I was listening to the radio this morning, and a woman in Brazil was being interviewed about her sister and some other people. Two from Canada, and some from Chile, had been imprisoned eight years ago for kidnapping a wealthy business magnate, apparently to raise funds for a war in El Salvador.
My interest was piqued when the woman mentioned a rising groundswell of support for the release of these people by expulsion from the country, rather than deportation to serve the remaining years of their sentences in their home countries. A couple of days earlier Brazil's President had publicly agreed to do this, then changed his mind when a wealthy businessman told him to reconsider. Support for outright release grew as people became upset; thinking they had elected the President to run the country, not to take orders from rich business people.
What an idea! A government elected to run a country, not to take orders from big business. Imagine if we started thinking that way: we could give up NAFTA, FTAA, MAI, WTO, and a whole slew of acronyms palmed off on us by these shadows in the background, manipulators of those who would claim to be running the country.
I know, I step up on my soapbox repeatedly, but I find resistance is fading, to such radical ideas as "we're not really living in a democracy any more if we're only allowed to vote for the people who take orders from the real government" or "the real reason more and more of us don't bother to vote is that deep-down, we all really know our vote doesn't carry any power."
We now see evidence of people who are no longer willing to put up with this. We see unrest growing in Brazil today, where people thought they elected a government; in Korea last year, with workers' backs to the wall as government casually removed their rights; in Australia, where the Maritime Union is waging a global battle for its continued existence; and even, to some extent, in Campbell River, where forestry workers face the extinction of their employment category, at the hands of international financial interests.
I confess I long for the resurgence of speakers who can put shape to our thoughts as eloquently as Tommy Douglas when he asked why the mice were electing cats to look out for their interests, but this is a different time.
Different measures are required if we are to develop a system of government where we who live here and work to produce the sustenance and life we enjoy are to have a voice in how our country is managed.
Not long ago our Council held a one-day forum to discuss building solidarity within and between our respective sectors. The set-up was such that each sector would meet and select its own facilitator, spending the day dealing with the agenda or changing it, as it saw fit. Chaos, it seemed, sat waiting for an opening; ready to trash any goals or ideals we'd brought. Yet it never gained a toe-hold.
We, each in our sectors, with much to discuss, our frustrations and our ideas, had all participated, by the end of the day, in the kind of self-starting clarification of the demands, offers and ideas required, to work through the challenges put before us. This was participatory democracy. This was us, deciding who would lead, and having them do it.
It was only on a small scale, but it was truly encouraging. It showed us ways we can do it. We can reclaim our own affairs, and even though it certainly isn't easy, (we were worn out by day's end) it is worth it. It felt good.
C.W. Petersen
Local 2045