To rule or not to rule... that is the question

This morning I was taking a break from studying for my risk management exam while going over today's Financial Times (yeah I know... some break!). And of course, about a third of the headlines were in relation to the Italian election results. But there was one article that I found particularly interesting in the sense that it was talking about how their political system changed since 1945 and how there are so many layers of government right now that it is almost impossible to take swift action to get the country out of the crisis. And it's true that we see this more and more in various countries whether it's the US, Canada, Romania or others (well I think.... I don't follow governments in other countries much). There are so many political actors that it is almost impossible to reach a consensus. Even in the US where they only have 2 parties, they can't seem to agree unless they have a knife to the throat. So is the solution to simplify the process? To strip down the layers and concentrate the decision-making power? We would have less trouble for sure! But coming back to Italy, the main reason they created this system was to prevent extremists like the fascists from taking over. It's a tradeoff like everywhere else: either efficiency or security, either high return or low risk. Somehow you still wonder if there isn't some magical middle ground that somehow we never considered. Beneath the edges of a cube, there's a sphere waiting to be revealed and a wheel with it.

Eu cu cine votez?

Ca si in Romania, alegerile in Canada fac circ degeaba si cheltuie bani fara ca sa rezolve mare lucru (se mai pot asemana si cu unele comisi de pe aici... Comission Bastarache anyone?). In orice caz, federalele se apropie à grands pas si in seara asta am avut traditionalul Débat des chefs care in general se poate descrie ca si o arena cu patru papagali care o tin fiecare cu placa lui si repeta aceleasi strofe uzate.

Michael Ignatieff care a tot dat in Harper cu avioanele lui si cu "mega-prison-urile" pe care vrea sa le constuiasca.

Harpy (how we so affectionately call him) care se facea ca ploua cand i se punea o intrebare embarassanta si o tinea cu dezvoltarea economica si cu bugetul lui care ar fi rezolvat totul, dar doamnelor si domnilor, vedeti, opozitia ni l-a blocat deci nu e vina noastra ca in momentul de fata nu facem nimic (totusi, simpatia mea merge la el pentru ca imi imaginez ca au cam curs apele pe el in seara asta... poate de aia tot bea apa. On the other hand, sunt gata sa pariez ca avea calmante in apa aia ca altfel nu stiu cum a reusit sa-si pastreze zambetul toata seara cand toti ceilalti sareau pe el ca si cainii infometati la un ciolan pe strada).

Apoi il avem pe Gilles Duceppe care ne-a facut un curs de istorie si care ne-a plimbat de la al doilea razboi mondial pana la repatrierea constitutiei si cum Quebecul saracul a suferit in toate astea (totusi, a facut poante bune, deci nu a fost completely useless. "Bien sur que le Quebec se tient débout à l'UNESCO, c'est parce qu'il a pas de siège pour s'assoir" hahahaha trop fort!).

Si, in sfarsit, Jack Layton care e super cute cu bastonul lui cu tot si care la un moment dat am ajuns sa-l vizualizez facand tururi in jurul celorlalti trei candidati cu zambetul ala putin naiv al lui si cu o pancarta pe care scrie "Vote NPD". In orice caz, tipul lua orice ocazie pe care o avea ca sa-si vanda partidul (daca a ajuns pana sa ceara la fidelii Blocului sa voteze pentru el ca sa-l dea jos pe Harpy...).

Intr-un fel imi aduce aminte de scheciul lui Florin Piersic despre castravetele. De fapt asta se aplica la toti patru candidati... Vorbim de cultura? Ah dar o stabilitate economica favorizeaza cultura si partidul conservator s-a luptat pentru stabilitatea economica in Canada. Da, eu sunt mandru de valorile canadiene, iar eu si partidul liberal suntem pentru a le proteja impotriva americanizarii ceea ce domnul Harper nu o face cu planurile lui de a construi mega-inchisori. Oamenii nu ar trebui sa aiba dreptul sa vorbeasca franceza la locul de munca in Quebec, ar trebui sa fie o obligatie. De ce ati dat 6 miliarde la industria automobila in Ontario cand la industria forestiera din Quebec abia i-ati dat cateva milioane? Si de ce Quebecul este singura provincie care nu a semnat constitutia (*pentru ca sunt prosti, aroganti si incapatanati, de aia*)? Familia este importanta pentru noi si de aceea trebuie sa votati NPD iar eu sunt mandru de originile mele montrealeze si NPD-ul a incercat intotdeauna sa protejeze limba franceza in Canada, deci votati NPD. Poftim doamna Paillé? Sunteti in somaj? NPD-ul considera ca aceasta situatie este inacceptabila si va face tot posibilul ca sa va amelioreze conditia, deci votati NPD. Iar crastravetele este un fruct dicotiledonat de culoare galben-verzui, el face parte din familia curcubitaceelor, are tulpina in forma de vrej, se inmulteste prin seminte si are 98% apa. Gata!



Poate ca pana la urma ar trebui sa votam cu tanti Muguette Paillé...

The Egyptian revolution

I think I'm due to post something intelligent. Though to be completely honest, I really don't feel it. I think this will be completely idiotic and inarticulate, but you know, to hell with diction.

I really don't have that much to say because I'm not that well informed on the subject. But what I do know is that if this revolution in Egypt is anything like what I heard my parents describing the Romanian revolution to be like, then a lot of people are going to regret it in a couple of years. If they were starving now, they will starve even more in the future. If poverty and injustice were bad now, they will be even worse some time down the line. Sure, they'll be able to criticize the president and they'll have stand up comedians building sketches around the blunders of politicians. But that'll be all they'll have. In Romanian we have a saying "sa faci haz de necaz" which means to laugh at your misfortunes.

Of course, it all depends on who will take charge of the country right now. Will the military council relinquish power like it's supposed to or will it keep an iron grip on the land and start yet another dictatorship? If they do get a new president, who will it be and what will he do for the country (I'm using "he" because even if we're talking about a revolution, this is still an Arabic country and I highly doubt that their first new president in 30 years will be a woman)? In Romania, after the revolution, the people who took over were Ceausescu's old lackeys who seized their chance to overthrow their old master so that they could take their turn to gnaw at the bone. So it was basically the same system, the same mentality (for the leaders as for the population), slightly enriched with the concept of "freedom of speech", but also filled with corruption and unemployment. So, sure, the Egyptians have a shot at living a better life. But there are also chances that they were better off with Mubarak. I'm not saying that all the nations of the world should be subservient and just live with their lot and with what life gave them without fighting for a better future. All I'm saying is that revolutions don't always have a happy ending even if they manage to get rid of the old hag who was in charge. But at that point it's only the beginning. Anything can happen now and there are more ways in which it could go bad than ways in which it could go well.

In anthropology there is a concept that is called "anomie" and it represents a lack of social norms or a mismatch between an individual's personal beliefs and those of his native culture. It is used to describe why people might commit suicide in societies that are too restrictive or too rule oriented. However, the reason why I'm talking about it in this case is because, while I was typing, I had an image pop into my head. When I first heard about anomie, I was taking an anthropology class in CEGEP and we were watching a video about rites of passage for young warriors in amazonian tribes. And they were explaining that, in this tribe, young boys were taken into the forest where they would have to pass a series of tests and trials through which they would grow and they would come back to the village as men. However, these trials would challenge them on a physical as well as a psychological level and during that time they were in a sort of no-man's-land. Neither boys nor men, during this transitional state, they would come to see their world and their culture through the eyes of an outsider. This was the most dangerous stage in their development because at that point they had the choice to either accept the cultural norms of their people and live as accomplished men in their tribe, or they could decide to reject them and this would bring internal and external conflict (of course, ideally, the second scenario should not happen and earlier socialization should be enough to prevent it). This transitional state is what they call "anomie" and this is where Egypt is right now. It's in between regimes. Anything can happen.

And that's as far as my reflection goes...