Democracy in human society is also achieved by force and aggression or by the rule of law operating through a political system. Democracy tries to suggest that in the end it is 'the people's choice' that is going to achieve dominance.
Democracy often evolves into a two-party system: those that propose and those that oppose. Why not have everyone involved into the constructive process of designing a way forward?Because it would be far too complicated to have a way forward that satisfied most people. This may be because we have been cultured in the either/or habit of argument and debate. We are so used to win/lose as an idiom that we assume that if we do not completely get our own way then we have 'lost'. So our thinking habits create the system then we claim that the system is inevitable because of our thinking habits.
The basic idea of democracy is that one party wins and the other loses. This is the most practical apporoximation of 'the will of the people'. Where there is a possibility of a change in government some people are satisfied some of the time and the others at another time.
It is said that NASA had a problem with ballpoint pens because they did not wrtite upside down. Such pens depend on gravity to feed the ink on to the ball. So the pens did not work in the zero-gravity environment of space. A considerable amount of money was put into developing a 'space pen', in which a pressure system forced the ink on to the ball. This worked very well. It is said that the Russian space programme had the same problem but went to the concept: ' We need something that writes upside down'. So they used a pencil.
Excerpts from "New Thinking for the New Millenium" by Edward De Bono
It is pleasing to see that the camapaign against racism has been supported by most bloggers on the Maltese blogosphere and that the phrase I added originally "This campaign started on the Maltese blogosphere" can virtually be replaced by "This campaign is supported by 99% of the Maltese blogsophere". I still have doubts about the effectiveness of the campaign unless it spills out of the ether and into the general public view. This should in no way lessen the importance of the fact that we have started to develop the tool of the blogosphere in this direction.
An offshoot of the campaign (or a parallel development- see it as you wish), was the cross-fire that developed between the campaigners and those who disagree with it. In the meantime we have seen power point presentations that have started circulating the net attacking the ANR and whatever it is worth. These power points also include violent images culminating in the one which erezija chose to display under the title "The Country is getting excited" - the jackboot (to me a symbol of fascism itself) crushing the swastika-adorned spider. I read erezija's post as a satyre of the power point itself but I may be wrong. If it was, I agree that the power point should be spoofed.
Why? Look at the discussions on the various blogs where the campaign appeal was posted and the way they turned into the usual "Us and Them" affray that we are so used to in our politics. I commented on Justin's and Andre's description of Kenneth as "ignorant" because of his opinion on the issue (and no hard feelings there either). Later on in a later discussion l-imzebbel and Mark took on an person who posted comments under the nick Vivamalta. L-imzebbel quickly shifted into cliché gearand threw what I call the Graffitti Book at the Fascist intruder. The most interesting comment was by Mark - a subconscious knee-jerk reaction - "Hallihom erezija. Qed jaqrawna wkoll mela...il-battalja bdiet" (Let them be Erezija, They must be reading us too... the battle has begun).
Now I do not intend to condemn any of the abovementioned bloggers. Far from it. I am just trying to highlight our natural tendency to react and challenge. The tendency to form an "Us and Them" concept in which we feel more comfortable. A simple pause for reflection will show us that there can never be winners or losers. We are squaring up for another rabble-rousing confrontation that will be manifested in songs, power point presentations, banners and later scuffles in the street infront of baffled or biased police. We transform a discussion into a violent debate of insults and accusations and fail to see the underlying scope. This primeval instinct is difficult to control. I mean I have to really bite my tongue every now and then when there is a Fausto moment :)
I am not advocating pacifism. Pacifism is too inert and non-reactionary. I am advocating a general understanding that in order to build (yes Fausto build) we must accept the difficult step of changing. Changing our logic. Changing our reactivity and remembering the goal which we set out to reach is above the pique that we encounter along the way.
To start let us take this boat people problem. I have identified a few premises that must be agreed to by all before proceeding - whether you are a vivamalta poem singing fanatic or a wishy-washy graffitti book wielding liberal or a luxembourger stinking of Gozo cheese:
1. The heavy influx of immigrants is not sustainable for the country.
2. The heavy influx of immigrants is a cause for concern for the Maltese.
3. All immigrants have a right to nourishment and basic care for the duration of their stay in the country.
4. An efficient and just assessment system for the award of a refugee status should be in place.
5. The role of the government is to ensure that the above issues are dealt with satisfactorily and to garner international support (and assistance) if necessary.
6. Cooperation with the Maghreb countries for tackling the issue is necessary.
7. The European Union, within its appropriate programmes) has an obligation to participate and lend its full support in the full functioning of the above processes.
Now, stop the mud-slinging and begin the politics.
Blogs mentioned in this post: