Archives for posts with tag: Democracy
Newer Entries »

Politica nu e neaparat curvasarie!

January 9, 2014 //
0

De fapt a spune ca ‘politica este o curva’ e echivalent cu a spune ca a face sex e tot una cu prostitutia.

Am formulat asa tocmai pentru a sublinia ca expresia consacrata cu privire la politica e deficienta si din punct de vedere al exprimarii, o activitate – politica – nu poate fi ‘curva’ ci cel mult ‘curvasarie’. Partea proasta este ca expresia ne-a fost fluturata atat de mult prin fata ochilor incat ne-am obisnuit cu ea si am inceput sa o consideram a fi adevarata.
Nu, nu este intotdeauna asa ci doar in masura in care ii permitem noi sa fie.
Atunci cand facem sex (ma rog, eu unul prefer sa fac dragoste, nu sex, asta este expresia consacrata) ne alegem partenerul dupa preferinta si comoditate. Preferam o noapte salbatica dar fara batai de cap? Ne ducem la curve. Preferam o relatie stabila dar care implica responsabilitati? …

Cam asa e si cu politica. E o activitate esentiala, la fel ca sexul, fara de care comunitatile umane nu ar putea supravietui, si care poate fi incredintata unor oameni seriosi sau unor ‘curvari’.
Iar asta nu e totul.
Nici curvasaria si nici politica nu pot fi practicate de unul singur.
Dupa cum bine spunea Basescu: “Statul nu poate fi necompetitiv sau corupt fara un partener – mediul privat. Responsabilitatea trebuie asumata de ambele parti” tot asa politicienii nu ar putea sa-si bata joc de noi daca noi ne-am purta cu mai multa responsabilitate, pentru noi si pentru copii nostri.
Si inca ceva.
Cele mai multe curve ajung sa faca trotuarul de nevoie sau fortate de altii, nu de placere iar odata ajunse acolo nu mai pot scapa din cercul vicios. Am impresia ca tot cam asa se intampla si cu politicienii, odata ajunsi in hora nu mai pot da inapoi. Si hora se invarte din ce in ce mai tare…

Bine, si ce facem?
Legalizam prostitutia?
Se spune ca dupa ce ‘se potolesc’ curvele devin neveste foarte bune. Pare plauzibil. Dupa ce au trait in infern cele care au fost suficient de puternice si de inteligente incat sa supravietuiasca si sa iasa de acolo ar trebui sa fie tampite sa vrea sa se mai intoarca acolo.
Pe de alta parte orice om normal nu intra intr-o relatie pe termen lung cu altcineva fara sa afle ce a facut celalalt inainte.
Iar dupa aceea, indiferent de cata incredere are in partenerul sau, este atent sa vada ce face – exista si posibilitatea ca acesta sa innebuneasca la un moment dat si sa dea foc la casa, nu?
Primul si cel mai important lucru pe care il avem de facut este sa nu mai credem ca politica este neaparat curvasarie.
Conceptul asta a fost pus pe tapet tocmai de cei care vor sa ne obisnuiasca cu ideea ca nu mai este nimic de facut si ca trebuie sa ne obisnuim cu situatia. Iar partea si mai proasta este ca repetand-o nu facem decat sa ii descurajam pe oamenii cinstiti care ar vrea sa intre in politica: ‘pai daca acolo sunt numai curve eu de ce sa ma duc, ca sa se spuna si despre mine tot asa?’
Iar al doilea lucru este sa nu mai acceptam genul asta de comportament. Tin minte ca l-am auzit o data pe Basescu la un ‘telejurnal’ si nu reusesc sa gasesc undeva citatul ca: ‘nici un ministru sau director n-ar putea face nimic fara unii care sa-l ajute si fara ca cei din jurul lui sa inchida ochii’.
Pana la urma si politicienii sunt conectati la viata reala. Pe vremuri, cand politica era apanajul capetelor incoronate, lucrurile erau mai simple dar mult mai brutale. Daca cel care detinea controlul situatiei (suveranul, singurul care avea autonomie fata de ceilalti) o dadea in bara tara era atat de slabita incat cei din jur incepeau sa profite de situatie: mai luau o bucata de pamant, cateodata o ocupau cu totul…si uite asa se incheia domnia celor nepriceputi.
Acum teoretic e mai simplu, ne alegem conducatorii. Chestia e ca daca nu-i alegem cu grija, si mai ales daca nu stam cu ochii pe ei, ajung sa faca ce le trece lor prin cap si nu ce ar trebui sa faca pentru ca lucrurile sa functioneze cat mai bine. Asa ca nu mai este cazul sa asteptam sa ne cada sandramaua in cap si abia dupa aceea sa luam masuri.
De fapt scandalul care ia amploare in invatamant, cel cu banii din care urmau sa fie luate cadouri pentru profesori, este inca un semn ca oamenii s-au saturat sa mai rabde.

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories 1989 and the Global Financial Crisises., Culture, politics, Psychology, Tara din care traim

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum! (English version)

January 7, 2014 //
6

Image

” “Fiat justitia ruat caelum” is a Latin legal phrase which means “let justice be done though the heavens fall.” It signifies the belief that justice must be realized regardless of the consequences.”

Really?
Since when (rational) human beings do something (willingly and knowingly) without being interested in the outcome of their actions?

Let’s find a better interpretation!

I’ll start with Humboldt’s observation that the inner workings of a language are in strong connection with the way the native users of that language relate themselves to the world at large, observation that was later developed into the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. I find this important because it perfectly explains the fact that a translation will hardly ever be as explicit as the original, precisely because the interpreter needs to translate both the meaning of the text and the frame-mind of the writer.

Back to the Latin phrase.
The Romans were warriors, not literates, so they favored direct talk even if it was sometimes so direct as to become a puzzle. After all they were familiar with their own way of talking!
Take for instance ‘Ubi bene, ibi patria!’
Apparently it’s an immigrant’s motto: “Where there is good (prosperity), there is my fatherland (country), Wherever I prosper, there is my fatherland.”
Now what if there is a lot more to it?
Let’s remember first that the Romans, like the early Americans, were not immigrants but colonists. Quite a difference between these two notions, isn’t it?
So what if ‘Ubi bene, ibi patria’ has a slighter different meaning than the generally accepted one, like ‘if we arrived this far let’s make this place our home’? As in ‘if we’re stuck here at least let’s make this place comfortable’!

I think you already have a fair idea about what I’m trying to suggest but I’d like to explore the concept of ‘justice’ before going any further.
The English term “Justice” is related to two Latin words:
– “Jus” = 1. Law; 2. Right
– “Justitia”= 1. Equity, 2. Justice
In these conditions it is safe to say that ‘justice’ is not only about the rule of law but also about the congruence between the behavior of an individual and his social status. Simply by having said that I got a lot nearer to ‘why on Earth do we care so much about justice?’.

Without justice the social fabric, the spider’s net that keeps us from wandering aimlessly through time, would simply disappear. Direct interactions between (no longer human) individuals would be governed exclusively by brute force and indirect relations would no longer exist.

And this was common knowledge since the dawn of time. Shortly after learning how to speak people have started to teach their children: “Don’t do unto others what you don’t want others to do unto you”. And one of the reasons people invented writing was for them to be able to pass that rule over and over across generations.

About the same time justice started to be ‘administered’. People no longer relied solely on their muscles to defend themselves, if they felt they had been mistreated they could raise the problem before the common gathering of the tribe or before the ruler of the place. And both of these instances would take swift action since none of them had any interest in things escalating any further, friends or relatives of those involved to take sides and the situation to degenerate into open conflict between sections of the community.

In order for a ‘sentence’ to be effective it has to be both just (according to the rules) and pertinent (according to the reality).
In practical terms before punishing somebody for stealing you need to have in place a rule stating clearly what constitutes an ‘act of stealing’, the penalty for purporting such an act, to have sufficient proof that the act has been committed and by whom; otherwise the whole enterprise would defeat its purpose since it would be perceived as arbitrary: a proof that the rule of law no longer operates, the new rule is ‘free for all’ and that individuals are no longer members of a society but hapless constituents of a mob.

I find it extremely significant that some of the most democratic nations had, for long periods of time and quite a few of them still have it, something called ‘judgement by peers’. This way not only the accused doesn’t find himself at the mercy of the ruler of the land, or one of its ‘henchmen’, but also the general public is assured that no monkey business is taking place during the final stage of the judicial process. (NB, judges might have had their powers ‘vested in them by God’ but they were, and still are, vetted by those in power at a given moment).

But the main difference between a jury trial and a bench trial is that while jurors receive strict orders from the judge that they have to be convinced ‘beyond any reasonable doubt’ before passing a ‘guilty’ decision, it is in the very nature of a judge’s job to interpret the law. And it is here where ‘fiat justitia, ruat caelum’ comes into play.
The classic ‘translation’ of this is that “justice must be realized regardless of the consequences” and this interpretation may ‘help’ a judge to pass a verdict one way or another just because he, personally, is ‘satisfied’ with the evidence presented to him and he feels that he has reached the just decision.
Maybe a more useful interpretation would be ‘be careful when dispensing justice otherwise the heavens will fall upon your head’.
Not in the mundane sense that you, personally, would have to suffer the consequences of your decisions but that you, the judge, have contributed – by twisting the due course of justice – to the weakening of the entire society. And by doing so you have brought great danger upon us all.

PS.

Here is another thing about ‘justice’ that is not exactly as conventional wisdom has it.
The blindfold that sometimes adorns the representations of Lady Justice is not so much a symbol of its impartiality and more a sign that she is going to (or at least should) ignore the ‘bribes’ being offered to her.

I, personally, prefer a ‘justice’ that is fully aware of what is going around her so that she might have as much pertinent information as possible at her disposal when reaching a decision.

Tags , , ,
Categories 1989 and the Global Financial Crisises., Psychology, yes but

Fa ce spune popa, nu ce face el.

January 5, 2014 //
0

Aveti aici o excelenta argumentare din punct de vedere teologic, chiar daca un pic pro-domo, a zicalei de mai sus.

Eu ma voi margini sa spun ca ‘popii’, in sensul de persoane initiate intr-un anumit domeniu, dispun de un set mult mai mare de cunostinte relativ la acel domeniu decat noi ceilalti dar asta nu-i scuteste de slabiciunea tipica fiintei umane: tendinta de a ceda ispitei.

De unde capacitatea ‘popii’ de a da sfaturi excelente dar si posibilitatea ca acesta sa nu se tina intotdeauna de propriile sale invataturi.

Acum se impune o precizare de ordin metodologic.
Dupa cum se vede cu ochiul liber am pornit de la ipoteza bunelor intentii. Bineinteles ca ‘popa’, avand atat avantajul belsugului de informatii cat si pe cel al ascendentului moral, ar putea sa dea niste sfaturi intentionat gresite dar asta ar insemna ca respectivul sa fie rau intentionat. Exact din momentul acesta incepe vina enoriasului – cine l-a pus sa asculte cuvintele unui profet mincinos? – asa ca voi ramane in conditiile ipotezei initiale: ‘popa’ este un om ca toti ceilalti, supus greselii, doar ca mai informat si de aceea un pic mai puternic decat ceilalti.

In conditiile astea e de presupus ca la un moment dat ‘popa’ isi va da seama de greselile pe care le-a facut si va incerca sa le dreaga. Nici macar nu conteaza daca face acest lucru de frica pentru ce i se va intampla dupa moarte sau daca si-a dat seama ca efectele actiunilor lui pot face atata rau incat chiar el insusi, copiii si apropiatii sai sunt supusi pericolului. Important este ca omul din el incearca sa dreaga din ce a facut.

Si exact din acest moment incepe sa devina o prostie sa nu asculti cu mare atentie ce are de spus:

“Basescu: Statul nu poate fi necompetitiv sau corupt fara un partener – mediul privat. Responsabilitatea trebuie asumata de ambele parti” si “Eu nu spun că sunt un sfânt. Este controversat modul cum am primit apartamentul din Mihăileanu. Legal, dar controversat din punct de vedere moral. Acum, este controversa cu creditul fiicei mele. În mod cert, este legal. Deci, nu vorbesc de pe poziţia unui sfânt, dar lucrurile au limite”.

Putem sa discutam la nesfarsit despre variatele interpretari care pot fi brodate pe marginea acestor spuse.

Cert este ca are dreptate. Coruptia implica atat corupti cat si corupatori iar odata scapata din frau va distruge intreaga societate.
Noi toti, atat cei cu ‘mainile curate’ cat si cei implicati in acte de coruptie, trebuie sa intelegem odata ca daca o mai tinem mult asa ne va cadea sandramaua in cap!

Tags , , , , , , ,
Categories 1989 and the Global Financial Crisises., aici sunt banii dumneavoastra, Psychology, Tara din care traim

Primenirea clasei politice

January 2, 2014 //
13

Image

“Vezi fa ca ala micu iar s-a cacat pe el. Ce facem, il schimbam odata sau facem altul?”

Cam asa si cu clasa politica, ne tot plingem de ea, ‘din toate pozitiile’ spectrului politic, dar nu facem nimic concret pentru primenirea ei.

Ca in bancul de  mai sus, aparent avem doua variante, schimbam ‘scutecele’ celor deja acolo – constienti fiind de faptul ca nici un ‘bebelus’ nu invata din prima sa se tina curat dar ca o data si o data tot va trebui ‘pus pe olita’ – sau ii schimbam cu o garnitura complet noua?

In realitate, tot ca in bancul de mai sus, nu prea avem de ales: ‘Si cu asta (astia de acum) ce facem?’
In cazul copilului e evident, in cazul politicienilor poate mai putin: ‘ce ma intereseaza pe mine ce se intampla cu ei, au facut deja destule belele si oricum s-au infruptat pe saturate!’

De fapt lucrurile nu stau chiar atat de simplu. Asa cum nici un copil nu se invata ‘curat’ din prima si de unul singur tot asa nici politicienii nu au actionat de unii singuri. In termenii lui Basescu “Let’s drop the hypocrisy. A state on its own cannot be either uncompetitive or corrupt, because the state always has a partner, which is the private sector.”

Toata chestia e ca trebuie sa intelegem o data ce a vrut Gresham sa spuna cu “banii ‘rai’ ii gonesc de pe piata pe cei ‘buni’ “ Povestea a inceput atunci cand au inceput sa fie folosite monezile de metal aur sau argint. Valoarea unei monezi consta in cantitatea de metal pretios continuta. Cum aurul este cu atat mai usor de prelucrat cu cat este mai curat, primele monezi au fost batute din aur aproape pur. Aurul pur este insa foarte putin rezistent asa ca cei care faceau monezi (si bijuterii) au inceput sa experimenteze diverse aliaje. In acelasi timp cei care aveau de a face cu multe monezi – marii comercianti si ‘zarafii’, cei care schimbau banii dintr-o moneda intr-alta – incepusera sa pileasca cate un pic de aur din fiecare moneda care le trecea prin mana.
In situatia asta cei care utilizau monezile aveau in fata doua incertitudini: cat aur intra in realitate in compozitia aliajului din care a fost batura o anumita moneda si cat din cantitatea initiala de aliaj se mai afla in moneda atunci cand ea era oferita la schimb – pentru marfa sau pentru alte monede.
Prima problema a fost rezolvata de Arhimede – asta descoperise el de fapt atunci cand a luat-o la fuga dezbracat pe strada strigand Eureka, o metoda sa masoare simplu densitatea unui aliaj, si deci procentajul de aur din acel aliaj – iar a doua prin introducerea monedelor zimtate – din cauza zimtilor orice tentativa de a pili o moneda iese foarte repede in evidenta.
Numai ca pana la rezolvarea lor circulatia banilor nu fusese pe atat de simpla pe cat ar fi trebuit sa fie. Orice noua emisiune monetara era tratata cu neincredere pana cand nu se afla ‘in piata’ cu certitudine titlul (continutul in aur) aliajului din care fusese batuta si apoi fiecare moneda era cantarita cu grija la zaraf. Iar monezile noi si fara zgarieturi din seriile ‘bune’ erau tezaurizate cu grija, ceea ce provoca o criza de bani pe piata, adica deflatie.
Pe de alta parte, din punct de vedere individual, in conditiile in care pe piata circulau si bani ‘prosti’ (adica ‘piliti’, pentru indivizi era practic imposibil sa bata ei moneda dintr-un aliaj mai prost) ar fi fost de-a dreptul o prostie sa nu incerce si ei sa pileasca cate putin din monezile care le treceau prin mana sau cel putin sa le cantareasca pe cele care li se ofereau inaite de a le primi ca plata.

Numai ca toate astea distorsionau piata in asa masura si presiunea pentru ca problemele sa fie rezovate a fost atat de mare incat cei din ‘fruntea  bucatelor’ au fost fortati sa implementeze masurile care se impuneau: emiterea de monezi cu continut fix de metal pretios si care aveau zimti de siguranta.
Aici trebuie facuta remarca ca cei care au avut cel mai mult de castigat din masluirea aliajului si din pilirea banilor erau cei care bateau moneda (suveranii locurilor, de cate ori trebuiau sa isi plateasca creditorii sau armatele mai bateau o cantitate noua de moneda in care puneau atat aur pe cat aveau sau pe cat credeau ca vor accepta creditorii) cat si marii comercianti ai momentului (cei care aveau oportunitatea sa pileasca cat mai multe monezi). Totusi si acestia au inteles pana la urma ca le va fi si lor mai bine daca instrumentele de plata vor functiona corect si intreaga economie va fi deblocata.

Cam acelasi lucru ar trebui sa se intample si in politica actuala. Nu e nevoie de cine stie ce filozofie. In momentul in care cei aflati ‘la butoane’, atat cei de la putere cat si cei din opozitie, vor intelege ca daca mai continua asa li se va prabusi sandramau in cap sa vedeti ce repede vor incepe sa faca ce trebuie.
Numai ca oamenii acestia, ca noi toti de altfel, au nevoie sa fie trasi tot timpul de maneca. Ce sa intelega ei daca noi, cei de rand, atunci cand avem o problema ‘sarim la cap cu cate o spaga’? Ca li se cuvine, nu? Iar atunci cand ne vine randul sa spunem ce parere avem despre ei nici macar nu mergem la vot.

“Pai degeaba merg la vot, ca nu am pe cine sa votez. Toti sunt la fel!” Poate ca or fi ei atat de asemanatori incat e greu sa-i deosebesti dar daca nu mergem de loc la vot semnalul pe care il trimitem este ca nu ne pasa, ca ei pot face ce vor si ca noi nu vom reactiona. Asa ca daca suntem atat de scarbiti incat nu ne vine sa votam cu nici unul dintre candidati ar trebui sa le spunem clar chestia asta si sa punem doua trei stampile pe buletinul de vot ca semnalul sa fie atat de puternic incat sa il auda si ei: “ne pasa de ce faceti voi acolo, aveti grija!”

Asa ca mai usor cu spaga si mai mergeti pe la cabina de vot.

Apropo, cati dintre voi stiu cine ii reprezinta in parlament sau in consiliile locale?

Dar cati dintre voi s-a gandit pe vremea lui Boc ca in loc sa fie taiate lefurile ar fi mai eficient sa fie stavilita ‘risipa’ resurselor statului si ca in loc sa fie marit TVA-ul ar fi fost mai bine sa fi fost imbunatatita colectarea lui? Cele 30-40% din economie care raman nefiscalizate sunt populate tot cu oameni din tara asta, nu?

Extrapoland citatul din Basescu rezulta ca ‘nici un smecher de pe lumea asta nu poate face nimic de unul singur’. Ar fi timpul ca toti, atat smecherii cat si cei care ii ajuta, sa inteleaga ca nu mai tine.
Mai e un pic si chiar ne cade sandramaua in cap.

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories 1989 and the Global Financial Crisises., aici sunt banii dumneavoastra, Lumea descrisa prin bancuri, Psychology, Tara din care traim, yes but

Look who’s driving!

January 1, 2014 //
0

Image

Sometimes things are so incredible that people are more comfortable joking about them than discussing them in earnest.
Anyway we should pay more attention about how the really important decisions are taken.

It’s our life at stake and we only have one!

PS Click on the picture and start the New Year as we all should: with a good laugh!

Tags , ,
Categories The world as described in jokes

Turning words into deeds

December 26, 2013 //
0

Image

http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bangalore/Chasing-the-Evasive-Muck/2013/12/24/article1961626.ece

This is the most effective way to introduce something new to people.
Preaching isn’t enough, there are a lot of small hurdles that need to be removed before change will actually be implemented.
Enlisting the help of those involved insures that the new thing is OK with them – otherwise you wouldn’t be able to convince them – and that they understand what it’s going on!

Tags , , , , ,
Categories Psychology

No, we don’t need more ‘leadership’! We just need to rediscover “respect”!

December 12, 2013 //
3

Image

Romania, the country I was born in and I dearly love, is in a mess.
The US, a country for which I feel a profound gratitude, is deeply divided across numerous fault lines.
Ukrainians have such a low opinion on Russia, their former big brother, that Moscow has to resort to bribing in order to lure Kiev out of joining the EU.

How did we get here?

Romanians have elected Traian Basescu – an ex sea captain – as President, not so much because of his promise: ‘You should live better!’ but mostly because they were fed up with the arrogance displayed by his opponent. 9 years later, fed up with the way Basescu has maneuvered his pet prime minister into wrecking the economy, Romanians have brought to power a new prime minister who has promised to keep Basescu on a short leash. What was the first thing this new prime minister has done? A formal ‘non-aggression’ pact with the president, as if the constitution wasn’t a good enough to frame relations between the presidency and the government. Now the pact is already broken and for the last month or so the two are accusing each other of corruption while the EU is trying to asses if Romania is mature enough to join the Schengen group of selected countries who trust one another so much as to give up border controls altogether.

The Americans elected Obama, a charismatic leader, hoping he will lead them out of the cul-de-sac where the lackluster but rather rigid G.W. Bush has left them. Do you remember ‘Yes, we can!’? I must confess I was thrilled at the time but I was also weary: ‘What if he will not be able to fulfill all the hope his people has put on his shoulders?’ Now, six years later, Obama’s main promise – an affordable health care system to cover everybody – is in shambles and he has shifted his priorities to a ‘war on poverty’, a move seen by the conservatives as another trick intended to widen the scope of the already ‘too powerful central government’.

The Russians, disillusioned with the chaotic ways of Boris Eltsin – on whose reign the country was left to the mercy of a few oligarchs (pun intended) – brought to power an ex KGB operative. Now, 13 years later, his grip on power is almost as comprehensive as it was that enjoyed by the communist leaders while the country still depends on exporting vast amounts of energy from fast dwindling reserves. Meanwhile its neighbors see Russia as a less scary but no less spiteful version of the old USSR.

What is to be done?

A couple of days ago I took a cab, in Bucharest. The driver, fed up with the constant bickering between the Romanian political leaders, ejaculated: ‘What we need is a dictatorship. A honest guy, preferable from the military, that will clean up this mess!’. While not very common this belief – that current problems could be solved by a ‘honest and benevolent’ dictator, a “Tatuca” (Father in Romanian) – is spreading again. In fact this is exactly how Putin acceded to power in Russia.

Last night I happened to ‘stumble’ on Donald Trump speaking to CNN’s Piers Morgan. ‘What we need is more leadership. We need someone to take the bull by the horns!’ (Unfortunately the clip posted by CNN on the Youtube starts exactly after Trump had finished speaking about ‘leadership’ but you can still read the caption about the ‘bull’s horns’. Still, it is worth watching, you’ll find out about how popular Donald Trump is among the restaurant owners).

It seems that finally the Russians, the Americans and the Romanians have reached common ground.

But would this be a wise thing to do?

To me it seems obvious that while the empires/dictatorships fell/failed rather sooner than later a more stable form of running things is true democracy. After all history provides plenty examples of how peoples who organized themselves based  on mutual respect fared a lot better than those who let themselves to be bullied around. One caveat though, modern democracy seems less and less based on respect and honest efforts to find the common ground and more on tricks performed with the intent to manipulate the masses.

So what will you have, authoritarianism, demagoguery or mutual respect?

PS.
I asked the cabbie ‘OK, but how to you find the right guy for the job?’
I left him scratching his head in search for an answer.

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories politics, Psychology, yes but

Not only in America

July 28, 2013 //
0

‘Yes, as the Supreme Court has said, we have a democracy. The people has the ultimate influence on the outcome of the elections. BUT only after the Funders have had their their way with the candidates!’

Tags , ,
Categories Economy, politics
Newer Entries »