The electoral success of the Swedish Democrats, the party that is characterized by a strong protest anti-immigrant, raises a few thoughts.
The first is that this statement comes at a country which has always enjoyed the indisputable social stability, thanks to the presence of a state which, according to a well-known definition, provided for the life of citizens "from cradle to grave", the wave of immigration that brought in the Scandinavian country nearly two million people (not counting hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants) in contrast to a population of nine million has obviously put in a check that system, causing the fall of the socialist government in power uninterruptedly for a hundred years. The Social thus its physiological limits and the breast of the public is not inexhaustible, and remains to see who should be their children to feed, those who built the state or the newcomers. And on this dilemma I'll have someone in Europe, begin to establish the rules and, above all, of the priority. And from now.
A second consideration is the nature of semantics. Some newspapers have
marks around the word "democratic" party, referring to Jimmie Akesson, obviously sarcastic in tone, sottolinenadone nature "xenophobic" and, therefore, very little "democratic".
But what is democratic and what is not? If you consult a manual of constitutional law, we learn that democracy is nothing more than a form of government, ie a method of obtaining consent through an 'election by universal suffrage, the representatives who bear this popular mandate, will provide to govern.
So democracy should be, strictly speaking, those who accept this method and the results that come from popular suffrage regardless of its ideological, ethnic, social or religious. His conscience and his culture have nothing to do with the statistical calculation of preferences.
And here I ask a good question. Quid iuris
if voters a majority, shall instruct their elected representatives to dissolve the rooms and other constitutional institutions for the establishment, as I know, a directory with absolute power and unlimited for one, two, five, ten years?
What should make democratically, the elected? In accordance with the principle of democratic representation they should execute the mandate given to them following the directions and as far received.
Otherwise, the principle of "government of the people" which democratically chosen, it would be circumvented, mocked, violated.
But all what would be considered (from the current "democratic") "undemocratic" for the simple reason that the democratic system, by "consensus procedure code" was filling up with ideological content soaking liberal principles which, in turn, a curious paradox well could be - and are indeed existed - even in countries and limited guarantees democratic schemes (with limited suffrage, for example). And so the rise
refined synthesis "liberal-democratic": the people can decide (democratically) but in the circle of the options that the lords of the money economy (liberal, that is generous between them, because they share the market herd people in the same way you assign a pro-rata, banks and market share) show. And with
barriers, limitations and obstacles that, in fact, allow the formations "liberals" (who are conservative or reformist) to manage the majority of power or the political opposition.
And every time it appears some training antisystemic - conservative, fascist, nationalist, but not controlled - it happens that it sticks to its "antidemocraticitá", even if they participate regularly in elections, accepting the current constitutional system, and you try to enable it to not be able to grow, isolating or criminalization, until devise electoral laws that would allow it to elect representatives to parliament. There
nell'angolino not to give too much bother. Which proves, if proof were needed, the totalitarian nature of the liberal system. The
defiguration, dell'ideologizzazione through the concept of "democracy" is therefore used to criminalize opposition do not like, those capable of sparigliare the tables, to oppose that kind of cloying bipolarity, liberals and right liberals the left, who can only ensure the lords of money to continue to make their own comfortable on the skin of other men.
Swedes - as well as French, British, Austrians, Bulgarians, Hungarians not to name only the most important cases - have, so they, too, started to escape from this all-encompassing mechanism that, like all human constructions, it is intended to wear out through normal consumption.
allogeneic invaded by a mass equal to 20% (at least) of the population, even the prim Swedes have begun to realize that the system that for years had voted and who had guaranteed them for years, "the cradle and the grave would have ended up Reserve the first to the immigrants and their second single.
The same fate for the other Europeans. But more is not dark at midnight and dawn may well arise in Scandinavia!
0 comments:
Post a Comment