One commentator yesterday tabled the idea: "In the short term, the local level seems to the least complicated to undertake the regional, but then to claim to 'my' mayor creation ex nihilo an Alderman of the transition ... it seems steep. Should we not consider a transitional step, with establishment of local structures of participatory democracy on the theme of transition? "He echoed, in more positive perhaps, another comment that said, essentially, that a lot of local politicians, and notament of mayors in place for decades, would certainly Acuna intention to change "their old habits." Implicitly, there is the thorny issue of realism to the idea of transition - transition of environmental and energy share (in terms of movement Cities and Communities in Transition ), economic transition on the other hand with the establishment of an economic alternative: cooperatives, self-managed enterprises, social economy-oriented "radical" possibilities of self-food production (especially vegetable) in the neighborhoods, local farming, etc.. These ideas are beautiful in the eyes of a lot of people ... but what do they realistic when you see the political and economic presence?
Certainly, one of the main slogans of May 68 was: "Be realistic, demand the impossible." It is a well-known paradox of activism as being regularly deal with actors (including political, economic as well, including among unions and citizens) who reject as not a particular mutation also felt as inevitable. Psychologists speak of "resistance to change", but be careful because this argument can often be used against progressives: environmentalists and trade unionists are sometimes accused of resisting change by politicians or employers who wish to "change the things "... to have more leeway in collecting profits and / or electoral votes. Resisting change is not in itself a good or a bad thing: it depends on the change in question. First, is it desirable and why? Second, even desirable, is it feasible? And here it is clear that in many cases, those who decree that a mutation is "impossible" are also those who have the greatest financial and political resources to carry it out. We may then suspect that it is their personal interests or interests of that group are jeopardized, and the argument of the "impossibility" is an excuse not to say simply: "This change, I do not want to because I'll lose money, prestige, etc.. "
As part of the ecological and economic transition, there are those who think it is not desirable and those who think it is not feasible. Ecologically, and including the issue of energy savings related to climate issues, there are few actors who still dare to said that the deployment is not desirable. The mass conversion of industrial financiers and even the green capitalism shows that new market niches were nosed, where you can make the money grow sheltered from environmental insults. (See especially the recent book by Dominique Nora, The pioneers of green gold , Grasset, 2009.) Since the "greening" can take place within the capitalist logic, it is thus seen as desirable ... However, in terms of economic transition towards sustainable production and consumption post-capitalist - democratic, participatory, "simplicitaires" - things are much less pink (or green) that hold on all sides because what is questioned is the logic of the valuation of economic and financial capital on the basis of wage labor, with the support of benevolent government. That whole "social democracy" capitalist who tremble on its foundations in the economic transition, and the key players do not want it spontaneously: the bosses of course, but also trade unions and politicians.
Our mayor and other aldermen are at the highest Local caught in the toils of the net. They do not see how they could reverse their little corner a trend that is supported by virtually all policy decisions at regional, federal, European and global levels. Hence the conviction, for lots of them, the very idea of transition is unrealistic, impossible to implement. (I do not even speak, of course, elected officials whom I allude commentators, who seem to view their political mandate as a source of income and personal with virtually no connection with any reflection on the interest general or on the major changes world.) Hence the idea that - in fact - our elected officials to the most local level need to be taken by the hand and reassured by their potential voters. It's good citizen participatory structures "illegal" that we first need - illegal in the sense that we have put in place without the express permission of our elected officials, with the consequence that our deliberations and inquiries at communal (for pushing forward, creating a Alderman of the transition) will immediately a purely advisory , as they say in the political jargon "democratic".
The trick is knowing how our consultative citizen initiatives will gain enough weight for one day or another, the force of law. But that is the lot of any shares not institutionalized: it is to wear in the belief that the mutations for which advocates are pressing, so desirable - so one day or another possible. In any case, the conviction that carries people like Rob Hopkins the UK, which is the "founding father" of the Transition Towns movement . In terms of economic transition, which (I just go up) is much more threatening the vested interests in our society probably be there a new alliance between the citizens of municipalities and unions. In any case, the conviction that defending Chris Carlsson United States, the movement's founder Nowtopia . Both for Hopkins in the energy field, for Carlsson in the field of labor and the struggle against the wage system is to citizens, without much help from the elected government, to make the impossible possible - in hope that at some point these elected officials themselves can not do, abandoning their allegiance to the often chilly dominant economic powers.
Easy to say, less easy to do. But is it for all ... unrealistic?
0 comments:
Post a Comment