrata e OVP – Partido Popular) durante 34 anos entre 1945 e 2000. Após um interregno de 7 anos, a Grande Coligação governa a Áustria desde 2007, perfazendo 41 anos de poder desde a II Guerra Mundial.

A Alemanha também é governada por uma Grande Coligação entre os seus dois maiores partidos (CDU/CSU – União Social Cristã e SPD – Partido Social-Democrata). Nos primeiros 56 anos de existência da Alemanha Federal, houve apenas um governo da Grande Coligação (1966-1969). Projectando o actual governo até ao final do mandato (2017), teremos 8 anos de Grande Coligação num período de apenas 12 anos (2005/2017).

A Grécia é governada (?) por uma Grande Coligação entre a Nova Democracia (Centro Direita) e o PASOK (Socialista), apesar de ambos os partidos terem sofrido enormes perdas nas duas últimas eleições.

A Itália é (des)governada por uma Grande Coligação que une a Esquerda aglomerada numa coligação liderada pelo Partido Democrático, a Direita compactada noutra coligação liderada pelo Partido da Liberdade de Silvio Berlusconi e ainda uma coligação centrista mais pequena liderada pela Escolha Cívica.

Qual é a relevância de tudo isto?

É o esvaziamento das alternativas. A Democracia implica escolha e uma escolha com sentido requere a existência de reais alternativas. Os maiores partidos, normalmente dois, são os principais (ou únicos) candidatos a liderar governos. Se ambos, ou todos, defendem a mesma plataforma eleitoral, se combinam as políticas e as medidas, qual é a serventia das eleições?

O resultado é um pensamento único, uma só estratégia, um conjunto de políticas uniformes, em suma, um jogo viciado em que o eleitor é colocado perante uma escolha entre uma coisa e outra igual.

Os Porcos de “Animal Farm” (“Triunfo dos Porcos”). Também eles representavam o governo das elites, pelas elites, para as elites.

in http://rosariomariocapalbo.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/george-orwell-dystopian-novel-1984-animal-farm/

Esse é um dos factores desmobilizadores do eleitorado. Quanto maior é a abstenção e quanto mais aumentam os votos brancos e nulos, menor é a legitimidade democrática dos parlamentos e governos que emanam dessas eleições. Infelizmente, a experiência mostra-nos que os partidos só (fingem que) se preocupam com estes fenómenos na noite eleitoral. Depois disso, garantida a presença nos e o domínio dos órgãos legislativo e executivo, it is business as usual.

Outra componente desta estratégia é a eleição da política seguida como a única válida e a demonização das alternativas: ser contra as directrizes emanadas de Berlim, Bruxelas ou Frankfurt é anátema. Ser nacionalista, ser socialmente conservador, ser pio (se for cristão), ter reservas sobre a imigração, ter uma visão mais estatizante da economia, ser favorável a um Estado Social forte ou de cortes nos privilégios da banca constituem um elenco de alguns delitos de opinião que nos podem levar à fogueira da inquisição da elite europeia. A indignação (miserável, diga-se) com que foi acolhido o “Manifesto dos 74”, é um exemplo desta intolerância e de uma pulsão fortemente anti-democrática.

É óbvio que esta consensualização coerciva não é inocente, nem acidental. Ela visa a perpetuação dos mesmos protagonistas no poder (partidos e políticos) e também perpetuar as linhas estratégicas e as políticas que vêm sendo genericamente seguidas nas duas últimas décadas.

Desta forma, o sistema político vai deslizando da democracia para uma oligarquia em que os grupos dominantes (partidos, grandes interesses financeiros e económicos e a burocracia) efectivamente drenam a vitalidade democrática, retirando valor às eleições, fazendo letra morta dos programas eleitorais e restringindo ou eliminando os referendos.

É esta auto-nomeada vanguarda esclarecida quem hoje, cada vez mais, põe e dispõe dos destinos de muitos países da Europa, à revelia dos cidadãos e frequentemente contra eles.

P.S. Outra das consequências da standardização dos partidos é a procura de alternativas nas franjas do sistema político. Foi assim que foi interrompido o duopólio austríaco em 1999: o FPO (Partido Liberal Popular), conotado com a extrema-direita, obteve 27% dos votos e integrou o governo de Viena com o OVP. As elites dominantes na Europa ficaram chocadas, como ficaram ontem com os sucessos da Front Nationale em França, como se espantaram com o ressurgimento do PCP e como vão ficar revoltados com o previsível sucesso de vários destes partidos marginais ao sistema (non-mainstream) nas próximas eleições europeias.

Talvez quando alguns destes partidos ganharem mesmo, aprendam a lição. Contudo, então talvez seja demasiado tarde.

POSTS RELACIONADOS:

“PENSAMENTO ÚNICO”, 02/12/2012 em

http://tempos-interessantes.blogspot.pt/2012/12/pensamento-unico.html

“THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD” (PEQUIM 1958 – BRUXELAS 2012) em

http://tempos-interessantes.blogspot.pt/2012/06/great-leap-forward.html

19 Century? 20 Century? 21 Century?

19 CENTURY? 20 CENTURY?

21 CENTURY?

Since the breakout of the Ukrainian crisis, especially after Crimea moved forward and centre on the world stage, we have seen countless references to a dreaded time machine located in Moscow, shoving us back and forth to the 19 Century, the 20 Century and the 21 Century.

This trend started when the former and the present US Secretaries of State declared that Putin’s actions were like Hitler’s in the 1930’s (Hillary Clinton) and  “Putin was acting like 19 Century in the 21 Century” (John Kerry). The former was posturing for the upcoming 2016 presidential campaign; the latter was talking out of his own silliness.

Others soon followed: Durão Barroso, EU chief commissioner, coming back to Earth from outer space, declared he was shell-shocked by this unexpected return to the past. Barack Obama has been struggling with 19 Century and 20 Century analogies, berating Power Politics, the Cold War and assorted dressings and concepts, allegedly from the past.

So, where (when) are we after all?

Well, we are actually on the 21 Century, which is different from previous ones, but it has not transported us to a new dimension. In other words, it is NOT that different, at least not so far, given that we have been through a meager 15% of it.

It is true that since 1945 the world has not experienced the systemic wars that ravaged the first half of the 20 Century. It is also true that after 1991, the relations between the major powers became more benign as the USA asserted herself as the lonely superpower, as Russia declined, as China rose discreetly, as the European great powers integrated and as Japan stagnated.

This translated into more diplomacy and cooperation and less tolerance for wars. However, conflict, rivalry, clashing national interests, inter-peer pressure, threats and, yes, wars, never disappeared. They have always been here.

Power Politics never vanished. It just became more polite and discreet but, more often than not, effective and unpleasant for whoever is on the receiving end of pressure.

Furthermore, people have been oblivious to another fact: there is more world beyond Western Europe and North America. And many regions of that other world continue to be nasty places where guns often speak louder than words, where resorting to the threat to use or the actual use of weapons is a real option rather than an outlandish one.

It is not whimsical the steady (sometimes brisk) rise in military spending and weapons purchases in the Middle East, South Asia, the former Soviet space and East Asia. Rather, it reflects the harsh reality that war is perceived as a real life possibility.

 So, in fact, we live in one of just a few oasis of seemingly solid peace on Earth. However, even people who live in an oasis can see they are surrounded by desert and desert will inevitably interact with the oasis. Meaning that no one is permanently safe or insulated from war or conflict. I have been saying this for years, often meeting with skepticism or derision. However, few predicted that Yugoslavia would go down in flames, or that Russia and Georgia would engage in war. We could say the same about Al-Qaeda’s attacks in the USA, the United Kingdom and Spain, plus the Afghanistan War. Or, for that matter, the rising tension between China and Japan and in the South China Sea.

Those who believe that war is gone, that peace is a given, that power and interest are not the real engines of International Relations are either naïve, living in denial, or they just do not have a clue.

War did not show up in 2014 straight back from the 19 Century or the 20 Century. War was here all the time. It has never left us.

WAR IN THE 19 CENTURY

Japanese soldiers firing on Chinese troops in the First Sino-Japanese War in Korea (1894/1895).

in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sino-Japanese_War

WAR IN THE 20 CENTURY

French troops attacking a German position in Champagne in the I World War (1917)

in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GermanInfantry1914.jpg

WAR IN THE 21 CENTURY

US Army soldiers in a firefight near Al Doura, Baghdad in 2007 during the Iraq War.

in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

War in the 19 Century.

War in the 20 Century.

War in the 21 Century.

Weapons & equipment aside, can you really  tell the difference?

Reading Putin

READING PUTIN

On 18^th March, President Vladimir Putin of Russia gave a major speech at the Kremlin. The leit motiv was the return of Crimea to Russia, after the region’s referendum on its political future.

Vladimir Putin addressing the State Duma deputies, the Federation Council members, regional authorities and Crimea and Sevastopol representatives.

in KREMLIN at http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/6889

The speech was predictably demonized in the Western media. Having read the speech, I am going to analyse its highlights. Its English version can be read at http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/6889

There are three different target audiences: the Russians, the Ukrainians and the Westerners.

When addressing the Russians, Putin emphasises shared History, culture and religion, pointing to a communion of Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians.

[Crimea] where Prince Vladimir was baptised. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the culture, civilisation and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.

These references lead us to another idea that has been frequently present in Putin’s interventions: the demise of the Soviet Union and its negative consequences.

Millions of people went to bed in one country and awoke in different ones, overnight becoming ethnic minorities in former Union republics [...]

The USSR and its implosion lie at the root of present day problems, namely the Crimean problem, arbitrarily transferred from Soviet Russia to Soviet Ukraine.

Then, in 1954, a decision was made to transfer Crimean Region to Ukraine, along with Sevastopol, despite the fact that it was a federal city. This was the personal initiative of the Communist Party head Nikita Khrushchev.

He goes on stressing the sense of grief and revolt in Russia resulting from the end of the USSR and, specially, the Crimean handover:

It was only when Crimea ended up as part of a different country that Russia realised that it was not simply robbed, it was plundered.

And the grief and revolt in Crimea:

Now, many years later, I heard residents of Crimea say that back in 1991 they were handed over like a sack of potatoes.

So Putin is talking about a set of historic wrongs and accidents that led to Russian unjustified losses and he clearly craves to set them right. Crimea was the best opportunity so far to address these grievances and one that he would not miss for the world.

In people’s hearts and minds, Crimea has always been an inseparable part of Russia.

The West occupies and large share of Putin’s intervention, mostly to be reviled for its hubris and recklessness. The case of Serbia and Kosovo is dealt with extensively. Interestingly, this blog dedicated a post to this subject on 7^th March (“Do Kosovo à Crimeia” at http://tempos-interessantes.blogspot.pt/2014/03/do-kosovo-crimeia.html ).

This [the West’s attitude towards Kosovo independence] is not even double standards; this is amazing, primitive, blunt cynicism. One should not try so crudely to make everything suit their interests, calling the same thing white today and black tomorrow.

Putin’s also expresses his concern with and rejection of a renewed eastward NATO expansion, i.e. to Ukraine. He deems NATO expansion to Russian borders unacceptable and he vows to retaliate to Western pressure and coercion.

NATO remains a military alliance, and we are against having a military alliance making itself at home right in our backyard or in our historic territory.

Some Western politicians are already threatening us with not just sanctions but also the prospect of increasingly serious problems on the domestic front. I would like to know what it is they have in mind exactly: action by a fifth column, this disparate bunch of ‘national traitors’, or are they hoping to put us in a worsening social and economic situation so as to provoke public discontent? We consider such statements irresponsible and clearly aggressive in tone, and we will respond to them accordingly.

The Russian President also points to and attacks what he believes is the West common practice of applying double standards in International Relations and on the rule of law.

[…] the Written Statement of the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo. Again, I quote: “Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law.” End of quote.  They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged. Over what? The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these instructions, as it were.

And he goes on to criticize the hubris and arrogance with which the United States and the European powers behave on the international affairs, imposing, judging, condemning and attacking:

After the dissolution of bipolarity on the planet, we no longer have stability. Key international institutions are not getting any stronger; on the contrary, in many cases, they are sadly degrading. Our western partners, led by the United States of America, prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their exclusivity and exceptionalism, that they can decide the destinies of the world, that only they can ever be right. They act as they please: here and there, they use force against sovereign states, building coalitions based on the principle “If you are not with us, you are against us.” To make this aggression look legitimate, they force the necessary resolutions from international organisations, and if for some reason this does not work, they simply ignore the UN Security Council and the UN overall.

There’s an interesting blinking towards Germany, that represents a subtle attempt to cash in a 25-year-old credit and the hope that the Russian-German ties may supplant the Western support for the present government in Kiev.

I believe that the Europeans, first and foremost, the Germans, will also understand me. Let me remind you that […] some nations that were then and are now Germany’s allies did not support the idea of unification. Our nation, however, unequivocally supported the sincere, unstoppable desire of the Germans for national unity. I am confident that you have not forgotten this, and I expect that the citizens of Germany will also support the aspiration of the Russians, of historical Russia, to restore unity.

The Ukrainian westward drift and the situation of Russians in Ukraine is another relevant part of Putin’s speech, filled with criticisms, complaints, demands and veiled threats.

However, those who stood behind the latest events in Ukraine had a different agenda: they were preparing yet another government takeover; they wanted to seize power and would stop short of nothing. They resorted to terror, murder and riots. Nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes and anti-Semites executed this coup. They continue to set the tone in Ukraine to this day.

The new so-called authorities began by introducing a draft law to revise the language policy, which was a direct infringement on the rights of ethnic minorities. […] The draft law was set aside, but clearly reserved for the future. Hardly any mention is made of this attempt now, probably on the presumption that people have a short memory. Nevertheless, we can all clearly see the intentions of these ideological heirs of Bandera, Hitler’s accomplice during World War II.

For him, the 2013/14 events are déjà vu, reminiscent of the 2004 Orange Revolution and their equivalents in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan

A similar situation unfolded in Ukraine. In 2004, to push the necessary candidate through at the presidential elections, they thought up some sort of third round that was not stipulated by the law. It was absurd and a mockery of the constitution. And now, they have thrown in an organised and well-equipped army of militants.

We understand what is happening; we understand that these actions were aimed against Ukraine and Russia and against Eurasian integration.

Putin’s speech reflects much of his worldview, of his concept of Geopolitics, what he regards as Russia’s national interest and he even draws his red lines.

Thus his references to Kosovo, which he portrays as a major setback inflicted on a weak Russia by a treacherous NATO, and Libya where the same NATO grossly abused a UNSC Resolution.

It is also clear that he views the triangle Russia-Ukraine-Belarus as the strategic, security, historic, cultural and religious core of Slavia and consequently, the area most vital for Russia in multiple dimensions.

Meanwhile, our relations with Ukraine, with the fraternal Ukrainian people have always been and will remain of foremost importance for us.

Our concerns are understandable because we are not simply close neighbours but, as I have said many times already, we are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus is our common source and we cannot live without each other.

For Putin, this speech at this particular and significant ceremony represents a small reversal of Russia’s 1991 unravelling. It also represents a warning to the West and to those in the former USSR that stepping on Russia’s toes can no longer be done without a price. Putin is saying that Kosovo 1999 will not be repeated, but Georgia 2008 will.

In the end, Vladimir Putin defines Russia’s national interests, establishes her red lines and conveys what Moscow is prepared to do to promote those interests and protect those red lines.

And with Ukraine, our western partners have crossed the line, playing the bear and acting irresponsibly and unprofessionally.

After all, they were fully aware that there are millions of Russians living in Ukraine and in Crimea. They must have really lacked political instinct and common sense not to foresee all the consequences of their actions. Russia found itself in a position it could not retreat from. If you compress the spring all the way to its limit, it will snap back hard. You must always remember this.

Today, it is imperative to end this hysteria, to refute the rhetoric of the cold war and to accept the obvious fact: Russia is an independent, active participant in international affairs; like other countries, it has its own national interests that need to be taken into account and respected.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin has spoken. I think he mostly believes what he said. Perhaps it would be wise for the West to study Russia’s History, Geography, Geopolitics and culture and the thoughts and actions of her President when dealing with Moscow. Maybe some surprises and setbacks could be avoided.

Abjecto

ABJECTO

Ter um filho com uma doença grave, com incapacidades permanentes, com deficiência, é uma dor para os Pais que eu posso, quando muito, imaginar. Graças a Deus!

 

Tratar de um filho assim será doloroso e difícil emocionalmente, logisticamente, tecnicamente e financeiramente. Os Pais nessas circunstâncias têm uma existência de enorme desgaste, acumulando as exigências da vida corrente com o esforço de resolver, atenuar, tratar, ultrapassar, contornar os problemas das crianças.

 

Tem sido noticiado que milhares de crianças, 13.000 de acordo com uma reportagem da SIC, viram os subsídios estatais que recebiam cortados. Sem aviso prévio. Just like that.

 

Simultaneamente, o Ministério da Educação e/ou o Ministério dos Assuntos Sociais, têm feito uma triagem dos tratamentos, cuidados e terapias que essas crianças recebem por prescrição médica, o que é ilegal. Bem pior que ilegal, é cruel.

 

Confesso que fiquei um pouco surpreendido: apesar do cadastro miserável que este governo ostenta nos abusos e maus-tratos que inflige aos Portugueses, Achei que não seria fácil descer ainda mais. Não era fácil, mas é possível. O governo conseguiu-o.

 

Cortar apoios aos mais infelizes, aos mais desprotegidos, aos mais martirizados, aos que sofrem sem culpa (pais e filhos) é de uma crueldade absurda. É abjecto.

 

Malditos sejam!
 

Back in Russia (Back in the USSR)

BACK IN RUSSIA

(BACK IN THE USSR)

One of the Beatles’ many hits was the 1968 song Back in the USSR. This post is about Crimea, but I got the inspiration for the headline from “The Beatles”.

The Beatles Back in the USSR!

Crimea is not back in the USSR, which passed away in 1991, but she’s definitely back in Russia. Actually, although many pundits like to establish analogies between present-day Russia and the former Soviet Union, it was in the Soviet time that Crimea was arbitrarily taken away from the Soviet Republic of Russia and given as a present (?) to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine. It was thus all in the family. And it is in the new Russian era that Crimea is snatched back by Moscow in the context of a serious family rift.

Celebrations at Lenin Square in Simferopol, Crimea, after the referendum.

in Agence France-Presse at http://www.afp.com/en/home/

Today’s Russia points to impressive figures: 83% voter turnout in the Crimean referendum and a 97% support for reunification with Russia.

The United States and the major European powers point to illegalities and coercion in the referendum and in the change of Ukraine’s borders.

Russia effectively annexed Crimea: first by establishing effective control on the ground, then by winning the referendum and, earlier today, formalizing Crimea’s return to Mother Russia in a ceremony in Moscow.

The West implemented some lame, symbolic sanctions targeting some Russian and Ukrainian officials, some of whom for publicly defending Crimea’s reunification with Russia. So much for freedom of thought and speech!

In spite of strong worded declarations and threats and weak sanctions from the West, this blog has long stated (A Faca e o Queijo na Mão, 03/03/2014 at http://tempos-interessantes.blogspot.pt/2014/03/a-faca-e-o-queijo-na-mao.html ) that the future of Crimea depended almost exclusively on Russia’s will and, specifically, on President Vladimir Putin.

What were the decisive factors in the Crimea crisis outcome?

1- The powers that be, in this case, Russia.

2- Ukraine’s overall weakness and disunity.

3- The power that had the most at stake. Again, it was Russia. Check Battleground of Eastern Europe, 06/02/2014 at http://tempos-interessantes.blogspot.pt/2014/02/battleground-of-eastern-europe.html

4- The will of the vast majority of the people of Crimea.

5- The swift, determined and undeterred actions Russia took to reach this outcome.

6- The Western powers’ naiveté (or wishful thinking) hoping that if they would just yell and threat a lot, the Russians would leave the Black Sea Peninsula. It was so much so that even TODAY, there were American and European senior officials saying that Putin could still back-off in a face-saving way. Hilarious!

Given these factors, the outcome was predictable: the most powerful and committed actor takes the prize home.

The Crimea game is basically over. Let’s see what happens in Ukraine, the Battleground of Eastern Europe.

POSTS RELACIONADOS:

“DO KOSOVO À CRIMEIA”, 07/03/2014 em

http://tempos-interessantes.blogspot.pt/2014/03/do-kosovo-crimeia.html

“A FACA E O QUEIJO NA MÃO”, 03/03/2014 em

http://tempos-interessantes.blogspot.pt/2014/03/a-faca-e-o-queijo-na-mao.html  

“KIEV A FERRO E FOGO”, 21/02/2014 em

http://tempos-interessantes.blogspot.pt/2014/02/kiev-ferro-e-fogo.html  

“BATTLEGROUND OF EASTERN EUROPE”, 06/02/2014 em

http://tempos-interessantes.blogspot.pt/2014/02/battleground-of-eastern-europe.html

“SEM FUTURO”, 31/01/2014 em

http://tempos-interessantes.blogspot.pt/2014/01/sem-futuro.html