Friday, 28 June 2013

"Save ERT"

Στο άρθρο του στην Athens Voice ο Νίκος Γιάννης δίνει μια λιγότερο προφανή (σε κάποιους) αλλά συνάμα ρεαλιστική ερμηνεία στο «πανευρωπαϊκό» φαινόμενο "Save ERT".

«Τελικώς, η μεγαλύτερη δυσκολία σε μια δημοκρατία είναι να τα βάλεις με τα μικρά συμφέροντα των πολλών» γράφει. 

Μερικοί θα πουν μα φυσικά, η πολιτική μας είναι για τα συμφέροντα των πολλών μικρών. Όμως, τα μικρά συμφέροντα των πολλών μικρών είναι στην περίπτωσή μας και όλα αυτά που έρχονται σε αντίθεση με τα συμφέροντα όλων των άλλων και της κοινωνίας στο σύνολό της. Γιατί οι «κατακτήσεις» στον ιδιωτικό τομέα είναι ένα θέμα. Μπορεί να επηρεάζουν την ανταγωνιστικότητα, ευελιξία, αλλά στην τελική ο εργοδότης το κλείνει το μαγαζί, (βλ. ανεργία). Σε αντίθεση, στον δημόσιο τομέα είναι απλά και μόνο μεταφορά χρημάτων από το σύνολο (φορολογούμενοι) στο μερικό και συγκεκριμένα σε μικρές ομάδες που αποκτούν δύναμη είτε μέσω του πελατειακού συστήματος είτε απλά γιατί ελέγχουν τον διακόπτη (τα μέσα παραγωγής) ή τα μέσα της «προπαγάνδας» όπως στην ΕΡΤ.

With his article in Athens Voice, Nicos Yannis gives a less obvious yet realistic, in my opinion, interpretation of the pan-European phenomenon "Save ERT"! The Article is in Greek and I will not attempt to translate it. I will present, however, a brief summary of my understanding (my inherence) as well as my comments.

The author argues that this "Save ERT" phenomenon gained popularity amongst certain European countries and publics because 1) it triggered some democracy issues the way this decision was announced and executed, and that this has been further manipulated by the ERT people (points 5, 6), 2) EBU members face similar pressures in many other European countries like Austria, the Netherlands, and France among others and the ERT example could set precedence therefore they had a “vested interest” to proliferate the issue, 3) journalists and media people have a high international networking ability and they could propagate their cause (in solidarity) very easily and effectively, 4) converging European politics have come to share some common pro-socialistic, pro-statetism reflexes that clash with the more liberal, progressive policies of the EU bodies (very loose inherence).

The author gives further evidence to the rise of populism as a result of that political clash in Europe, part of a greater rise of extremist voices from the far right and far left (communist party and the alikes) fueled by the .
He finally argues that it is a reform movement that clashes with the status-quo. At the end of the day, the greatest challenge in a democracy is to curtail the little interests of the many, he writes.

Some will argue but of course. The aim of politics should be to take care of the needs and interests of the many little. However, the little interests of the many are in our case those that work against the greater interests of the many and society as a whole. Working class gains in the private sector is one thing. They may affect competiveness and flexibility but then again it’s a negotiated process and at the end of the line there is unemployment as it’s in the entrepreneur’s prerogative to close the business and move it to another place. On the contrary, in the public sector, such gains are just a mare transfer of money from the whole (the taxpayers) to the part (the civil servants/workers). The latter’s power to negotiate such gains arises from either the client/spoils system or from a false idea of “ownership” of the means of production (holding the power switch as we say) or of the media (propaganda means) like in the case of ERT.

No comments:

Post a Comment

You can post your feedback or comment. Please remember to be polite and brief.