On Friday morning, the weekly Le Vif / L'Express (No. 3063, 19-25 March 2010) relayed on page 12 an excerpt from my blog. This is the passage (relatively short) where I mention my walkabout the cabinet of Jean-Marc Nollet, during a "putting green" where I had (in part at my own request, but following a oldest invitation of the Minister himself in November 2009) presented an outline of my idea of economic transition with double trigger. Very general impressions of this visit, which I recounted in my March 12 entry below, obviously did not please Mr. Noll, who saw fit to call me on my mobile phone this morning about 8:15 to put it dryly his "astonishment".
I leave the readers of this blog judges about whether such intervention telephone "customized" of an elected political (who is also exercising the office of Minister of Scientific Research) from a research scientist whether or not subject to interference or intimidation. Personally, I think it raises real questions. Democracy does she need not critical intellectuals and freedom of expression? If my ideas are problematic in this or that party, what more natural than to debate it publicly, even if only through websites interposed? In its socio-economic options Ecolo is torn between a Leftist and a Liberal leaning electorate, this is for me part of the object of my scientific research - namely the severe restrictions that the economic logic of capitalism requires de facto decision-makers policies have to operate from day to day, in the short term. Capitalism is not very compatible with the radical, and (perhaps reluctantly in some cases) a lot of elected officials and cabinet members Ecolo illustrate this inconsistency. It is part of my academic freedom of being able to use these situations to reveal my work which is to raise awareness among citizens about the invisible barriers erected by the radical democratic economic system that is "neutral" or "amoral".
Note that I circulated on 12 February was entirely public and in no way constituted an internal or confidential. She has been exposed and debated at a party though informal, but at no time where confidentiality or secrecy was requested not me. That does not mean that I was going to disclose everything and anything! When I wrote in my entry from March 12 that I did not want to "betray the confidentiality of discussions, "I meant that, by simple correction and scientific honesty, I do not see the benefit of adding or stigmatize anyone personally - as, indeed, my scientific work is not to accuse people, but to analyze and make intelligible to the citizens we are all, all of which pose logical question.
I made reference to the Minister Nollet because it is his firm (indeed extremely wide and diverse) that the meeting took place. I did not reveal ad hominem of his remarks with him, nor about other persons involved. I do not fed any judgmental towards individuals who have spoken. I am just as "prisoner" in the short term, logic and the capitalist way of life they are. In the short term we all hostages of this logic. Should we all ignore the embarrassment of a political party that is struggling to locate (like the others, I insist, but on the basis of a different philosophy) between collaboration with existing strengths and opening new horizons? I do not think. And that's why I recounted in this brief passage of my blog, but no personal hostility without diluting the stakes, the lessons and personal perceptions I learned from this encounter friendly and frank. (You can not invite both an intellectual, asking him to explain his ideas and direct him, then, for GSM or otherwise, does not raise questions about what he has seen and heard clearly when his ideas were discussed.)
That a journalist has been extracted from my blog 23 lines (within an entry that actually 135), this may seem unfortunate to some, but it's not my responsibility. Citizens, and M. Noll himself, so just read the articles in my blog throughout their length and in all their nuances, so as not to stick to a dispatch a little "shock" in a week. Because I maintain: where this reporter was absolutely right, it is isolated in my blog a real problem, we can not in any way stifle games under influence or Intimidation: The Progressive-oriented parties are now under immense pressure and their internal tensions, inconsistencies and even their speech, reflect a true structural difficulty that citizens should not remain ignorant. We obviously can not exonerate the PS or the HRC to these inconsistencies - but ECOLO hitherto been the refuge of so many progressive and alternative that the problem arises with particular acuteness.
We are very fortunate in our democracies, to have independent scientific research institutions such as universities or FNRS, who can diagnose such problems, analyze and conceptualize them, and try to build the concepts and ideas that will overcome the problems. It would be regrettable that installs a climate where phone calls conveniently placed attempt to influence or intimidate researchers when they venture onto land controversy. As a scientist engaged, I wish ardently progressive political forces that can coordinate the pursuit of a radical alternative, the part of citizens tired and weakened by the economic mechanisms in place. Current issues are so serious and urgent need for a new framework of thinking is so hot, that the maneuvers of power and influence of this or that minister or this or that party should not interest anyone - especially not citizens who wonder whether it is still worthwhile to vote.
bet that many issues and fascinating (no less than urgent) of economic transition will continue to be debated freely, including politicians with whom we much needed to lead and guide our communities. Those interested in more ideas than the games of influence can refer immediately to the previous entry in this blog, dating from yesterday evening in which I attempted to clarify my objections against "Ten proposals" Ecolo-Groen.
0 comments:
Post a Comment