War, soil erosion, cultural extinction, pollution, global warming, deforestation, famine, economic oppression, malnutrition, biological extinction, cultural homogeneity, over-consumption, poverty, misery, indifference, hunger, climate change, political repression, totalitarianism, social inequality, over-production, eradic weather patterns, illiteracy, ignorance and military occupation. These are just some of the symptoms which, when considered together, paint a very frightening picture of the health of our world. Although our cynical nature tends to trivialize what deep down we know to be true, we are in fact heading down a dangerous path. All the great thinkers of our time think so. Even the economic lords of our time are aware of the catastrophe that awaits us. The development model our political authorities in Latin America prescribe to (with an increasing number of exceptions), and whose mantra gets repeated over and over again in all the media to a point where it gets nauseous, is blinding us to the big picture; and even the small picture escapes our grasp. The compartmentalization of our world, where reality is cut-up into "realms of intervention" ("the economy", "poverty", "the environment", "crime",etc) prevents us from seeing, as clearly as we should, the malfunctioning of our societies; we have an obligation to start thinking about the underlying causes of our current predicament and becoming active participants in change.
Since the first summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 where the world’s leaders agreed that this dire situation owed its existence to the unsustainable patterns of consumption and production, especially in the first world, things have actually gotten worse. As a direct result of the acceleration of “free-market” policies (key word:"globalization"), social inequality has reached levels never before seen since the Egyptian pharaohs. Chile, by the way, ranks obscenely high on the list in this category. The world’s 3 richest people are worth more money than the combined population of its 48 poorest countries. The environment (ie. where we live) is one of the first victims of this stubborn adherence to the frenzy of corporate capitalism. Carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 9% (18% in the US). A billion people on this earth do not have access to safe drinking water (3 billion have inferior quality) which is responsible for 30,000 deaths each day. Billions people live in "absolute poverty", a term with little meaning but we get an idea, lacking the means to nourish their bodies with even the most minimal of nutrients. 17 million hectares of forests disappear each year, aggravating global warming. 25% of mammals have become extinct due to human economic activity. Quality of life has become a bad joke of sorts. Most people on this planet are overworked, stressed, mistreated, victims of violence and drug abuse,etc. I won't go on. These are just a few of the very loud indicators we cannot afford to ignore any longer. The indisputable fact that there is something very wrong, and it's not going to simply go fix itself, least of all if we insist on giving those ultimately responsible for such devastation the freedom to regulate themselves, it's just not gonna happen.
All of the afflictions mentioned at the outset can be attributed without a doubt and with little hesitation to our capitalist industrial system of production and the culture of consumption it creates to reproduce and expand. Most of the decisions that affect the system of production (and capital accumulation, investment,etc) and consumption are made by people you only read about in industry magazines and that have so much power and money they live separate from the world they control. Our democracy, in case there was a doubt, is just an illusion; the things that really matter will never, unless there is serious change, be influenced by you and me. The capitalist industrial system of production and consumption touches every corner of the earth, its sole purpose is profit and it is simply unburdened by empathy. It is exempt from social obligations and it changes, it shifts, and it can become something else right before your eyes. It is unconstrained by space or time, and it employs science and creates harmful technology. It listens to no one, and it is never responsible. It co-opts and destroys, it creates profitable inequality and helps to foster new generations of racism and classism, sends you your bills and keeps track of your spending habits. It is a very considerable force and somehow we are all part of it, but we never know just how we are a part or why, and we never hear people on TV refer to it as something more than the normal "market"… as if it were, for all intents and purposes, as natural as the mountain spring water sitting in your fridge.
But by far, the most important thing to know about this industrial system of production and consumption is that it is controlled by very few corporations who operate undemocratically in search of profits and who disregard, outside of public relations circles, all the other interests represented by the whole of humanity. This lack of democratic control over the human system of production and consumption is both a cause and a consequence of it success. This is why it is absolutely crucial that we regain control over our own lives and over our own economy.
The second most important thing is that these agents of the production system, the corporations, are enterprises that for all intents and purposes, are institutionally insane. They are set up on the assumption that there are an infinite amount of biological, mineral and human resources that if not immediately available, can be with well-intentioned and well-organized strategies. They also assume that there is an infinite consumer market potential that, if not immediately available, can be with the help of a well-intentioned and well-organized marketing strategy. More importantly, and equally disturbing, is that they have an implicit understanding that they have a God-given right to fight for their existence using any means necessary and disregarding any and all human or environmental rights in the process- this last character trait is often defended by a strange appeal to “freedom” which presumably refers to the freedom enjoyed by corporations to do as they please with little interference from democratic institutions which, if they worked, could protect the people who get squashed by these agents of industry on their road to financial success. These agents who control the nature of the system of production and consumption (referred to as the economy on television programs) are coming from a point of view which does not, cannot, represent the reality of our world, and hence, are delusional. Their relationship with the outside world and its people can only be described as paranoia.
Because of the system’s expansion into every facet of life, we are no longer in control over what we consume, and how we attain our most basic necessities. Our impotence in the face of such power and control is one of the first things we have to address before we can embark on a truly sustainable development. We need true democracy as a means to regain control of the system of production and consumption. If there is true global democracy, one that is fueled by a truly democratic education, accessible by all, then people will be able to make decisions that will positively affect their lives and the well being of their communities. But we are so far from that.
If people lack anything, it’s first of all power, and those who do control the system that is responsible for their exploitation will never willingly hand over their power to them. So what do we do? Are we too dependent on this system, have we passed the point of no return? Let us explore these questions.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
An Indigenous is Called Upon to Rule Bolivia
Two important elections in December. The year winds down and Latin America, which has always been a region of stark contradictions, drifts to the left in places where people are fed up with neoliberal/free market policies. At the same time, the liberal right gains strength in places where the free market model has succeeded in transforming primary commodities into enormous returns for an economic elite who are in a unique position to speak for the rest of the country and who also enjoy near perfect consent from the population thanks to a strangely efficient, and very complex political atmosphere where ideologies are blurred and are almost unrecognizable.
A few days ago, on December 18th, Bolivians voted in what seems to be a first-round presidential victory for an indigenous coca farmer named Evo Morales, member of the MAS party (Movimiento Al Socialismo). No doubt, Evo Morales has won the support of the indigenous communities (which together constitute a majority in the country), of farmers, of the politically dispossessed and of the marginalized in general, in other words, of the majority. The runner up, Quiroga, a white, pro-business, pro-US candidate, received around 30 percent of the vote. The difference in votes is so striking that even if Morales turns out not to have received the majority of votes, congress will have no choice but to ratify the leftist’s presidential victory. What are the important aspects, what are the lessons to be learned?
Bolivia is one of the poorest countries in Latin America (one hears the word “Bolivia” almost as synonymous with “poverty”) and in the last year it has witnessed a series of street mobilizations that have paralyzed the country and even caused the resignation earlier in the year of the conservative president Carlos Mesa. Economists would refer to the situation in Bolivia as “highly unstable”. It seems obvious that Bolivians, rather than being genetically inclined to instability, are just not happy with their situation, and they have voiced this dissatisfaction by taking it to the streets and protesting (more or less peacefully). I should mention that this sort of participation is an efficient, a very legitimate, and a very democratic recourse. Evo Morales, for better or for worse, seems to represent this majority who is fed up with what’s going on in the country. So, the obvious first conclusion is that the policies espoused by the recent governments are not well received by Bolivians, and these same Latin Americans have recognized the ballot box as an acceptable path towards addressing some of these issues. That’s democracy.
The second conclusion is that we are witnessing another example of the failure of neoliberal policies in Latin America. The privatization of water, the privatization of natural gas, the opening of the country to foreign investment without restrictions, the abandonment on behalf of the state, the criminalization of coca farming (for crying out loud!). All of which merely contributes to the exacerbation of displacement, to the loss of cultural identity, to the loss of jobs, of livelihoods, etc. It’s clear that the people who are affected negatively by these policies, which favor the market over human beings, have spoken, and it should be seen by everyone as something positive. Obviously in the eyes of the economic world, this is a disaster, and all these “Indians” on the street represent a clear and present danger to the stability of the region. In fact, most of the world sees it that way. Even in Chile, the Bolivian protests were portrayed by the media as Absolute Chaos, a clear sign of Bolivian backwardness, Chileans are famous for their “ninguneos”. It might be more plausible that for the first time since its invention, the electoral system in Bolivia has actually worked. Evo Morales clearly represents the majority.
A few days ago, on December 18th, Bolivians voted in what seems to be a first-round presidential victory for an indigenous coca farmer named Evo Morales, member of the MAS party (Movimiento Al Socialismo). No doubt, Evo Morales has won the support of the indigenous communities (which together constitute a majority in the country), of farmers, of the politically dispossessed and of the marginalized in general, in other words, of the majority. The runner up, Quiroga, a white, pro-business, pro-US candidate, received around 30 percent of the vote. The difference in votes is so striking that even if Morales turns out not to have received the majority of votes, congress will have no choice but to ratify the leftist’s presidential victory. What are the important aspects, what are the lessons to be learned?
Bolivia is one of the poorest countries in Latin America (one hears the word “Bolivia” almost as synonymous with “poverty”) and in the last year it has witnessed a series of street mobilizations that have paralyzed the country and even caused the resignation earlier in the year of the conservative president Carlos Mesa. Economists would refer to the situation in Bolivia as “highly unstable”. It seems obvious that Bolivians, rather than being genetically inclined to instability, are just not happy with their situation, and they have voiced this dissatisfaction by taking it to the streets and protesting (more or less peacefully). I should mention that this sort of participation is an efficient, a very legitimate, and a very democratic recourse. Evo Morales, for better or for worse, seems to represent this majority who is fed up with what’s going on in the country. So, the obvious first conclusion is that the policies espoused by the recent governments are not well received by Bolivians, and these same Latin Americans have recognized the ballot box as an acceptable path towards addressing some of these issues. That’s democracy.
The second conclusion is that we are witnessing another example of the failure of neoliberal policies in Latin America. The privatization of water, the privatization of natural gas, the opening of the country to foreign investment without restrictions, the abandonment on behalf of the state, the criminalization of coca farming (for crying out loud!). All of which merely contributes to the exacerbation of displacement, to the loss of cultural identity, to the loss of jobs, of livelihoods, etc. It’s clear that the people who are affected negatively by these policies, which favor the market over human beings, have spoken, and it should be seen by everyone as something positive. Obviously in the eyes of the economic world, this is a disaster, and all these “Indians” on the street represent a clear and present danger to the stability of the region. In fact, most of the world sees it that way. Even in Chile, the Bolivian protests were portrayed by the media as Absolute Chaos, a clear sign of Bolivian backwardness, Chileans are famous for their “ninguneos”. It might be more plausible that for the first time since its invention, the electoral system in Bolivia has actually worked. Evo Morales clearly represents the majority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)