A shameful dictator

Our little dictator does not give a damn about life -among many other reasons due to his close contacts with the mafia-, though he says he will do anything he can to keep alive an Italian citizen who has been in a coma for the last 17 years and who had previously expressed his will to be let die if she ever encountered herself in that situation. Our little dictator does not give a damn about freedom, for the same reason, nor has the least degree of respect for others, since he insulted repeatedly her father, accusing him of a vile attempted murder because keeping her daughter alive apparently would be costing him a lot of money. Our little dictator does not give a damn about the separation of powers in a democratic State, since he is willing to reverse the rulings of the Italian Supreme Court overnight -something the parliament cannot do-, to govern by decree, threatening the members of government who do not agree with him, and to change the Italian Constitution also overnight, that is, he is willing to confront any constitutional powers who oppose his decision to keep this individual alive at all costs. Our little dictator does not give a damn about legality, in this case or in any other case, since his self-proclaimed goal is to change Italian political structures in order the government -that is, him- faces no constitutional hurddles to impose its ruling. This comes as no surprise, since he entered politics to change every single law that could get him in jail due to his endless number of illegalities while running his businesses. Our little dictator is a successful man, since he has managed to change all these democratic rules and stay out of jail despite the hundreds of legal processes he has been involved in. Our little dictator does not give a damn about christian morality, since he has publicly acknowledged to have broken every possible catholic principle a number of times, those regarding with sexual fidelity in particular, yet he did not hesitate to always align his policies with the official positions of the Vatican -which does not care at all if he is a sinner, a thief or a murderer if he can help the institution to upheld its power-, Italy having the most regressive social legislation in Western Europe as a result. Our little dictator does not give a damn about women since, among many other reasons, he has repeatedly justified rape, saying happily in recent times, for example, that nothing can be done about it since the Italian women are the ‘più belle delle mondo’.

Shame on our little dictator. Shame on everyone who voted for him throughout these years. Shame on the political parties conforming the so called opposition, which are not able to defend dignity, legality and truth in front of this liberticide who mocks any conceivable kind of freedom and human decency.

Photo © tulipanonero

Neoliberalism, or the making of an empty concept

Coming from Europe, I thought here in North America political language would be used more straightforwardly and efficiently. How naive I was…

Here, as in Europe, and particularly in Canada, you hear the word neoliberal at all times. Neoliberal fiscal adjustments, neoliberal aligment with the current Bush administration, neoliberal foreign policy, neoliberal bastards…

Actually, what does neoliberalism mean? Let´s see… What is ‘neo’ or ‘new’ in classical liberalism? Nothing, since classic liberals stand up for the very same individual freedom, rule of law, limited government principles -thought constantly adapting them to the new circumstances- of Hayek and Berlin. If any, new liberals would be those belonging to the British tradition of social-liberalism starting with Thomas Hill Green in the ninetieth-century, or perhaps earlier with the late works of John Stuart Mill. However, I do not think the people using the expression neoliberalism refer to this kind of modern liberalism accepting a greater role for the State in social and economic affairs.

Quite the contrary, neoliberalism points to everything we dislike in political or moral terms; it singles out our enemies, those who are not leftist, progressive enough - and there is no limit in this, obviously, so nearly everyone is potentially a neoliberal, depending on the extremism of the one making the claim. It reminds me of the way American conservatives used to employ the word ‘communist’ in the McCarthy years, or far-rightists in Europe until not so long ago: communism equals dangerous evil. Period. ‘We’ (those conservatives in power) will say who is a communist. Period. (Actually, the current Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has been using the word communist as a synonym of everyone and everything he considers ‘wrong’ in his country until this year, apparently with good political results for him. Italy is such a weird political case…)

On a more careful consideration of the matter, neoliberalism is one of the emptiest political concepts man has ever invented, since there is no agreed, clear definition of what is to be a neoliberal.

Neoliberal is just an insult, and indeed a very useful one, since no one wants to be labeled that. However, as a scientific concept and as a description of a state of affairs, it is completely meaningless.

Photo: Shell, 2006 © Darny

A double-edged Olympic sword

As a part of a diplomatic offensive this week, the Chinese government has criticized American human rights record, poverty and racial divides, after the American Department of State only mildly critiziced Chinese human rights abuses, and even erased the country from the list of the serious human rights abuses, to the outrage of international human rights NGO´s. China´s protest constitutes a shameful and hypocritical move, since China´s performance in these fields is among the worst in the planet. The offensive tries to counteract Western condemnation of Chinese human rights abuses just before the Olympic Games in Beijing. China has staked enormously in the gigantic public relations operation the Games amount to, whose aim is to show the world how far has China reached in its quest for development. However, the idea Chinese officials have in mind when thinking about development may have nothing to do with the image it conjures up for the Westerner, since the latter includes not only living conditions but also freedom and respect for individuals, whereas the former just points to a kind of competition to attain material and technological goals. In other words, it is all about national pride, a very Asian concept, by the way.

The Olympic Games should have never been granted to China, probably the most serious human rights violator in the world. Once the appropriate international bodies took the decision, the only action left for democratic governments and peoples is to actively boycott them. And for the boycott to be really effective, it should be a widespread Western decision, regardless the Chinese reaction to it. During the Cold War, the Moscow 1980 Olympic Games Western boycott did not lead us to the Third World War; if anything, it contributed to the Soviet regime´s collapse. Moreover, China needs Western markets desperatedly, so here we have a powerful tool to exert influence on the country. And to those claiming we should not mix sports with politics, let us note an event such as the Olympic Games is one of the best examples of global politics nowadays. Besides, the political nature of the Games is officially recorgnized by the Chinese government, which rightly weighted the huge opportunities to improve its international image the gathering offered. However, when betting on the Games, Chinese officials seemed oblivious to the fact that in our globalized world, they are a double-edged sword. Therefore, a big-scale fiasco would project a multiplied image of incompetence, corruption and, ultimately, backwardness. That would imply losing face, again, a very important concept in Asian cultures.

It is this multiplier effect we need to take advantage of to expose China´s abusive public policies towards its own citizens, raise awareness about its immoral international behaviour -i.e.: its role in the Darfur crisis-, and show our solidarity with Chinese dissidents and human rights activists. No one is denying China its right to economic and social development, but the Free World -a Cold War expression which is nevertheless relevant today, unfortunately- should send a clear message: if the Chinese government wants its country to be accepted as a major actor in the international community, it should respect life, freedom, and human rights.

Read on:

Human Rights Watch last report on China´s abuses on Beijing´s migrant construction workers.

On China´s disastrous environmental record.

On China´s international public relations setbacks as a consecuence of the Olympic Games exposure.

On Chinese officials defending China´s stand in Darfur and criticizing the Olympics tie-in.

Photo: Woman holding a dog, Beijing, 2007 © Nataliebehring

Loathing counterfactuals

The hatred flowing around in the Spanish blogsphere is astonishing. Deceiving myself, I prefer not to take it as a good proxy of the animosity prevalent in society at large.

The current Spanish Socialist Party government -towards which I have no particular sympathy- seems to be guilty of any trouble happening in this country. This belief leads some people to make nonsensical counterfactual statements, namely, that last Friday´s terrorist attack would have not happened if Prime Minister Zapatero had not been in power. In other words, that he is to blame for the murder.

These ignominious words tell a great deal about he who uttered them, and would deserve no comment. However, many seem to believe this plain lie, which usually comes along with claims that the ETA terrorists and Mr. Zapatero have the same political agenda; therefore, they are political allies. Therefore, if Mr. Zapatero and his dreadful government were not in power terror in Spain would vanish. Therefore, Mr. Zapatero is to blame for any terrorist attack.

To be sure, the current government should have never attempted to negotiate any surrender with these killers, since it sent the wrong message both to terrorists and citizens. The Spanish democracy will defeat them enforcing the law, chasing them, and putting them in jail. Period. But, to be fair, past conservative governments should have not atempted to do so either. The socialists never criticized any Popular Party government for those ‘talks’, neither blamed on them ETA victims of the time. Above all, the Socialist Party never used counter-terror policy as a tool for opposition strategy.

The Socialist government committed many mistakes in its counter-terror policy approach, and then more. But the Popular Party performance as opposition these four years conjured up an image of authoritarianism and extreme intolerance. It did not start when they lost the elections in 2004 because of their ill-managed information approach to the islamic terrorist attacks of those days (i.e.: lying to the citizens), a ‘failure’ they seem they never accepted; it is something running deep inside them and inside some of the social forces they actually represent. It is the idea that political power belongs to them, and to them only, so that lossing it signals an odd event that must be explained by external factors such as conspiracies and weird alliances between terrorists and democratic adversaries.

I am not to approve the Socialist Party populism as of late, or its huge conceit. I have got scores of differences with what the current Socialist Party stands for, but the classist, intolerant, conservative and ultimately authoritarian air of the current Popular Party and, worst still, of many of its followers, their loathing towards anything smelling as ‘leftist’ -a ‘totum revolutum’ in which they seem to randomly mix disparaged elements, from respect to pluralism to gender equality and secularism- really makes me sick. Above all, I cannot understand why so many individuals, with no alleged relation to a political party, display so much hatred against millions of their fellow citizens and the politicians apparently representing them.

It is quite unlikely there will ever be a Spanish liberal party -deserving that name, that is, defender of markets, individual rights and responsabilities, and limited governments, but also secular, progressive, pluralistic and unprejudiced- with a relevant constituency and real chances of arriving to power, and the reason is twofold: the current electoral system prevents its emergence, and the conservative (with both left and right leanings), resentful, vindictive and polarized nature of the Spanish people makes it a nearly impossible task.

P. S.: By the way, the Financial Times editorial comment on March 2 captured well what I think of both Spanish main parties.

Addenda: More on the subject: two cents of common sense, as it is usually the case with Soledad Gallego-Díaz.

Photo: Don’t you be yelling at me, 2005 © Mareen Fischinger

Fascinated by symmetry

In my late teens and early twenties, I tended to divide the political world in good and evil forces. There was no room back then for doubts, subtleties or shades. Everything was black or white, right or wrong, and you were either with me or against me. Of course, I thought the correct side was the left, the progressives, the ‘reds’. I wanted to change the world. I felt the poverty, injustice and harsh living conditions of those around me, and of suffering people I saw on TV and newspapers. The ‘good’ guys had to be those who wanted to get these people out of poverty and adversity by means of redistributing wealth, freeing them of the cruelties of the market as much as possible. Actually, I never sympathized with communism, but nevertheless really believed in the liberating possibilities of socialdemocratic public policies and the limitless opportunities government action offered to change the world for good. Emancipation was the key, a word which conjured up more than just freeing people from the whims of capitalism; it also meant elightening them, and once this was accomplished, the world would be pure harmony and welfare for all. My ideals were not only noble, but the democratic, socialist way of accomplishing them was perfect, flawless and unparalleled by any alternative theory or practice. Of course, I kept hearing complaints and objections against this way of thinking, but I deemed those making them privileged, selfish and self-interested. They were the ‘bad’ guys.

As it turned out, my passion for perfect emancipatory theories grew out with time, as I engaged in the complexities of the real world and discovered the limits to collective action, human fallibility, the endless plurality of desires and worldviews, the mighty power of chance and the many imperfections concomitant to human nature. In particular, I learned governmental power may be as bad as private power, and usually much more so. On the other hand, I still feel the injustice and suffering in this world, but no longer attribute all evils to some bad guys controlling our fate.

Since I landed at the blogsphere I have paid some attention to the curious opinions and attitudes of the so called Spanish anarcho-capitalist bloggers. For them, governments are the worst tragedy ever befallen to humanity, and everything sort of its complete erradication is wrong. The likes of Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe are their gods, and they scrutinize their works as a rabbi or a priest studies the Torah or the Bible in search for the Truth. They think taxes, laws, policies and anything related to the state amount to the most severe of immoralities. Governments are criminal; all laws except those sanctifying property enslave individuals; all taxation is theft. If we wiped out governments from the face of earth, humans would spontaneusly organize themselves and everyone would be happy and free at last. They call anyone not sharing their views a ‘socialist’, including here not only leftists but also liberals, classic liberals, moderates and conservatives. However their extremist views, they dispense themselves with the need of giving any detailed arguments to prove their points. They judge repeating time and again the same clichés about the criminal nature of government suffices. Do they think for a second their theories may be put into effect? Do they ever consider reality as something else than an a despicable annoyance? Are they convinced of being useful, of doing something meaningful to others? Will they ever venture out of their ivory towers to deal with the real problems human societies face? I guess many of our local anarcho-capitalists are very young, have not studied much yet, or have not done so dispassionately, and have seldom experienced the real world. In those circumstances, it is easy to be fascinated by accounts in which everything is perfect, symmetrical and beautiful, and any intended moves lead invariably to the desired outcomes. I felt this kind of fascination at their age. By relating to those narratives, we skip the wearing task of finding our place as active citizens in an imperfect world and solutions to its real problems, solutions which always will be incomplete, imperfect and contingent upon given circumstances. Eventually, some of these devotees of faultless theories and ideal worlds will leave behind their utopies. Very few ones will become notable libertarian thinkers, and still others will always remain the doctrinaires they were meant to be. Dogma needs believers as much as they need a faith.

Photo: Battlestar Galactica poster

Identity and immigration priorities

1

The Spanish opposition conservative Popular Party (PP) made public last week its proposed measures on immigration policy as part of its program towards next month´s general election. As it is usually the case in Spain, these propositions were welcomed not with the ensuing debates and discussion such an important issue deserves, but with a cacophony of accusations and contempt from the leftist parties, which in turn triggered new accusations and contempt from the PP. Nothing new under the sun…

The new measures proposed by the PP are twofold. First, a legally binding ‘Integration contract’, whose signature will be mandatory for all new immigrants. Among other prescriptions, this integration contract stipulates immigrants will have to respect the law, pay taxes, and find a job -all of this being already in effect-, but also to learn Spanish and abide by the Spanish customs, without further specification on the latter, though party officials hinted at the prohibition of genital mutilation and the equality between sexes, both of which are already enforced. Failure to comply may result in the immigrant being expelled from the country. The party justified the measure on the need to ameliorate the integration of immigrants by way of them adhering to core Spanish values -”which must be clearly stablished by society as a whole”-, thus improving social cohesion. The need for society to decide in which cases should we all be morally and legally bound and when differences and diversity should be respected was also mentioned.

The second measure consists in the introduction of a new scheme to give out temporary visas and working permits based on a ‘points system’, aiming at facilitating the arrival of high skilled and experienced workers. Along with prioritizing immigrants possesing certain skills or having the high capabilities the Spanish labour market is in need of, those individuals coming from countries “with which we may have special or historical links” would also be favored. According to one leading Spanish newspaper the PP would actually like to toughen immigration policy giving preference to foreigners arriving from Latin America -catholic and Spanish speakers- over those coming from the Maghrib -muslim and Arab speakers-. Also, temporary and working visas would be awarded according to the following criteria: (a) Knowledge of Spanish; (b) Professional skills; (c) Knowledge of the Spanish legal system; and (d) Knowledge of the Spanish culture.

On the left camp, the governmental Socialist Party (PSOE) deemed the announced proposals xenophobic, reactionary and discriminating; the socialist Vicepresident considered they favor rejection and racism, and showed contempt for immigrants, for equality and for diversity; and the post-communist United Left (IU) added they were racist, classist and islamophobic, and that the PP abhors diversity and religious pluralism.

Do measures like those proposed improve immigrants integration and social cohesion, as the PP claims, or else they embody racism and contempt for other cultures, as the left asserts? At this point it would be interesting to look at how other countries are coping with immigration and diversity, and one such interesting comparation, if not the most appropriate, is the Canadian case.

Canada has, right after Australia, the highest proportion of foreign-born population in the world (19,8%). In the five years preceding 2006, the year for which we have the latest available figures, Canada’s foreign-born population increased by 13.6% (the equivalent rate for the Canadian-born population was 3.3% for the same period. Immigrants born in Asia and the Middle East made up the largest proportion (58.3%) of newcomers, followed by those born in Europe (16,1%), Central and South America (10,8%) and in Africa (10,6%). In 2006, just three metropolitan areas -Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver- were home to nearly 70% of all recent immigrants. 70.2% of the foreign-born population is allophone, that is, has as mother tongue neither English nor French. If aboriginal languages are included, one out of five Canadians does not have any of the official languages as mother tongue. Regarding religion, in 2001 Catholics and Protestants made up nearly 70% of the population; another 15% has no religious affiliation, the rest was Othodox, other types of Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh and other, in varying percentages.

Commensurately with this astonishing level of diversity, Canada faces enormous integration challenges, and the country has engaged itself in a ceaseless debate on the core values of its social and political system, trying to stablish what being Canadian really means and what this notion of citizenship, if any, implies for the Canadian legal system. Both liberal institutions granting rights and freedoms, the rule of law, and multiculturalism play a relevant role in this debate, the most important one Canada faces nowadays as a nation.

The current Canadian immigration policy is based on the idea that immigration prompts the country’s growth, its prosperity and its cultural diversity. The system also aims at families´reunion and the protection of refugees. Permanent residence is usually granted according to a point system based on several selection factors, such as educational level, abilities in English or French, working experience, age, arranged employment in the country, or potential adaptability (having studied in Canada, having relatives or having previous work there). Immigrants are also subjected to a proof of funds, that is, they must show they are not going to be dependent on the state after their arrival. Residents and citizens may sponsor relatives to immigrate in the country, and it is worth noting that -on a very progressive note and besides dependent children, grandparents, siblings and other relatives- not only spouses but also common-law or conjugal partners are eligible. Finally, let us mention language proficiency and knowledge about Canadian culture plays an important role, but only when applying for citizenship. Broadly speaking, the system aims both at matching the needs of Canadian labour market with both the skills and flows of newcomers, and at facilitating integration by means of a non-restrictive, non-ideological and objective set of selection criteria, and also helping families reunite.

The Canadian immigration system has worked reasonably well, is the result of successive approaches to immigration and integration policies throughout decades, and commands a high degree of approval among the Canadian population and the agreement of all political parties. Sure, there are challenges and integration issues in Canada, as mentioned before, such as social tensions regarding some cultural practices or the consecuences of a certain degree of permanent low income among recent immigrants, but, overall, the system has worked efficiently and allowed for the great numbers of newcomers mentioned above to settle successfully in the country -access to citizenship is easy, in international terms, as permanent residents may apply for it after three years, and about 85% of those eligible get naturalized- and share the wealth its arrival has contributed so much to trigger.

Going back to Spain, what does the Canadian experience tell us?

It is strongly advisable for a country subjected to high immigration rates to open a public debate on identity issues, as comprehensive as possible and including immigrant groups. Our society, as those of many other countries, is becoming increasingly multicultural, and cannot do without trying to stablish which is our minimum set of core values, those our legislation must embody and protect, and citizens and residents comply with. However, this is not an easy task, and different parties in the debate may feel the temptation to try to impose their views, resorting either to an elusive concept of ‘ancestral national culture’ -empty and dysfunctional in the face of accelerated social change- or to a multiculturalist notion of citizenship, which relativizes values and may lead to a ghettoization of certain groups and entrenched discriminating practices inside ethno-cultural communities and among them.

When making public their immigration policy proposals, the Popular Party spokesmen mentioned the need to address this debate on core values, and rightly so, but perhaps an electoral campaign is not the best moment to raise the subject, which calls for a quiet, comprehensive and long-term reflection, nor political parties should be its (only) stirring agents, as many other social forces, institutions and individuals ought to have a say in the disscusion.

By choosing to bring up immigration and integration issues just before a general election, the Popular Party looks like he is not so much interested in opening a debate on these extremely important questions but on gaining some political advantage by means of playing with the emotions of voters. Also, the criteria it advanced for stablishing priorities among residency claimants seem to be very subjective and hastily assembled, though consistent with a certain conservative notion of Spanish culture, as if its definition enjoyed an overwhelming consent and needed no further discussion, which is just the contrary of the non-biased reflection mentioned above. Whereas having certain professional skills and at least a working command of Spanish may increase immigrants´chances of finding a job and integrating, it is difficult to grasp how favoring certain countries of origin over other countries or regions -out of culture, religion or historical links- will benefit the Spanish economy. This arbitrariness also reveals an static idea of Spanish culture, insusceptible to change and frozen in time, and it sends the message as well that Spain is an open country not for those wanting to come here to live, respect the laws, progress and contribute to its wealth, but only for the ones who will not challenge the supposedly immutable essence of Spanish ‘culture’.

On the other hand, the socialist government and the rest of the leftist parties are wrong in criticizing the stablishment of priorities in the immigration policies and of certain rules newcomers must observe, since it is perfectly legitimate governments choose which people are entitled to form part of their societies, and doing so in a non-discriminating, open-to-all and reasonable manner is a proper way of conducting public policy.

The reaction of the left lays bare the fact it does not really know how to address the identity and multicultural issues we are facing. Or else, worst still, as in the case of post-communist or post-marxist parties and movements, they know perfectly well, following their desire of detonating the pivotal institutions of our open societies. Regarding integration and identity, it is worth recalling cultures are dynamic and are subjected to constant change; they are not ‘stock’ but ‘flow’, to borrow the language of the economic science. However, we must give sound arguments and reasons to defend or criticize the elements making up a culture and, if we care at all for human rights, rule out any relativist temptations, which prevent us from exercising a rightful critique of cultural practices. Let us not fool ourselves: criminalizing genital mutilation and arranged marriage but leaving intact many other forms of abuse in the name of diversity -something post-marxist movements and even a part the socialdemocratic left support- only shows our selfishness and our disdain for the fate of the individuals we supposedly care for. Avoiding a debate on what constitutes the foundations of our freedom -those deserving uttermost respect on the part of citizens, residents and visitors alike- and, moreover, doing so out of a supposed ‘respect’ for the customs dear to minoritarian ethno-cultural groups also being a part of our society, only demeans our legitimacy to speak for the oppressed and the abused in those groups, and exposes the degree towards which we yield to a sort of post-colonial remorse -conveniently transmited through generations-, and also the fact that we are paradoxically shameful about the accomplishments of our civilization.

Far from being an exercise on ‘neo-colonialist’ imposition and ‘contempt’ for diversity and pluralism, to judge by the left´s initial reaction to the Popular Party immigration measures -the point not being how good or ill-conceived they are-, vindicating the very values and institutions that make us all equal before the law and grant us, among many other things, the freedom to engage in the cultural practices of our election or the abandonment of them, is the only way of organizing a multiethnic, multicultural and diverse society for the good of its members. For all of them, current and prospective.

Photo: School friends, 2007 © Woodleywonderworks

Liberalism, elections and the proper place for religion

In a free society, religion should remain in the private realm, period.

To be sure, churches and sects will always to try to exert influence in the political arena, claiming to be above earthly legislation if they are (or purport to be) the main religious denomination in a given community, or demanding tolerance in they are a minority. Acting this way, they conduct themselves just like any other interest group. If, for the sake of maintaining freedom, we deem essential the state is neutral between different conceptions of the good -that is, that we have a liberal order, leaving aside for a moment the many varying interpretations of this notion-, then the appropriate public policy towards interest groups will consist in avoiding them to impose their views on the general population.

As some liberal historians have shown, what is central in the constitution of liberal thought is not the economy but the religious problem. The seventeenth-century liberals considered the only way out of the political crises that mired the European political landscape was to achieve the neutrality of the state in religious matters. From then onward, tolerance has been the key concept, and many liberal thinkers have struggled to show that to bring about fully the idea of tolerance and peaceful social co-existence between different creeds, the state should be completely detached from religious sects, moreover granting none of them any privileged status.

Ludwig von Mises, the great Austrian liberal economist and theorist, summarized the classic liberal position on the subject when he wrote the following lines in 1927 (Liberalism. The classical tradition, Indianapolis, Liberty Fund, 2005 [1927]:

“If one considers the peaceful cooperation of all men as the goal of social evolution, one cannot permit the peace to be disturbed by priests and fanatics. Liberalism proclaims tolerance for every religious faith and every metaphysical belief, not out of indifference for this “higher” things, but from the conviction that the assurance of peace within society must take precedence over everything and everyone. And because it demands toleration of all opinions and all churches and sects, it must recall them all to their proper bounds whenever they venture intolerantly beyond them. In a social order based on peaceful cooperation, there is no room for the claim of the churches to monopolize the instruction and education of the young. Everything that their supporters accord them of their own free will may and must be granted to the churches; nothing may be permitted to them in respect to persons who want nothing to do with them.”

If contemporary liberal parties, which claim to be the political heirs of distinguished liberal thinkers such as Mises, are to follow their ideas, they cannot turn their backs to an institutional design that allows members of different denominations to practice their own faith without forcing others to be involved with it, either mentally, socially or financially. If they favor, as we often witness, one cult over the others -for example, the self-proclaimed liberal Spanish Popular Party tends to align itself with the opinions of the Catholic Church-, they should be considered as conservatives and not as liberals.

However, a certain democratic perverse effect is at work here, apparently blurring the distinction between liberalism and conservatism. Given the majoritarian nature of our contemporary representative political systems, the main contending parties are forced to become catch-all parties, as theorized by Otto Kirchheimer, to maximize their electoral support and, hence, their chances of arriving to power. That means they will include different proposals in their political programs, however incoherent they result, in pursuit of the highest electoral support. In the case of the centre and right of the centre parties (a purely journalistic but rather empty classification), where liberal parties are usually found, this implies appealling to both secular and religious voters in a sort of unclear -and impossible- equilibrium, hard to fathom by true liberals. Such ideological exercises tend to lean towards the conservative pole time and again, since liberal parties´ strategists usually believe there is more to lose -in terms of sheer voting numbers- neglecting the conservative part of the constituency than the secular, liberal one. In practical terms, that means they will align themselves with the church and will favor it finantially or in other ways when they are in power.

Yet liberal parties have an alternative to what seems to be the only route in terms of electoral tactics, which is restoring political pedagogy its good name and effectiveness by again practicing it. That implies they should not merely adapt their political platfoms and policies to the perceived or seeming inclinations and whims of the majority but try to persuade voters of the benefits for freedom and prosperity of their core liberal ideas, however unpopular, with clear, coherent programs, determined public policies, and courageous and articulate leaders.

Photo: Orthodox cathedral, now the University of Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2006 © Loudsoul

Deceiving language

Here are just a few examples -all recent Spanish press headlines, but they could have been taken from any other country´s- of the fraudulent political language we have become accustomed to, and with which we fool ourselves, to the delight of politicians.

ANV and PCTV finance Batasuna with more than a million euros

(Obviously not. It is us, taxpayers, who are financing the illegal Batasuna group through the public funds allocated to those political parties, which have representatives in several local and regional chambers thanks to our current government´s decision not to instigate months ago their illegalization process, being all of them members of the same terrorist organization.)

Chaves promises free 1MB internet for every Andalusian

(Well, internet, as most goods and services, is not free, so what the Andalucian Autonomous Community president is generously promising -estimated in 70 million euros- will be actually paid out of Andalucian and non-Andalucian taxes.)

The Popular Party promises free day care

(Free day care is not free at all, but this electoral promise sounds much better than claiming the party wants to tax everyone to finance nurseries only for a certain group -parents-, however large. Please note I am not criticizing this policy but the way it is presented to the public.)

We should stop deceiving ourselves and start behaving like active citizens, asking for a real, comprehensive public debate -with logical arguments, apparent needs, informed opinions, inclusive participation, and willingness to reach agreements- on the way we collect and spend government revenues, though perhaps that is expecting too much of our politicians and, yes, of ourselves.

The same old story: Uganda and Zimbabwe

A contemporary observer gives the following account of Idi Amin´s ousting of Asians from Uganda after his arrival in power in 1971:

Traders from the Far and Middle East have been coming to East Africa for centuries. Until the 1970s, South Asians ran most of Uganda’s businesses, factories, and sugar and cotton mills; they built many of the towns, taught in the university, and owned a great deal of property. Then, in 1972, Idi Amin threw them all out and gave their property to black Ugandans. Chaos ensued. The new African entrepreneurs were totally inexperienced and the economy fell into ruin. Amin spent what little foreign exchange remained in the country on whiskey and transistor radios to placate the army, and soldiers and other government henchmen looted at will.*

Some dictators -even when they hold several degrees by Western Universities- either never seem to learn from the past or they are too attached to their privileges to think of anything else but their political fate. Zimbabwe´s Robert Mugabe presided over a long period of political and economic stability during which Zimbabwean economy was among the strongest three in the continent. On the other hand, most property, especially land resources, remained on the hands of white Zimbabweans, a small minority of the population. For political motives (i.e.: enlarging the number of supporters with an eye on his goal of staying in power), disguised as a way of correcting a social injustice, Mugabe´s government is devastating what once was a succesful developing country -albeit economically and socially very unequal-, when it is currently taking land and farms from their white owners by force. Mugabe´s replica of Idi Amin´s policies -as it was the case in Uganda- are not benefiting the general population either, as many properties have been distributed among political cronies and supporters. It all -combined with the international sanctions imposed on the country to force its government to walk towards democracy and the rule of law- is resulting in the highest inflation rate in the world, an astonishing level of unemployment, a massive process of emigration, record poverty levels and the disintegration of Zimbabwean economy. Finally, even if Mugabe´s intention of correcting past -and present- grievances were genuine -which are not-, the ‘way’ he chose to do it only adds new wrongs for blacks and whites alike without solving none of the previous problems. Only by setting up real democratic institutions, the rule of law and a free market may those huge difficulties be overcomed in the long term.

Read more about the current situation in Zimbabwe here.

(*) Helen Epstein, The Invisible Cure (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007, p. 10), citing the following sources: Yoweri Museveni, What Is Africa’s Problem? (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000); and Henry Kyemba, A State of Blood: The Inside Story of Idi Amin (Kampala: Fountain Publishers, 1997).

Photo: Mbarara, Uganda, 2006 © salarios

They all win

Two days ago, we had local and regional elections in Spain. The total number on votes was roughly equal for both main national parties, so both tried to appear in front of the public as winners. On the election day, contenders encouraged citizens to vote, pointing to the precious institution we enjoy in democracies and which people in non-democratic regimes long for. It is true that, in consolidated democracies, we take things for granted and do not value our liberal institutions as we should, but that is not the whole story. Most voters think their vote will not make much difference, or that things will remain the same no matter which party wins in the end. Casting a vote every four years is neither a democratic nor a much powerful tool to exert influence on political decisions. One possible solution would be to combine indirect elections with direct democracy institutions -referendum, legislative initiative, recall- which would empower citizens in everyday politics, force them to become more active and responsible and politicians to become more accountable. Above all, most decisions would remain in the hands of people who experience directly their consecuences, and not in the ones of a political caste which purports to know the desires of the citizens at any moment and which claims to have a mandate to do as it pleases with the political agenda.