"I am here in this center-right, I I feel very protected as Catholic
"If there was Berlusconi, would be the only country in the world still oppressed by the Communist Party"
"have some sort of shield ... let him do this ... Italy now needs to be governed. Then if you did something wrong, the process will go forward "
rarely addressed the political issue, especially here, for one reason altogether clear: there is no real possibility of interaction. In politics, as in any argument that calls into question the most visceral belief, there is the custom to establish, even in a public context, a lonely and somewhat sterile debate. It is in fact fixed in their position, repeating his refrain, convinced a priori that the others' position is of no value (and therefore wrong), and totally uninterested in what really makes a useful discussion, that change (even if minimal, sometimes) of their position, just enough to improve it and bring it to a state of highest social usefulness. This usually does not happen. Next to the temporary discomfort that can be felt in the face of such a finding, there is instead the most important social consequence, namely the lack of dissemination of culture and information, those factors having a direct effect since the algorithm needed to obtain a ' correct view (or at least balanced) of the facts, holding a valid comparison with reality and morality. The closure leads to ignorance, and if ignorance is spread over millions of people get a people easily trained and malleable dal marketing, privo di coscienza critica, che nelle “democratiche” sedi di voto consegna inconsapevolmente un potere enorme a chi non ne ha il merito. Chicchessiano tali soggetti nella politica attuale (che potremmo definire genericamente "gente come Berlusconi", per onorare il simbolo senza disdegnare la completezza), così come in quella passata, è indifferente: è il meccanismo che conta, una tradizione fallimentare e irresponsabile che viene trasferita dai genitori ai figli, i quali si ritrovano a crescere senza quella capacità critica necessaria a destituire il potere corrotto e indirizzare la società verso uno stato di equilibrio migliore.
Questa analisi dei fatti porta inevitabilmente ad una conclusione apparentemente antidemocratica: perché gente intellettualmente immeritevole deve avere il diritto di voto ? Non si parla, badate bene, di classismo : il merito non si conquista infatti al possesso di un titolo di studio prestigioso in quanto tale, non è da intendersi come una caratteristica distintiva dell’ upper class (principale responsabile altresì dei peggiori disastri, visto il potere sociale che controlla), ma un privilegio da acquisire, in seguito a valutazioni di cultura generale, livello di conoscenza della situazione politica attuale, e magari pure ad un'accurata valutazione psicologica. Credo infatti siano finiti (a meno di stravolgimenti sociali epocali) i tempi in cui il voto was proud to be considered a right, acquired by the sweat and blood of their own or their loved ones. Now this bond of sweat and blood, once a guarantee of moral and intellectual commitment in places of voting, it was lost in generation, culture poor poorly supported by parents tired of fighting, youthful superficiality fed by a consumerist society more dedicated to differentiation of the refrigerator in the supermarket rather than the exploitation of intelligence. For this reason, we must start talking about law of civil commitment, rather than voting rights, a right which must first be demonstrated (regardless of political views actually sorrette, che riguardano la propria libertà di pensiero) e che deve essere considerato un lasciapassare indispensabile per poter partecipare alla guida del Paese (in altre parole, per esercitare il proprio diritto di voto). I cittadini civilmente attivi saranno così ben distinti dagli amorfi, il cui voto qualunquista e spesso ingiustificatamente fazioso porta a falsare i risultati elettorali, una situazione ancor peggiore se si tiene presente che negli ultimi tempi la percentuale di popolazione amorfa è in costante aumento e l'influenza mediatica dominante.
Credo che la politica, decurtata dai giochi di potere che la contaminano, abbia senso d’esistere solo come gestione della cosa comune. Ed è per This is why the common sense thing to be handled only by those who have real interest in its improvement. Participation should include liability : in short, it is necessary that each political position is supported by persons with conscience conscious, that they feel on their skin, the liability of their convictions, to suffer even when their beliefs fail the test of facts. Participation must aspire to a better future in the collective interest, and not to a mediocre future for themselves. The policy should also provide more comprehensive rules for participation: I admire a state I may be allowed to fully express an opinion on the candidate in question, allows a clear evaluation of the most effective choice of a naive candidate or the other ticking a box, I admire a state where I'm allowed to vote for individual ideas in a program that I could not agree in its entirety, I admire a state where voting will occur on the premises of simple groups of persons who purport to solve a specific problem by virtue of their powers, a state that has, at every election, dozens of winners ready to solve dozens of different problems in parallel. A system probably difficult to manage, I know, but probably less crowded (as they say, few but good).
I admire a was short in which to vote finally becomes something complicated and difficult, complicated and challenging because it is my political thought, because I believe it to be complicated and challenging every political rivaling with mine, and why pretend that it is complicated and challenging each political thought really can change things within a country.
0 comments:
Post a Comment