Real Democracy or new 'Ancient Regimes'

Trenčianska univerzita Alexandra Dubčeka v Trenčíne

Katedra politológie

Political Science Forum

Politologické Fórum

Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2013

Political Science Forum Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring 2013

2

Political Science Forum: Aims of the Journal Political Science Forum is a semi-annual, international, scientific and peer-reviewed journal of the Consortium of two European universities (Alexander Dubček University of Trenčín, Slovakia and Catholic University of Valencia, Spain). It covers broad range of topics in political science, international relations, philosophy, social work, social anthropology and law. The journal is aimed to be read by the scholars in respective fields as well as its students and broader public. Periodicity of the journal is twice a year, in spring and fall.

Politologické fórum: Ciele časopisu Politologické fórum je polročne vydávaný medzinárodný vedecký a recenzovaný časopis konzorcia dvoch európskych univerzít (Trenčianskej univerzity Alexandra Dubčeka a Katolíckej univerzity vo Valencii). Pokrýva široký okruh tém z oblasti politických vied, medzinárodných vzťahov, filozofie, sociálnej práce, sociálnej antropológie a práva. Časopis je určený odborníkom v daných vedných odboroch, ako aj študentom a širšej verejnosti. Časopis vychádza na jar a na jeseň. Hlavný redaktor / Editor-in-chief: Karol Janas, Alexander Dubček University of Trenčín (TnUAD), Slovakia Výkonný redaktor/ General Editor: Marian Bušša, TnUAD, Slovakia Redakčná rada / Editorial Board: Oliver Andonov, MIT University Skopje, Macedonia; Irena Bačlija, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; Samuel Čelovský, TnUAD, Slovakia; Peter Csányi, TnUAD, Slovakia; Elena Delgadová, TnUAD, Slovakia; Miro Haček, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; Pavol Hrivík, TnUAD, Slovakia; Petr Just, Metropolitan University Prague, Czech Republic; Rastislav Kazanský, Matej Bel University, Slovakia; Rudolf Kucharčík TnUAD, Slovakia; Ginés Marco, Catholic University of Valencia, Spain; Adriana Mikulčíková, Matej Bel University, Slovakia; Miquel Àngel Oltra Albiach, University of Valencia, Spain; David Schriffl, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria; Getnet Tamene, TnUAD, Slovakia; Pavol Tišliar, Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, Slovakia; Katerina Veljanovska, MIT University Skopje, Macedonia; Luisa Vicedo, Catholic University of Valencia, Spain; Jaroslav Vencálek, University of Prešov, Slovakia; Pablo Vidal, Catholic University of Valencia, Spain. Vydáva / Publisher: Trenčianska univerzita Alexandra Dubčeka v Trenčíne, verejnoprávna inštitúcia zriadená zákonom. IČO: 311 180 259. Adresa redakcie: Katedra politológie TnUAD, Študentská 2, 91101 Trenčín e-mail: [email protected] ISSN 1338-6859 e.č. MK: EV 4567/12 © TnUAD, Trenčín. Časopis je bezplatný, vychádza dva krát do roka.


3

Contents Spring 2013 STUDIES:

Marcel Lincényi

Nastoľovanie mediálnych tém v predvolebnej kampani....4

Tomáš Váňa

Information flow and its impact on democratic systems.................................................................................26

Luis Díe Olmos

Real democracy or new ‘Ancient Regimes’.......................50 DISCUSSION:

Elena Delgadová

Bariéry interkultúrnej komunikácie....................................69

Pablo Vidal-González

Building a new identity in a protected area. The villages of Sierra de Espadán Natural Park, Castellón, Spain............82 REVIEWS:

Getnet Tamene Terem, Peter (Ed.): Jadrové zbrane, ich význam a vplyv na svetovú politiku....................................................................93

Júlia Petrovičová

Kazmérová, Ľubica a kol.: Premeny v školstve a vzdelávaní na Slovensku (1918 - 1945)..............................99 INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS..............................103

Real democracy or new ‘Ancient Regimes’

50

Real democracy or new ‘Ancient Regimes’ Luis Díe Olmos Abstract: Indignation social movements have to do with the origin

and the effects of the current economic and social crisis, and also with the requirement of a real democracy in which the people is the only real sovereign. Many social events show citizens that a merely formal democracy is not a democracy at all, but a plutocracy or, even worse, a kleptocracy. People has rightly understood this crisis as a swindle, in which people, through governmental taxes, is financing the benefit level of those institutions and investors whose practices have caused the economic crisis and its dramatic social effects. Hence, formal democracies, under these socially illegitimate interests, are starting to be seen as undercover –or explicit- dictatorships that have to be overthrown, as before in History, by an organized citizenship. This paper results from a three year research on international economic crisis, its social effects in Spain and the challenges faced by societies for making credible real democracy again, from a shared social order. This research is widely published in Spanish in the Annual Reports of CeiMigra Foundation from 2009 to 2012. We end addressing the necessary changes to be introduced in political practice as well as in social movements.

Key words: real democracy, indignation social movements, power abuse, political corruption, economic crisis, social impoverishment, formal democracies. Formal democracies or renewed ancient authoritarianisms?

The Spanish Constitution affirms that Spain is a social and democratic State under the rule of law. However, as we will show in this paper, this is not real. As anybody can see at this moment, it is a merely formal democracy in which the State and its institutions are against citizens, who can only participate in politics by electing the governmental party. But all the parties can violate their electoral program, tricking, therefore, citizens, and, once the power is reached, they can act against these citizens, without any political or penal consequence. Furthermore, as everybody can clearly see in Spain, the rule of law is not applied to every people in the same way. Consequently, at this moment, the State does not seem to be ‘social’, or ‘democratic’, or under the rule of law. It is obvious that these are strong words. So, we need to show where they emerge from.


51

Nowadays, we find a double hazard for merely formal democracies, caused by the way they are responding to the economic crisis and its social effects in thousands of families and individuals. On one hand, thousands of whole families are losing the employment of all their members, who have been seeing how their situation has been getting worse and worse, with no institutional and political protection from the public services and from the different levels of governmental institutions. On the other hand, the economic crisis is being used as a pretext for budget cuts and reduction or disappearance of some extremely sensitive public services related to social protection, health services and education. That is, those public services that were, and are yet, the very foundations of the model of society and the political organization of the State.

Some politicians are acting as if, from the logic of austerity, the rejection of public responsibility could remain justified, just when most needed, and, with it, the change or disappearance of constitutional obligations for the government. But this is dangerously close to some of the characteristics of a coup. In fact, this implies at least the admission of the inadequacy of the Constitution as a compulsory effective framework for organizing the State, through the breach of the institutional responsibilities established by the Constitution itself. And this political behaviour also implies the repeal, at least implicit and factual, of international obligations concerning the effective protection of human rights and the effective guarantee of conditions for decent work, that is to say, the working conditions that make possible a decent life for workers and their families, regardless of any individualistic or family situations.

That is why the severity of many current social processes could affect the legitimacy of the State institutions and even call into question the survival of our political system and some public administrations that disappear when they are most needed, if they are not contributing directly to the worsening of the situations and problems of citizens, instead of ensuring minimum living conditions, as well as stability and security of individuals and families.

On the contrary, it is easy to find, more and more obviously, the most outrageous enrichment and the most extreme impoverishment at the same time. Hence, the mere affirmation of scarcity is not only false, but manipulative, concealing the fact that enrichment and impoverishment are both two faces of the same phenomenon. Therefore, the problem is not scarcity, but scarcity generated by the concentration and hoarding of resources. Accordingly, if there is to be an alternative, it goes through a better


52

and more equitable distribution of wealth and not by generating a higher amount of resources.

The deregulation of economic life and the atrophy or disappearance of effective controls has led to the extension of an economy that is built against humanity. When problems are generated by markets and their free, uncontrolled self-regulation, solutions can never be ‘more market’ or ‘more liberalization’ (like the freedom of free fox in the free henhouse).

In this way, the origin of the crisis and the duration of its hard effects are not only, and probably not so much, economic but political. The economic dimension had to do with the origin of many ‘indignados’ social movements. But, probably, the main source of indignation at this moment is about –and against- the current political practice, because it is politics what is aggravating the economic crisis and its effects for most people, with enormous benefits for a few.

Thoughtless implementation of austerity politics are joining vulnerability, caused by unemployment, with the lack of social protection caused by cuts in public services budget. Insufficient and technically wrong employment politics are not avoiding the extension of an unacceptable unemployment rate in Spain and are making the remaining employment more and more precarious, through the worsening of labour conditions. Direct and indirect taxes are being increased, reducing the real wages of families in the wrong way: proportionally more for those who have less income. The access to credit has almost disappeared for families and small companies. Government spending is being dramatically reduced, increasing unemployment indirectly, through the reduction of public services consumption, and directly, through raising public lay-offs. The fact which becomes evident is the legal toleration, if not legal coverage, for tax evasion and underground economy, which are a drastic drain on State revenues. The government approved a penal amnesty for tax evaders, some of whom had been previously accused of political corruption and illegal enrichment. Likewise, the government favoured public protection, through financing with public resources (those which have been previously paid by citizens through taxes), to financial companies which had been speculating and, so that, caused the crisis and its effects, maintaining their level of benefits and the level of wages of their managers. And this protection is being applied at the same time that the government affirms the need of reducing public services and protection to people, the need of reducing the wages of the workers, and the need of making the lay-offs cheaper.

We have to remember the vicious circle of the deep economic crisis, which have been being studied since the Great


53

Depression, the economic crisis in the United States in 1929. The described process is easy to understand without studying economics: unemployment reduces the income of families and, through taxes, of State; less income means less consumption from families and State; less consumption means a decreasing aggregate demand, that is, the goods and services that a society needs to be produced in a year; less consumption and less aggregate demand mean less sales of goods and services, which imply less distribution and less production of these goods and services, which means less employment results necessary. And it starts again from the beginning.

Therefore, what our politicians in Spain and other European countries are doing seems to be the contrary to what they should be doing from a technical position. From a social and political point of view, they are acting clearly against the people whose interests and needs they should represent and they evidently do not.

We are watching the construction of a society in which not everybody is included, in which some people and families will not be able to live a decent life and so, they are already excluded from the supposed to be ‘normal lives in normal society’. Furthermore, this situation does not depend on the will of these people and it is, instead, a forced situation. This consideration makes the situation itself completely unacceptable and, moreover, the lack of a responsible answer by the government and the public services.

In fact, what is at stake is the universality of human rights, of equality among all the human beings, and democracy, as a political system that rises from this principle of universality. In any other case, birth and family inheritance would be considered as the main, if not the only, condition to live a decent life. Hence, we would be talking about a segregating and class society, like in the centuries of the Ancient Regime. We could be going back, even several centuries, by the loss of many social advances which have been too hard to achieve.

This process of being back in history may be occurring off the lights, in a covered and hidden way, through the way of accomplished facts, without the participation and consent of citizens. This is obviously not a democratic political process. This is not respectful with the rule of law and with the control and guarantee systems of the democratic process. There are not many reassuring prospect views for the close future if nothing changes.

It would be really sad that, in the twenty-first century, deregulation and the crisis as a consequence; budget cuts that seem to be obligatory from the crisis itself; and the lack of an effective protection against impoverishment processes, agree with those who


54

criticized the foundations of capitalism, yet in the nineteenth century, from Marxism. The point is not about Marx, but about the contents of so many critiques against the personal and social consequences of capitalism. Because we already know what came after the pauperization of the working class in the ninteenth century and the early twentieth century: suffering and death that characterised long years of the twentieth century in so many countries of the world must be avoided.

Extreme social conflicts, dictatorships and the world wars are such expensive events in human lives and suffering, that any other possible way should be searched to solve economic problems, whatever they are. And any answer that bring us close to a justification of a violent response to a previous ‘only economic’ violence (the increase of inequality and pauperization) should be avoided. Otherwise, society may crumble.

As far as I can see, the best solution –maybe the only solution- to the economic problems is more politics. But I mean politics effectively controlled by citizens. If citizens have no way of controlling government and governors, who or what is the real sovereign? It becomes obvious that formal democracy (one vote once each four years in Spain) is not enough to guarantee the sovereignty of citizens. But then, are we in a new type of absolutism? Are we, perhaps, in a financial absolutism? Are we in some kind of plutocracy, hazardously similar to the ancient aristocratic regimes? Will it be necessary to overthrow, again and in a similar way, this ‘new ancient regime’? Politics is not the problem, but a certain use of politics and certain practices of some, not all, who are in active politics to get their own individualistic interests.

Anyhow, there are some logical questions about conditions for the legitimacy of really democratic governments; about the necessary channels for an adequate political representation of the needs and interests of the majority of citizenship; and about the meaning, limits and controls of the symbolic cession of a sovereignty that cannot be transferred at all.

For many people, citizens, as the only sovereign, must have the right to remove legitimacy to any government that fails to protect the interests and needs of the majority of society. The main issue is not related to some kind of symbolic legitimacy, but an effective channel for removing a useless or harmful government, demanding the return of sovereignty to its only legitimate depositary.

In such a situation, security forces, under the rule of law and with the necessary judicial oversight and control, should have the duty of defending the effective sovereignty of citizens, and not the power of


55

those who do not already represent or work for the people, but for their own particular interests. Which kind of State would it be that whose security forces attack citizens to defend corruption or incompetence of politicians? Who are the ‘enemies’ of the State, those who demand their right to live a decent life, the students who demand their right to expect for a future worth living? Or would be those who get rich through the deterioration of the working and living conditions of people, breaking their opportunities for human development? The causes of indignation social movements in Spain.

Copes? Authoritarianism? Plutocracy? Kleptocracy? Dictatorship? ‘New Ancient Regime’? Loss of social advances? Estamental society? Historic regression to several centuries back? These could seem –should seem- strong words. So, let’s go to the mere facts in Spain.

In May 2012, an estimation set that the Spanish public deficit should be reduced about 45.000 million Euros. In July 2012, a decrease of about 65.000 million Euros was stated. High figures that are supposed to justify any current or future budget cut. These figures must not be forgotten.

The Spanish Plan for the Rescue of Banks and Saving Entities (FROB) was provided, at the beginning of the crisis, with 50.000 million Euros. After that, the FROB was increased with other 9.000 million Euros, plus other 8.000 million Euros just to intervene and protect BFA-Bankia. Around September 2012, the whole extra amount provided to Spanish financial system, through public and private aids, reaches to almost 25.000 million Euros. It is envisaged that Bankia will finally receive about 23.500 million Euros from State. In July 2012, it is posed a new European rescue for the sanitation of Spanish financial entities of about 100.000 million Euros. Some Spanish organizations affirm that the whole amount of public financial aid given to the Spanish financial system could reach, until the end of 2012, about 230.000 million Euros. This money has been used to maintain these entities, as well as its benefits and also the wages of its executives, instead of making accessible credits for families and small enterprises.

The average salary of counsellors of IBEX-35 enterprises was about 522.000 Euros in 2011, a 4.4% more than in 2010, despite the decrease in business results. The average salary of executive members was about 2.4 million Euros, a 9% more than in 2010. The salary of high rank executives, not counsellors, of IBEX-35 enterprises increased a 19.14% in 2011.


56

Although profits of enterprises keep on increasing (in 2010, they are 2.5% more than in 2009), taxes over these benefits are a quarter of the taxes imposed to families. In fact, taxes over those profits decrease a 15.5% in 2010: taxes collected are decreasing while corporate profits are increasing. In Spain, corporations pay through taxes a 9.9% of its profits in 2010. In Europe, this same year, the nominative average of these taxes is 26%.

Profits of some corporations have to be considered. Iberdrola obtained, in 2010, a profit of 2.870 million Euros, a 1.6% more than in 2009; Gas Natural obtained 1.201 million Euros, a 0.5% more than in 2009. REPSOL tripled its profits in 2010, obtaining 4.693 million Euros. IBEX-35 enterprises obtained a 24.5% more profit than in 2009, with a global amount of 49.881 million Euros in a year. Only two corporations, Telefónica and Banco de Santander, obtained a net profit of about 10.167 and 8.181 million Euros. Attributed profits of IBEX-35 corporations were about 50.660 million Euros.

Salaries are decreasing in Spain, while tax rate to labour income and VAT are increasing. Unemployment is over 26% of active population. But this is the ‘officially registered’ unemployment. The real unemployment has greater proportions. There are more than 700.000 families with all their members unemployed. Unemployment of youth is over 55%. That means most young people are already excluded from ‘normal life’.

Tax fraud in Spain, that is what State fails to collect each year through this type of crime, is between 60.000 and 70.000 million Euros per year. This crime corresponds in a 71% to large fortunes and big corporations. As the prescription time of this crime is four years, the amount owed to the Spanish State by these offenders is between 240.000 and 280.000 million Euros each year.

The underground economy in Spain reaches a 24% of GDP (about 240.000 million Euros). What fails to collect the Spanish State (social security contributions, taxes on corporations profits, direct taxes on workers and businesses, indirect taxes, VAT, etc.), for this reason, reaches to 74.000 million Euros annually. With the same prescription period for the law to be enforced, this amount represents a debt to the State of 296.000 million Euros each year.

So what should be collected by enforcing the law and without any cuts in welfare benefits, or in the coverage capability of public services, or in the quality of these public services, reaches about 550.000 million Euros: nearly fivefolds the supposedly needed reduction of the public Spanish deficit, that is being used to justify cuts in health, education, social protection, income guarantees and all


57

those sensitive services that have to do with the welfare of most of citizens. By simply enforcing the law, it would not be necessary to make any cuts and the State and the regions could extend the effective protection and coverage of public services, ensuring household incomes, even independently of the labour market situation, and promoting employment, for example these social employments serving the community welfare to arise, also maintaining domestic consumption of goods and services, and therefore assuring and increasing the level of employment in society. On the contrary, what has been done, firstly, is a tax and penal amnesty, more than doubtful constitutionality and rejected by tax inspection officers; and, secondly, a negotiation about the named ‘recapitalization of the State’ (instead of a ‘rescue’) with European funds.

Furthermore, seized assets in corruption cases that have been –or are being- judged or investigated in Spain reached 3.000 million Euros. But money flowing ‘behind’ the seized property is so much that ‘the account is infinite’.

Finally, people who can vote see how their vote does not count the same. Both majority parties need about 60 thousand votes for gaining a seat on the national Parliament. For the same seat, a left-wing party (IU) needs about 460 thousand votes (more than fourfold). Through this electoral rule, not every vote counts the same and democracy does not seem real enough.

Once arrived to this point, it is not easily understandable or explainable what is really happening: or there are too many incompetent among the public elected posts and the politicians in the political parties, or they are lying to citizens. It becomes so evident that, perhaps, may be useful to collect some analyzes made by people of very different backgrounds, ideological positions and sensitivities.

It comes to end the absurd situation that has led capitalism turned into a financial casino nowadays. More and more resources are circulating around fictitious financial transactions (currently 4 [european] billion dollars a day just in the currency markets as established by the Bank for International Settlements) that do not provide any material wealth, but only bulging figures in the bank accounts of the big investors. And, meanwhile, productive activity, businessmen and entrepreneurs, self-employed workers, consumers and those international agencies and organizations that fight against poverty and hunger, have credit restrictions to generate goods and services that satisfy the human needs. (...) Many of the problems that the international economy has been suffering, and Spanish one in


58

particular, is that the guards did not watch over with due diligence. For stupidity, ideological blindness or simple complicity with private bankers, central banks and governments, they have let to do everything over the years (Navarro 2011).

The "compassionate conservatism" of Bush resulted in compassionate tax gifts to the plutocrats, besides an added deregulation of business accounting. (...) The macroeconomic bankruptcies and swamps that the world is suffering today are directly related to the financial engineering wangles that the official apparatus approved and even encouraged during the Bush era. Young George Bush not only blundered in Middle East politics. Moreover, the Bush-Rove version of plutocratic democracy achieved the peculiar alchemy of turning a normal cycle of expansion and contraction in the housing in a global financial panic in the old style and difficult to control (Samuelson 2008).

Crisis Made in Spain. The crisis in Spain has a strong local component (Spanish decisions): ‘normal’ break in the construction sector after increasing housing stock several years (...), the stock of airports, the expensive sculptures stock, the stock of expendable politicians; credit granting in a foolish and fraudulent way (fake reviews, commissions in cash or in kind for reporting favourably...); no action by the Central Bank of Spain and the Government in relation with financial institutions; money that went out of the box more than came in for years, with the resulting external debt; many lies, incompetent representatives and loss of international prestige; and institutions affected in different degrees, but total lack of truthful information (Fernández 2012).

Indignation as a principle of social change.

It could be asked, and so Spanish people do, why we do not change the rules. Perhaps, it would be easier if it exists –because it does not- a real separation of powers (executive, legislative and judicial), and if the other powers (social media, social non-governmental institutions…) act as real limits to the use and the practices of effective current powers.

It is not only about to change the ‘rules of the game’, but the game itself. And if it is not possible, people could want to retrieve the property of the game, or expel the cheater players, making them to give back what they have been stolen for decades.

In my opinion, something like this is what is being required through indignation social movements all around the world. For too many decades, political responses have been based on the


59

concealment of reality and the persecution of every people or institution that pretended to research and publicly show the situations and processes happening in social reality. For too much time, political responses have been based on a merely manipulative propaganda or a virtual policy (that policy without enough budget or technical or professional resources) applauded by political advisors, turned into mere superfluous and expendable minions.

For too many years, social participation, even from no governmental organizations (NGO), has been based on the co-optation of social organizations and the punishment to those who depart from the policy guidelines set unilaterally by each political party or politician in government. That is an important point that deserves a deeper explanation, because it implies certain NGO responsibility in the process of devaluation of the quality of democracy.

That co-optation means the interchange of financial resources, given by governments, in exchange for docility, discretion, silence or a ‘prudent’ or strategic self-censorship regard to the dissemination of any content that could make those in power furious. But, from my point of view, this self-censorship, from a very badly understood prudency and a deeply mistaken strategy, makes the unfair power has already won, because it introduces the logic of domination and self-profit within institutions or social movements that are intending to change injustice in social reality.

It has been let, for too much time in politics, the disqualification of all which unveil the real social inequality and the processes that cause and support it. All that could be used to question the design, implementation and evaluation, if they exist, of the political responses, frequently wrong and socially harmful, have been condemned to social or professional disappearance. But these practices have also caused, consequently, ineffectiveness and inefficiency of a public system and services more concerned with putting out fires than really solve the problems and their causes.

The new model that these indignation social movements are requiring in the political management of social problems must be based on recognition of the main social problems for people. It must prioritize the possibility for people to satisfy their human needs. This new model must be based on a broad participation of citizens and social organizations in setting the political priorities, and in the design, implementation and monitoring of public policies. This new model must be based on regulated public-private collaboration; on the assignment of budgets and resources to real social and human needs; on coordination and coherence of policies among different or


60

equal levels of government and public administrations (local, regional, national and international; among public institutions and social organizations; and these social organizations among them.

In front of a hierarchy in which markets are on the top of the symbolic pyramid, above politics; politics above society and this one above the particular daily lives of individuals, the change that is being presented puts the particular daily lives of individuals and their needs on the top, above the previous organization of society; this organization above politics; and politics above the possibilities of influence of markets.

Indignation is itself an expression of a particular political ethics against different established practices, and for a new and more human and fair social and political order. From this point, consequently, indignation social movements could be seen as a part of a constituent process that emerges from and is aimed to a social order that, although is not new in its approach (the absolute priority of human rights from the satisfaction of human needs), it is currently new by its opposition to the drift taken by formal democracies, these ones damaged and discredited by the neoliberal policies and practices of last decades.

However, indignation does not seem enough to effectively change our current social disorder and faces some risks that have to be taken into account. Hence, firstly, indignation emerges from the magnitude of power abuse and from the shamelessness, impudence and effrontery of some corrupt politicians, political parties and economic or financial elites. Indignation social movements criticize the massive exclusion to a decent life as effect of domination and hegemonic processes in a violent and unfair social structure. But they do not seem to criticize, or not so clearly, domination itself, this social structure that generates inequality and social exclusion.

Secondly, if indignation remains in the mere protest, could be encapsulated within limits, that have been imposed by these social movements themselves, which would act as a barrier that cannot get out. This barrier of the mere protest could be easily managed by the political system to phagocytize these social movements, preventing the change that was intended to reach. If these social movements and their street demonstrations are assumed inside the current social possibilities could turn into merely formal and socially folkloric scenery. If it happens, nothing has to be changed: ones get rich by abusing of their power and others demonstrate their angry for being abused, both as a part of the normal social scenery.

Thirdly, the boundary of putting into question the particular model of neoliberal, merely formal democracies and their social and


61

personal disastrous effects, on one hand, and putting into question democracy itself, on the other hand, is very thin. And this questioning is being done by both left-wing and right-wing positions. From the left-wing, this question results in the requirement for more and better democracy, direct democracy more than representative, etc. From the right-wing, this question results in the rise of ultra-nationalism, racist and xenophobic movements and totalitarian positions or positions that support and give social and political legitimacy to totalitarianism.

Thus, the revival of totalitarianism and fascism, which was unthinkable in Europe for decades, is happening as a result of the timid or fearful responses of governments to the origin –the processes which cause- and the originators –the people who cause- of the crisis; the unacceptable tolerance of the political parties to corruption of their politicians; the cuts in social and economic rights; and the suspension of constitutional guarantees through two different ways. Firstly, these guarantees are being suspended in a hidden way, through political practices. Secondly, they have been explicitly suspended by changing the previous constitutional order through constitutional reforms that have not been approved by citizens.

This could be considered not as a metaphorical but a real coup, just like it is being perceived and formulated by a growing number of social analysts and citizens. Hence, we come to a very important issue. If, as some people have pointed out for more than one hundred years, capitalism is not compatible with real democracy, then it is necessary to choose between one and the other: either real democracy is supported and then it is assumed the end –or the radical transformation, if possible- of capitalism; or capitalism is supported and then it is assumed the end of real democracy or its transformation into a new ‘Ancient Regime’, that is, a new or not so new totalitarian regime.

Indignation is then the principle, perhaps a necessary principle, for an effective action. But, what kind of actions could be effective for changing the social reality we have described? First of all, citizens could redefine their electoral preferences. However, we have arrived to a point, in many western countries, in which citizens who participate in political elections are about a sixty per cent of electorate. We could imagine the situation resulting in the lack of political legitimacy from a participation of about forty per cent, thirty per cent of electorate... In fact, Spanish government has a legitimate majority in the Parliament with a twenty or twenty five per cent of the potential electorate. And it becomes obvious that the government


62

does not represent its own electors. So, what kind of legitimacy are we talking about?

Secondly, it could be imagined an active political participation different from the traditional participation through political parties. This alternative may show citizens indignation and disagreement, as we have already seen in most western countries, through ‘indignados’ social movements (Arab Springs, Spanish ‘15M’, Occupy Wall Street, Mexican ‘Yo soy 132’, and many others). This alternative participation may show the lack of social representation of a government and, therefore, its lack of social legitimacy. But, as we have already seen, despite the changes achieved, perhaps it is not enough to produce the intended changes. The study of conflict resolution in asymmetric power situations could show some ways forward.

Thirdly, it could be thought some kind of political participation from outside the same politics. It could be some non lucrative, selfless and unselfish technical or professional advice in the management of public services, from an independent position on the political parties which are working for. It is necessary, for this possibility to be real, that advisors are already working in professional jobs; that they could make compatible both jobs maintaining no more than their previous professional wage; that politicians assume the technical or professional advising of independent experts with independent approaches and responses to real social and human needs. These changes could be useful for making credible de vocation to serving citizens and society that should be on the basis of any political system and political practice.

And finally, as far as I can see, it should be undertaken the reform of political parties and political practices. It should be also reformed the selection of advisors, many of whom have never worked before in professional specialized jobs. And it should be expected a new system or criteria, more demanding, of selection and maintenance of politicians, from some previous knowledge and professional experience, from a strictly and constant review of their personal and political honesty, and its real and effective service to people and society they represent and for which they work.

Thus, it should be necessary to pass from indignation to the wish of other world, other relationships and other way of being person. It is not enough to pass from a political ethics to an ethical politics if it is not addressed referentiality and contextuality of human beings, that is, the importance of any human, social or institutional context that generates expectations, creates demands and re-socializes every human being. Perhaps it is necessary to address human quality and


63

human development as a priority of societies and educational systems. We should ask ourselves if it is possible to change the world without changing ourselves on it, without changing, perhaps not first, but also in the same process, our own internalized structures of domination, exclusion and violence. Concluding for going forward.

It seems to be more than justified the angry of citizens against their governments, expressed through indignation social movements everywhere in western countries. To socialize the losses whereas the profits have been privatized for years is directly against the possibility of a real democracy to maintain. If the origin of the problem was the private enrichment, its solution cannot be the social impoverishment, at least, without paying an enormous cost, that is, the total loss of legitimacy of democracy as a social and political model. And the consequences are not desirable because the social fracture and the resulting violent response to the first violence: the increasing of social inequality and even the impossibility of living a life worth living, particularly for young people.

Indignation is therefore a principle of action in a double sense. Firstly, it is a principle as the necessary basis of criticism from building a new fairer social and political model. And secondly, it is a principle as a mere insufficient beginning point to think and carry out more complex actions and commitment. As we have seen, mere indignation could be easily absorbed by the unfair system that these social movements are trying to overthrow. That is why, from my point of view, indignation is the principle, but not the mean or, much less, the aim.

There are at least four possible complementary actions that should be undertaken by these social movements in a coordinated way: 1) to make an electoral lobby, taking advantage of their nonpartisan broad social base, to force changes in political parties through the influence on the vote of electors; 2) to lead social mobilizations to demonstrate the disagreement of citizenship with some particular policies or with the government itself; 3) to foster a really independent advice to political parties, without any particular profit from this service; and 4) to join the traditional parties for changing their operation and practices and to establish, as a priority, the effective service to satisfy the human needs of individuals and the needs of society as a whole.

Finally, I have not tackled the personal conditions (wishes, expectations, attitudes and training) that would be necessary before thinking in changing the world. These conditions are the key issue to


64

really change anything. And probably is necessary to tackle them in order to have some probability of success in this endeavour. Education, not only formal education, but also human education or human quality development, appears as a privileged mean to achieve it. But, surely, it will be necessary to coordinate all these actions, not only education, carrying them out at the same time, in the process of historical change. This is, therefore, important enough to be written later. References:

-ABC (2009): Los políticos han perdido la vergüenza y ya te piden ellos la pasta, sin mediadores. ABC, 1/11/2009. -Abellán, L. (2011): Las empresas pagan en impuestos solo el 10% de sus beneficios. El País, 22/07/2011. -Abril, I. (2012): El ajuste dispara al corazón de la recuperación económica. Cinco Días, 12/07/2012. -Amigot, B. y Page, D. (2012): BFA-Bankia absorbe casi tanto dinero del FROB como el resto de los bancos. Expansión, 10/05/2012. -Beck, U. (2011): Indignados, entre el poder y la legitimidad. El País, 10/11/2011. -Benería, L., y Sarasúa, C. (2011): Crímenes económicos contra la humanidad. El País, 29/03/2011. -Bolaños, A. (2012): El FMI prevé una recesión más dura por los últimos ajustes de Rajoy. El País, 27/07/2012. -Brucato, B. (2012): The crisis and a way forward: what we can learn from Occupy Wall Street. Humanity and Society, vol. 36, nº 1. Association for Humanist Sociology. Wichita State University. -Cabal, F. (2011): Indignados 15M. Madrid. Mandala Ediciones. -Cadena Ser (2012): Sectores empresariales critican la indefinición del gobierno sobre las medidas a tomar. Cadena Ser, 6/07/2012. -Casquete, J. (2011): Balance preliminar de la indignación. El Viejo Topo, nº 286. -Chaves, P. (2012). La movilización de los “indignados”. Una explicación sociopolítica. Paideia. Revista de filosofía y didáctica filosófica, vol. 32, nº 94. -Cinco Días (2012): Un estudio cifra en el 22% la economía sumergida en España. Cinco Días, 17/04/2012. Confederación de Empresarios de Aragón (2013). Tasas de desempleo estimado. Países Unión Europea. Enero 2013. -Dudouet, V. (2012): Resistencia no violenta en las asimetrías del poder. In: Austin, B., Fischer, M., and Giessmann, H.J. (2012).


65

Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation. Berlin. Berghof Foundation. -EFE (2008): La corrupción en España, un ‘grave’ problema por la pérdida de inversión extranjera. El Mundo, 23/09/2008. -El País (2011): FUNCAS afirma que la economía sumergida en España asciende al 24% del PIB. El País, 1/06/2011. -El País (2012): Bruselas propone penas de cárcel para los “banksters” que manipulen los índices. El País, 25/07/2012. -El País (2012): Los asesores fiscales consideran que la amnistía genera inseguridad jurídica. El País, 25/07/2012. -El País (2012): Un grupo de expertos propone medidas para evitar un desastre incalculable. El País, 23/07/2012. -Europa Press (2011): Las empresas del Ibex ganan un 24% más en 2010, tras dos años de caída del beneficio. El Economista, 1/03/2011. -Europa Press (2012): El coste del fraude fiscal equivale al presupuesto sanitario español. Europa Press, 12/01/2012. -Expansión (2012): Los altos directivos del IBEX se suben un 20% el sueldo. Expansión, 28/02/2012. -Fernández, D. (2011): Unos beneficios extraordinarios. El País, 27/02/2011. -Fernández, D. (2012): El sueldo medio en los Consejos del Ibex en 2011 fue de 7,5 millones, un 5% más. El País, 11/07/2012. -Fernández, P. (2012): Verdad, responsabilidad y sentido común para salir de la crisis. El País, 26/07/2013. -Ferreras, E.M. (2011): El movimiento 15-M y su evolución en Twitter. Telos. Cuadernos de Comunicación e Innovación, nº 89. -Fiol, N. (2012): ¿Por qué indignados? Contribuciones a las Ciencias Sociales. EUMED. -García-Rosales, C. and Penella, M. (2011): Palabras para indignados. Hacia una nueva revolución humanista. Madrid. Mandala Ediciones. -Garea, F. (2012): Brecha entre Rajoy y sus electores. El País, 10/09/2012. -Gómez, M.V. (2012): Los recortes elevan el paro hasta un máximo histórico en el segundo trimestre. El País, 27/07/2012. -Gorráiz, G. (2012): La economía sumergida en España. Diario Siglo XXI, 12/07/2012. -Grattan, L. (2013): Pierre Bourdieu and Populism: the everyday politics of outrageous resistance. The Good Society, vol. 21, nº 2. Penn State University Press.


66

-Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2011): The fight for ‘Real Democracy’ at the heart of Occupy Wall Street. Foreign Affairs. Council on Foreign Relations. -Haro, C. and Sampedro, V.F. (2011): Activismo político en red: del Movimiento por la Vivienda Dígna al 15M. Teknocultura, vol. 8, nº 2. Klein, O. (2012): El movimiento de los indignados: desde España a Estados Unidos. El Cotidiano, nº 173. México DF. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana. -Llano, A. (2011): Indignación y política. ¿Una nueva época? Nuestro Tiempo. Revista Cultural y de cuestiones actuales de la Universidad de Navarra, nº 670. -Lucio, L. (2010). Griñán: “se está produciendo terrorismo financiero”. El País, 5/05/2010. -Mathews, R. (2011): Del 15M al 17S: los indignados ocupan Wall Street. Temas para el Debate, nº 205. -Molina, J.C. (2012): Indignados, redes sociales y agonía del imaginario político moderno. Quaderns d’Animació i Educació Social, nº 15. -Mucientes, E. (2011): La papeleta de la corrupción. El Mundo, 26/04/2011. -Mulcahy, S. (2012): Money, politics, power: corruption risks in Europe. Berlin. Transparency International. -Navarro, V. (2011): Hay alternativas. Madrid. Ed. Sequitur. -Pagola, J. (2011): La crisis ha sido una gran estafa. Alandar, nº 274, 5/01/2011. -Pampillón, R. (2008): Crisis, ¿qué crisis? ¿Cómo salir de la crisis? International Excellence University. Economy Weblog, 3/11/2008. -Pampillón, R. (2012): El necesario ajuste del gasto público. Expansión, 13/07/2012. -Pascual, R. (2012): Una de cal y otra de arena para los empresarios. Cínco Días, 12/07/2012. -Pinilla, A. (2011): La percepción del movimiento 15M en las ediciones digitales de El Mundo y El País. Tejuelo, nº 12. Junta de Extremadura. -Profumi, E. (2011): El puente. Los indignados más allá de la idiocia política. Astrolabio. Revista Internacional de Filosofía, nº 12. Universidad de Barcelona. -Público (2012): Los técnicos de Hacienda proponen alternativas a los recortes. Público, 18/07/2012. -Ramonet, I. (2011): Generación Sin Futuro. Le Monde Diplomatique. Edición Española.


67

-Rendón, A. (2011): Gandhi: la resistencia civil activa. Polis: Investigación y Análisis Sociopolítico y Psicosocial, vol. 7, nº 1. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana de Iztapalapa. -Resina, J (2012): Deliberando en la plaza. Una reflexión sobre los límites de la democracia a la luz del movimiento de los indignados en España. Comunicación y ciudadanía, nº 5. Universidad Externado de Colombia. -Resina, J. (2011): Los lunes en Sol: jóvenes, ciberpolítica y acción colectiva en la España del 15M. Umbrales. Revista del Postgrado Multidisciplinario en Ciencias del Desarrollo, nº 22. -Roitman, M. (2012): Los indignados. El rescate de la política. Madrid. Ed. Akal, Pensamiento Crítico. -Salazar, R. and Salazar, M. (2011): Dossier: La indignación Europea. El movimiento de los indignados invade las plazas en España y el “contagio” despierta en Europa y América Latina. Insumisos. Red de Investigadores Latinoamericanos por la Democracia y la Paz (RILDEPAZ). -Samuelson, P.A. (2008): Bush y las actuales tormentas financieras. El País, 28/01/2008. -Santamaría, A. (2011): La rebelión de los indignados. Reflexiones a pie de acampada. El Viejo Topo nº 282-283. -Schneider, N. (2011): From Occupy Wall Street to Occupy everywhere. The Nation, 31/10/2011. -Sequeira, A. (2011): Los indignados: Ocupar Wall Street. El 99% contra el 1%. Revista de Temas Nicaragüenses, nº 44. -Serrano, V. (2011): Las empresas ganan dinero, tú lo pierdes. Diario Siglo XXI, 24/02/2011. -Sharp, G. (2011): De la dictadura a la democracia. Un sistema conceptual para la liberación. Boston. Albert Einstein Foundation. Toff, S and McCallum, J. (2012): Apoyar la disidencia o ser disidente. Global Labour University. Global Labour Columns, nº 79. -Torreblanca, J.I. (2013): El desgobierno europeo. El País, 23/03/2013. -Velasco, D. (2012): La fascistización de la política institucional y el control oligárquico y represivo de la cultura política y social. Iglesia Viva, nº 249. -Villoria, M. and Jiménez, F. (2012): La corrupción en España 2004-2010: datos, percepción y efectos. Reis nº 138, April-June 2012. Wordpress Blog (2012). ¿Y quién rescata a la sociedad? Posted on 9/03/2011, [online]. Available at: <http://de2008a2012.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/%C2%BFy-quien-rescata-a-la-sociedad/> [Accessed 25/03/2013].

http://de2008a2012.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/¿y-quien-rescata-a-la-sociedad/

http://de2008a2012.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/¿y-quien-rescata-a-la-sociedad/


68

Luis Díe Olmos is a Professor at Catholic University of Valencia ‘Saint Vincent Martyr’, Spain and he has collaborated with other Universities in Spain, Colombia, Mexico and India.

Real Democracy or new 'Ancient Regimes'

Documents

Transcript of Real Democracy or new 'Ancient Regimes'