For a better world

The world, as it exists today, is an unbearable, unfair and threatening world, at least for the multitude of those living in extreme poverty in the South and for the masses of people who are suffering alienation through forced consumption and labor in the North. A handful of individuals and their cohorts of servants - referred to here as the new global oligarchy - monopolize an increasing share of wealth and, through it, control the levers of power. This political and social configuration is not casual. It is the outcome of capital-led globalization, a process that took roots in the economic and social changes of the past five centuries and which is now at its peak thanks to its extension to all continents and to the submission of all societies.

Changing this state of affairs and promoting a better world would require three conditions: that a vast majority of people considers this situation to be intolerable, that an alternative to the current system appears credible to all and that new forms of governance develop to this end. As it controls now the world and the minds, "the system" does not admit any questioning or even minor accommodations, since it is locked and focused on its own interests. The “system" is indeed capitalism, which resides in it and which models it, but it is also much more than the kind of capitalism analyzed in the nineteenth century by the great thinkers of socialism. The “system" is a complex set of economic and social interacting forces, a composite mix of all kinds of institutions and regulation mechanisms, all immersed in an ideology that cements and ensures its domination. It is the software that governs us all at the beginning of the 21st century and it is the software that must be replaced if we intend to build a better world.

Intending to get rid of the prevailing system assumes in first place that it has become intolerable for the vast majority of the people, insupportable to the point of arousing resistance to oppression and rebellion of the minds. But we are still far from that as the peoples of the underdeveloped world still live under ignorance and misery and those of the assumed developed world under illusion and submission. Nothing to expect in the immediate future from populations whose horizon consists in surviving in the South and getting lost in a universe of distractions in the North. But when the air will become to be unsafe, when fresh water will become to be short, when ecosystems will enter into crisis and when disasters will multiply under the effect of climate change, then and only then, the "system" will collapse entirely. However, we should not wait for this breaking point to react. The solutions for tomorrow must be designed and tested as from now. Changes, even the slightest, should be imposed on the rulers. Intellectuals and activists on all sides have a very special responsibility in this respect.

The system of the future will have to be radically different from that of today, which is neither amendable, nor subject to any reform whatsoever. It will have to aim at other goals than the present system, entirely structured around the myth of growth and the illusion that growth can provide employment, resources, fulfillment of needs and happiness. Its aim will consist basically at the fulfillment of all basic needs and at the bloom of all human beings in a climate of peace and mutual tolerance: quite the contrary, in fact, of the present system, which praises violence and competition and aims at the appropriation of wealth and power by a tiny minority. The economy will have to serve society and people, not the other way around. The community will have to provide everyone with a motivating activity and a useful occupation for the society. It will have to secure decent living conditions for all. Everyone will have the right to speak, the right to discuss and right to decide jointly how we should live and how we should design the future. We are discussing here about a system that would be based on principles and standards that are radically opposed to the present system: a system that would serve human beings and not the other way around.

In terms of environment and natural resources, all essential for the survival and the development of mankind, the policies and the initiatives implemented so far should be pursued and deepened, starting with those aiming at preventing global warming and climate change. First and foremost, it would mean placing all fossil energies out of the law, further developing new energies and drastically saving energy consumption with, among other things, the restructuring of our habitat and of our transport systems. Policies to control the air, the water, the seas and the land pollution should be continued while preserving our natural resources and the ecosystems. This should include, among other things, the enlargement of the protected spaces and of the modalities of protection by removing those spaces from private appetites (forests, oceans, arctic regions, etc.). Finally, this would require the setting up of supranational monitoring and protection mechanisms, under the aegis of the United Nations, to prevent future disasters and the irremediable loss of our environment. Nothing also very new in terms of principles and modalities, if not, once again, the requirement of a strong political will to implement these measures and to allocate the necessary resources.

Regarding society, we should move towards a convivial society that would put solidarity and personal development at the top of its agenda. The way social protection is provided and work is organized should be radically changed. Everyone in the world should be granted the resources to live in decent conditions – i.e. above the poverty line - which would require the consolidation and the enlargement of the solidarity measures and mechanisms developed so far in the so-called advanced societies and the introduction of a universal grant mechanism in the poor countries. The rising debate on the “basic income” - a universal and unconditional income that would be granted to everyone from birth to death, whether he/she works or not - shows the way forward. In terms of work, on the other hand, it would be necessary to dissociate more clearly in the future the concept of activity or occupation - productive or not and useful for the society - from the concept of salaried employment - predominant today, but condemned to regress as a result of enlarging automation and increasing productivity. The aim in this respect would be to reach a society where everyone would be provided with an occupation useful to all and not subject to the whim of the market. There would be no longer people killing themselves at work on one side and unemployed and assisted people on the other side. Everybody would be provided with a useful function in the society, with the effective obligation for the community to secure it. This would imply, inter alia, a more equitable distribution of labor among the people as a result of shorter working schedules; coupled with proactive employment policies to be promoted by the community at all levels. Changes in these areas would be fundamental, both in terms of policy implementation and of evolution of mentalities. This would require an authentic cultural revolution associated, once again, with a strong political will.

All the above clearly shows that major changes in support of a better world would primarily result from a strong political will and not from economic processes and pretended economic laws, as the supporters of the existing system would like us to believe. Political will is the key to the problem and for this to happen it would be necessary, above all, that citizens reclaim politics. Citizens of all kinds have been dispossessed of politics by the “political class” and the ruling circles who have appropriated the joysticks of power and who have turned politics into a mediatic show and occasional consultations that provide them with a semblance of legitimacy. Even when they are legitimately designated the same leaders - all political horizons combined - serve deliberately or in spite of themselves the present system, either because of the prevalence of the dominant ideology or as a result of the pressure continually exerted by the prevailing interests. The resulting decisions and policies fundamentally reflect the demands of the dominant system and the expectations of the new global oligarchy. Nothing really new can therefore happen if we do not change radically the rules of the game.

Changing the rules of the political game would presuppose, first and foremost, that the citizens take ownership of the debates and of the political decisions, which in turn would imply that they fully participate in the debates of direct concern to them and effectively contribute to the decisions of direct interest to them. This would require a radical change in the political life, giving priority to participatory democracy as opposed to representative democracy and relegating the latter to the implementation of fundamental choices and the dispatch of current affairs rather than the formulation of fundamental political choices. The development of a participatory democracy would require large-scale participatory decision-making processes at the grass-roots level and a systematic use of popular initiative and referendums for any major political orientation, as it is commonly practiced in Switzerland.

In addition, States should systematically establish collegial structures, not only to ensure the legislative function, as usual, but also to ensure the executive power. Governmental structures of a collegial nature - the only ones likely to impose the virtues of collective deliberation over personal ambition and power - should be set up everywhere, as for the Swiss governmental structures. Moreover, the choice of the political rulers should be made by universal vote, through list ballots, excluding any party participation and partisan representation. The aim should be to eliminate the political cockfights and partisan programmes that undermine democratic life. The overall aim should be to promote a “government of the wise men and women” all over the world, the only one capable of imposing the general interest over personal ambitions and private appetites. Such a mode of governance would naturally promote consensus in societies and ensure enduring peace among nations.

While the right to cultural identity and regional autonomy should become a recognized right for all human communities - notwithstanding the authority of the states as the sole responsibles for the future of the national entities - significant transfers of sovereignty should take place in favor of the United Nations (or of the world governance system that would eventually replace the organization). While regional and local issues should exclusively be addressed at the local level - except issues related to peace - global problems requiring a supranational and coordinated response would need to be treated at the global level. New bodies should be set up to address the most pressing global threats, especially climate change. The functioning of these supranational bodies and institutions should be further democratized (including the United Nations system or the world governance system that would eventually take over), recognizing to all nations equal rights while at same time taking into consideration the aspirations of their peoples rather than the power of the states that pretend to represent them. The financing mechanisms for international aid should be furthermore restructured to overcome the shortcomings of the existing system and enable the poorest peoples to reach human dignity through the transfer of predictable and significant resources.