Zondag moet ik voor het eerst stemmen. Het besef is nog niet helemaal doorgedrongen, denk ik. Het is slechts voor de gemeente en de provincie, dat is waar, maar ik ken hooguit enkele namen en gezichten, en dan alleen voor de gemeente. Hoe moet ik tegen zondag weten op wie ik moet stemmen?
Ik nam me al enkele jaren geleden voor dat, als ik zou moeten stemmen, ik me niet zomaar zou laten leiden door vooroordelen over partijen, dat ik niet uit principe heel mijn leven zou zweren bij een en dezelfde partij. Te veel mensen zijn om die reden blind voor oplossingen die anderen voorstellen, denken niet meer zelf na. Ik wil weten waarvóór ik stem. Dat betekent: opzoekwerk.
Als het erop aankomt, moet je toegeven dat elke partij wel iets zinnigs te zeggen heeft. Per slot van rekening hebben ze allemaal het beste met ons voor en willen ze allemaal dat we ergens kunnen leven waar we graag leven. Alleen hebben ze allemaal een andere visie op wát onze noden zijn en de manier waarop die moeten worden ingevuld. Ik zal dus zelf niet op eender welke partij stemmen, omdat sommige ideeën van partijen te erg afwijken van mijn eigen waarden om bereid te zijn hen de macht te geven die uit te voeren, ook al kan ik me in andere standpunten misschien wel vinden.
Ik weet van mezelf dat ik eerder links en progressief ben, omdat ik nogal altruïstisch ben ingesteld en ook in mijn dagelijks leven veel belang hecht aan openheid en tolerantie, verbondenheid, solidariteit, empathie, respect, kansen voor iedereen, voldoende natuur, ... Om die reden heb ik mijn opzoekwerk tot nu toe beperkt tot partijen uit die kant van het spectrum, maar dat betekent niet dat ik mijn kritische zin achterwege heb gelaten.
Het viel me vooral op hoe vaag alles blijft. Soms moet één alineaatje al hun standpunten samenvatten. Ook als ze die wel per thema uitwerken, is er niets concreet. Veel beloftes, een opsomming van alles waar ze op willen inzetten, maar nooit hoe ze denken dat uit te voeren. Mooie ideeën, dat wel. Dit bedrag besteden om dit of dat te bereiken: graag, maar waar moet dat geld vandaan komen? Wat wordt er opgeofferd? Of komt het toch uit de lucht vallen als hemels manna? Dat is natuurlijk de eeuwige spanning tussen de ideale situatie en de realiteit.
In de kantlijn wil ik nog aantekenen dat zowat elke partij lijkt te pleiten voor verandering, oppositie of niet. Soms vraag ik me af of iedereen dan echt zo ontevreden is met hoe het is. Het lijkt erop dat politici niet kunnen erkennen dat een ander iets goeds heeft bereikt. Alles wat zij niet durfden of konden, is stiekem toch de schuld van een ander. In verkiezingstijd is het ieder voor zich. Menselijkheid en empathie liggen ondertussen wellicht ergens te vondeling. Ze bouwen hun identiteit op vanuit een vijandsbeeld: "Wij zijn niet zus of zo. Wij denken niet hetzelfde als zij. Zij zijn slecht. Dit is het bewijs." Alsof zij geen fouten maken. En hoe het dan wel moet, daarover zwijgen ze in alle talen.
In mijn pessimistische buien denk ik soms dat het toch allemaal even grote hypocrieten zijn en dat ik net zo goed blanco zou kunnen stemmen, maar zo ver wil ik het toch ook niet laten komen. Onverschilligheid kan óók schade berokkenen. Het heeft Trump in de kaart gespeeld bijvoorbeeld, hoorde ik vanochtend op de radio. Veel mensen in de VS zijn immers niet gaan stemmen in 2016. Zo krijgen alleen de extremen een stem, letterlijk en figuurlijk.
Gelukkig heb ik nog een beetje tijd om mijn opzoekwerk uit te diepen. Wat meer partijen te verkennen. Misschien stuit ik alsnog op iets concreets dat me wel aanstaat. Ik zal er nog een nachtje over slapen, of twee. Hopelijk heb ik tegen dan mijn eigen stem gevonden.
vrijdag 12 oktober 2018
zondag 7 oktober 2018
Ideas worth spreading
Last year Trump was elected in the United States. In France Emmanuel Macron became president. The extreme right wins votes in almost every country. Fifty years after May 1968, a new wind blows through the political landscape. The traditional parties lose. Fifty years ago it was the left wing which protested against the establishment, now it seems to be the turn of the right wing.
However, times have changed. While people had to come in the streets to share their opinion back then, they now have disposal of something bigger: the social media. One minute, a click, and the world knows how it should be. But these media are so widespread no-one listens to it, although it can cause a lot of fuss from time to time. Can the media really change something? Maybe they can. What about #metoo? Nobody who does not know it. It is a sign, a sign it has been enough. The hashtag enables women around the world to unite and to stand up together. What about racism? It is just the same. Without the possibilities of the social media, the mass media in general, would we be as aware of it as we are now?
And yet, don’t we have to protest in the streets if we want the world to change, if we want the politicians to do something? The social media are the best proof of our individualism. We are an egologic society, like Levinas would say. An individual cannot change the world. We need to unite our protests. In 1968 they stood up together, they did take action and the politicians were forced to react. In Belgium, the university of Leuven did become Flemish. Would an online protest have had the same effect?
And yes, some people do protest in the streets nowadays as well. Look at the United States, after thelast school shooting. Look at the strikes of the public transport that shut down the country. If we want the world to change, we need to do something, but still, the question rises if these protests are really a good thing. Don’t we forget the silent majority, the people who just want to live their lives, but who have to suffer from the unrequested protests? It is quite ironic they protested against the Vietnam war, but protests are a form of conflict too. “Make love, not war” was the sentence of the sixties, but where is the love, the harmony, in a world full of conflict? The common people in the sixties were afraid of a war, because of the protests. Protests can escalate.
At least we can say we have some good products of the sixties: the sexual liberation, the acceptance of homosexuality, our awareness of the environment. Yet, I don’t completely agree. The sixties have positively affected our society in certain ways, but there is still a lot to do. The sexual liberation freed the way for the sexual harassment of today. We can even say it was not that different. Male students burst into the rooms of the female students and called it a sexual revolution, but for the female students it was not a liberation. Le deuxième sexe of Simone de Beauvoir is still relevant today and used by feminists all over the world. Every year there is still a lot of violence against homosexuals because they love the wrong people. The shootingin Orlando is an extreme example. In some countries gay people are still sentenced to death.
We must conclude there is still a lot to do, but maybe that is just our fate. The world and therefore society are never “done”. Sartre already said our existence proceeds our essence, but it also applies for the world. We need a constant evolution, we need imagination. In the long history of society, of philosophy, it seems almost everything has already been thought and there is little left to the imagination. In the sixties they looked forward to the future, but in our postmodern society, we ask ourselves if we still have a future. Conflicts everywhere, the upcoming extreme right wing, poverty, the tension between the United States and North Korea, the Rohingyas, refugees who die in their boats, … The twentieth century was not much better: two World Wars, the genocide against the Jews, against the Tutsis in Rwanda and perhaps even another one against the Hutus, the civil war in former Yugoslavia, the victims of Agent Orange in Vietnam, disabled children because of Chernobyl, …
We are marked by the ideas of the sixties, we feel very strongly about liberty, equality, women’s rights. We only miss the spirit. I spill great words on paper, but will I ever put them into practice? I do not think so. I am one of the silent majority, like everyone else. I only have my ideas, but does not everything start with ideas? Without ideas, philosophy would not exist. Socrates did not even write a single word and he is maybe the most famous philosopher of all times. Even if we do not create new ideas, it is our mission to share them. “All power to the imagination” and we can all get “ideas worth spreading”.
Note
I wrote this for the Belgian Philosophy Olympiad in 2018, which celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of May '68. We had to write an essay about its legacy nowadays within two hours, without internet (although we knew the subject before), with a maximum word count of 1000. I got the sixth prize with this essay.
However, times have changed. While people had to come in the streets to share their opinion back then, they now have disposal of something bigger: the social media. One minute, a click, and the world knows how it should be. But these media are so widespread no-one listens to it, although it can cause a lot of fuss from time to time. Can the media really change something? Maybe they can. What about #metoo? Nobody who does not know it. It is a sign, a sign it has been enough. The hashtag enables women around the world to unite and to stand up together. What about racism? It is just the same. Without the possibilities of the social media, the mass media in general, would we be as aware of it as we are now?
And yet, don’t we have to protest in the streets if we want the world to change, if we want the politicians to do something? The social media are the best proof of our individualism. We are an egologic society, like Levinas would say. An individual cannot change the world. We need to unite our protests. In 1968 they stood up together, they did take action and the politicians were forced to react. In Belgium, the university of Leuven did become Flemish. Would an online protest have had the same effect?
And yes, some people do protest in the streets nowadays as well. Look at the United States, after thelast school shooting. Look at the strikes of the public transport that shut down the country. If we want the world to change, we need to do something, but still, the question rises if these protests are really a good thing. Don’t we forget the silent majority, the people who just want to live their lives, but who have to suffer from the unrequested protests? It is quite ironic they protested against the Vietnam war, but protests are a form of conflict too. “Make love, not war” was the sentence of the sixties, but where is the love, the harmony, in a world full of conflict? The common people in the sixties were afraid of a war, because of the protests. Protests can escalate.
At least we can say we have some good products of the sixties: the sexual liberation, the acceptance of homosexuality, our awareness of the environment. Yet, I don’t completely agree. The sixties have positively affected our society in certain ways, but there is still a lot to do. The sexual liberation freed the way for the sexual harassment of today. We can even say it was not that different. Male students burst into the rooms of the female students and called it a sexual revolution, but for the female students it was not a liberation. Le deuxième sexe of Simone de Beauvoir is still relevant today and used by feminists all over the world. Every year there is still a lot of violence against homosexuals because they love the wrong people. The shootingin Orlando is an extreme example. In some countries gay people are still sentenced to death.
We must conclude there is still a lot to do, but maybe that is just our fate. The world and therefore society are never “done”. Sartre already said our existence proceeds our essence, but it also applies for the world. We need a constant evolution, we need imagination. In the long history of society, of philosophy, it seems almost everything has already been thought and there is little left to the imagination. In the sixties they looked forward to the future, but in our postmodern society, we ask ourselves if we still have a future. Conflicts everywhere, the upcoming extreme right wing, poverty, the tension between the United States and North Korea, the Rohingyas, refugees who die in their boats, … The twentieth century was not much better: two World Wars, the genocide against the Jews, against the Tutsis in Rwanda and perhaps even another one against the Hutus, the civil war in former Yugoslavia, the victims of Agent Orange in Vietnam, disabled children because of Chernobyl, …
We are marked by the ideas of the sixties, we feel very strongly about liberty, equality, women’s rights. We only miss the spirit. I spill great words on paper, but will I ever put them into practice? I do not think so. I am one of the silent majority, like everyone else. I only have my ideas, but does not everything start with ideas? Without ideas, philosophy would not exist. Socrates did not even write a single word and he is maybe the most famous philosopher of all times. Even if we do not create new ideas, it is our mission to share them. “All power to the imagination” and we can all get “ideas worth spreading”.
Note
I wrote this for the Belgian Philosophy Olympiad in 2018, which celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of May '68. We had to write an essay about its legacy nowadays within two hours, without internet (although we knew the subject before), with a maximum word count of 1000. I got the sixth prize with this essay.
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)