Strange and new things are happening in Arab countries. Strange and new for what they say about us, democracies bedded but unable to remember how born, wondering if you still live up to promises of origin. All European countries are upset by the whirlwinds of North Africa, but in Italy is that we couple to the dismay quest'inettitudine, radical, to question themselves.
It is as if we had become accustomed, over the years, thinking about democracy in a unitary, as if the domain, even by us, was just one. As if one was the source of sovereignty: the people voters. A law: that of the head. An opinion, even when it coincides with the opinion of only part (the majority) of society.
Monism and thought only fall apart over the Mediterranean, but we have taken root and have triumphs. Tocqueville explains well, in books on the French Revolution, the pitfalls of the storming of the Bastille. The King was replaced by a solitary power, unlimited, the more effective of the Crown.
What the People, one and indivisible. A single value was erected in the supreme value, non-negotiable: that of reason. One is at the heart of monistic thought, and surreptitiously trains us to think against democracy. Up to two we can not count. Stability is the idol which the primordial sacrifice democratic aspirations.
Perhaps it is why the European governments, and the Italians in the highest degree, are struggling to understand the Arab countries and Iran. Difficulty in observing them, talking about it: they do not have the vocabulary, while the fathers of the dictionaries Democrats dug up over the Mediterranean for us.
We sing the refrain in the spring of the people, and we do not know what happens when a nation takes possession of its own destiny. What is urgent to build, once destroyed the throne. Yet just look: do not boil down to this, for now, the Arab revolution. It is a people that rises, monolithic lump of passions that seized power.
What we see are the many aspirations, the proliferation and differentiation of the projects, the need - opening in a democracy - a system set so as to promote such differentiation. Not the domain of the people is the goal but the possibility of disputes, harmony nourished by discord. There are two characteristics of the Arab revolution, which can end badly or well but they are experiences of democracy in its infancy.
First, the discovery of 'the other, no longer in the form of the enemy who hates us or whose subjects are: self-discovery, therefore, of what I can do to show visible from the chaos. It is significant that the first spark of the riots was the suicide of the Tunisian Mohamed Bouaziz, a young peddler, January 4.
The gesture is no longer a stroke years of murder-suicide terrorists, and for the first time the Arab arises starting with himself. The second characteristic is the discovery of how precious it is, because there is democracy, the public space where different ideas intersect, s'oppongono, leading to resolution.
In ancient Greece it was called agora: the square where individuals meet, become citizens who care for the public good as well as their families. Where they decide democratically. It was decided by majority vote, but the existence of the agora is the preamble that gives space and dignity, legitimacy differently.
Anyone following the Arab riots on the Internet has seen the endless discussions around each article, appeal. In the absence of official agora (a res publica), Arabs choose internet and mobile phones to talk to each other as never before, to demonstrate against the autocrats from which they were handled, not the governed.
The first act of democracy is to leave the house, contrary to what Berlusconi says that the private family teaches you everything, and wander out of the dark school teachers state that inculcate notions deviant. Robert Malley wrote in the Washington Post that Al-Jazeera has become a prominent political player "because it reflects and articulates the popular feeling.
It has become the new Nasser. The leader of the Arab world is a television network." However, the internet and TV are the tools, not the stuff of nascent democracies. Otherwise we say that we were the TV commercial midwives of democracy. What social networks raise Arabic is the plurality of views and news, not the emergence of the ether privatized Italian, no CCTV of the Milano 2 which extends to the nation and is the emblem of the neighborhood bar that Americans call gated community.
Al-Jazeera Arab and social networks break down the fences, open the windows. The open to what our democracies invented when were born also in turmoil: the plurality of ideas, the separation of powers, the belief that power tends to spread, if other powers do not stop and counterbalance.
The last open to secularism, an essential stage in the democracies of the West. Of course it is possible that the Muslim Brotherhood, the most organized of the protesters, have the upper hand. But the initial ingredients of the riots are generally not religious. It may be that the autocratic circles merely pawns move.
But the insurgents, as seen in Tunisia, SGAM early and ocelots who pretend they do not tolerate change. A good example is the document published January 24 on the site of al-Yawm newspaper Sabi ("The Seventh Day"): a 22-point manifesto calling for the separation of religion and state, women's dignity, the right to all citizens (including women, Christians) to access the highest offices, including the presidency.
The document is signed by a score of theologians and imams, Egyptian, and was taken first from Asia News, and then more than 12,400 Arab websites. It speaks for days Samir Khalil Samir, Egyptian Jesuit and professor in Lebanon and the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome. According to Samir, the signatories of the proclamation are not alone: "This desire to make a distinction between religion and state is a common sentiment.
Religion is a good thing in itself and not want to hinder it, as long as stay within it as something rather private, that does not fit into the laws of the state. In contrast, human rights, yes! (...) And if the law goes against religious human rights, human rights, then we prefer instead of the Sharia "(www.
zenith. org) . In Italy similar words are heresy, because the show is anything we are seeing: a regression of secularism, the separation of powers, democracy. Not surprisingly, Berlusconi has defended dictators in principle, for fear of disturbing them: the story is not Arab, but the history of our democracy that does not come to internalize.
Half the world comes into contact with democracy, with thesis on Montesquieu power curbed by other powers, but he is still, in defense of the One and Indivisible, constantly at odds with each power control (the judiciary, Look, Quirinale). Never before in recent weeks has appeared over his experiment: an expression of democracy lazy, closed.
Even his idea of television is agora, inclusion of different. It is only an opinion that screams from the screen of the "dumb box" and has the shamelessness to present itself as Radio London arms against tyrants. We are not the only ones to lag behind the Arab spring without knowing why we trudge: forget about pacts with the tyrants of the refugees rejected at our borders and delivered to the concentration camps in Libya, Arabia turned into a land of business.
The French Foreign Minister Michele Alliot-Marie responded initially as Frattini, Berlusconi. But in France two months are enough, and on Sunday the minister had to resign, prompted by his own party. The discourse on the values dear to the Premier when rails against the public school, or against the adoption by single or gay, or against the right of the dying man to decide whether to have or not to take life, is not the result of this monism Democrat.
It is a vision acceptable to the Church, he can get power (not as a tribute to the Gospels, but a worthy sacralization of stability of the Grand Inquisitor) Scores in the way of radical Islam: the imams of the mosques, the money, the dominion over the souls, the autocrats the political imperative undeniable.
The horizon is the agora denied: that becomes the tenant of the community not protected in the city, but the box hung in consumer dumb, unable to get out and explore the City. 
It is as if we had become accustomed, over the years, thinking about democracy in a unitary, as if the domain, even by us, was just one. As if one was the source of sovereignty: the people voters. A law: that of the head. An opinion, even when it coincides with the opinion of only part (the majority) of society.
Monism and thought only fall apart over the Mediterranean, but we have taken root and have triumphs. Tocqueville explains well, in books on the French Revolution, the pitfalls of the storming of the Bastille. The King was replaced by a solitary power, unlimited, the more effective of the Crown.
What the People, one and indivisible. A single value was erected in the supreme value, non-negotiable: that of reason. One is at the heart of monistic thought, and surreptitiously trains us to think against democracy. Up to two we can not count. Stability is the idol which the primordial sacrifice democratic aspirations.
Perhaps it is why the European governments, and the Italians in the highest degree, are struggling to understand the Arab countries and Iran. Difficulty in observing them, talking about it: they do not have the vocabulary, while the fathers of the dictionaries Democrats dug up over the Mediterranean for us.
We sing the refrain in the spring of the people, and we do not know what happens when a nation takes possession of its own destiny. What is urgent to build, once destroyed the throne. Yet just look: do not boil down to this, for now, the Arab revolution. It is a people that rises, monolithic lump of passions that seized power.
What we see are the many aspirations, the proliferation and differentiation of the projects, the need - opening in a democracy - a system set so as to promote such differentiation. Not the domain of the people is the goal but the possibility of disputes, harmony nourished by discord. There are two characteristics of the Arab revolution, which can end badly or well but they are experiences of democracy in its infancy.
First, the discovery of 'the other, no longer in the form of the enemy who hates us or whose subjects are: self-discovery, therefore, of what I can do to show visible from the chaos. It is significant that the first spark of the riots was the suicide of the Tunisian Mohamed Bouaziz, a young peddler, January 4.
The gesture is no longer a stroke years of murder-suicide terrorists, and for the first time the Arab arises starting with himself. The second characteristic is the discovery of how precious it is, because there is democracy, the public space where different ideas intersect, s'oppongono, leading to resolution.
In ancient Greece it was called agora: the square where individuals meet, become citizens who care for the public good as well as their families. Where they decide democratically. It was decided by majority vote, but the existence of the agora is the preamble that gives space and dignity, legitimacy differently.
Anyone following the Arab riots on the Internet has seen the endless discussions around each article, appeal. In the absence of official agora (a res publica), Arabs choose internet and mobile phones to talk to each other as never before, to demonstrate against the autocrats from which they were handled, not the governed.
The first act of democracy is to leave the house, contrary to what Berlusconi says that the private family teaches you everything, and wander out of the dark school teachers state that inculcate notions deviant. Robert Malley wrote in the Washington Post that Al-Jazeera has become a prominent political player "because it reflects and articulates the popular feeling.
It has become the new Nasser. The leader of the Arab world is a television network." However, the internet and TV are the tools, not the stuff of nascent democracies. Otherwise we say that we were the TV commercial midwives of democracy. What social networks raise Arabic is the plurality of views and news, not the emergence of the ether privatized Italian, no CCTV of the Milano 2 which extends to the nation and is the emblem of the neighborhood bar that Americans call gated community.
Al-Jazeera Arab and social networks break down the fences, open the windows. The open to what our democracies invented when were born also in turmoil: the plurality of ideas, the separation of powers, the belief that power tends to spread, if other powers do not stop and counterbalance.
The last open to secularism, an essential stage in the democracies of the West. Of course it is possible that the Muslim Brotherhood, the most organized of the protesters, have the upper hand. But the initial ingredients of the riots are generally not religious. It may be that the autocratic circles merely pawns move.
But the insurgents, as seen in Tunisia, SGAM early and ocelots who pretend they do not tolerate change. A good example is the document published January 24 on the site of al-Yawm newspaper Sabi ("The Seventh Day"): a 22-point manifesto calling for the separation of religion and state, women's dignity, the right to all citizens (including women, Christians) to access the highest offices, including the presidency.
The document is signed by a score of theologians and imams, Egyptian, and was taken first from Asia News, and then more than 12,400 Arab websites. It speaks for days Samir Khalil Samir, Egyptian Jesuit and professor in Lebanon and the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome. According to Samir, the signatories of the proclamation are not alone: "This desire to make a distinction between religion and state is a common sentiment.
Religion is a good thing in itself and not want to hinder it, as long as stay within it as something rather private, that does not fit into the laws of the state. In contrast, human rights, yes! (...) And if the law goes against religious human rights, human rights, then we prefer instead of the Sharia "(www.
zenith. org) . In Italy similar words are heresy, because the show is anything we are seeing: a regression of secularism, the separation of powers, democracy. Not surprisingly, Berlusconi has defended dictators in principle, for fear of disturbing them: the story is not Arab, but the history of our democracy that does not come to internalize.
Half the world comes into contact with democracy, with thesis on Montesquieu power curbed by other powers, but he is still, in defense of the One and Indivisible, constantly at odds with each power control (the judiciary, Look, Quirinale). Never before in recent weeks has appeared over his experiment: an expression of democracy lazy, closed.
Even his idea of television is agora, inclusion of different. It is only an opinion that screams from the screen of the "dumb box" and has the shamelessness to present itself as Radio London arms against tyrants. We are not the only ones to lag behind the Arab spring without knowing why we trudge: forget about pacts with the tyrants of the refugees rejected at our borders and delivered to the concentration camps in Libya, Arabia turned into a land of business.
The French Foreign Minister Michele Alliot-Marie responded initially as Frattini, Berlusconi. But in France two months are enough, and on Sunday the minister had to resign, prompted by his own party. The discourse on the values dear to the Premier when rails against the public school, or against the adoption by single or gay, or against the right of the dying man to decide whether to have or not to take life, is not the result of this monism Democrat.
It is a vision acceptable to the Church, he can get power (not as a tribute to the Gospels, but a worthy sacralization of stability of the Grand Inquisitor) Scores in the way of radical Islam: the imams of the mosques, the money, the dominion over the souls, the autocrats the political imperative undeniable.
The horizon is the agora denied: that becomes the tenant of the community not protected in the city, but the box hung in consumer dumb, unable to get out and explore the City.
No comments:
Post a Comment