The issue of the " Syntagma 2011" for the first time brings the civil society faced with all the (political and others) power holders of the state. The very fact shows that the collective does not define itself anymore in terms of mass, but aspire to be the cumulative product of society. The affirmation of individuality in the collective alters a civilian from the effected obedient citizen in to a free and emancipated entity who is forming the developments. Therefore, it is manifestly a falsehood of the greatest thinkers of modernity to claim that state and political system are identical in nature.
To preserve the conquest of this civil society it is required to:
a) To take into account that the method of extra-institutional protests these days has "short legs" to confront the giants of the world order.
To be aware that the time of non-institutional operation of the collectivity is finished. The non-institutionalized collectivities last less than the necessity that brought them to life. They are in danger of either degeneration or penetration by the coordinated powers and forces that deny the empowerment to the civil society. This danger is greater when the issue of civil society develops in a small country and is not consistent with either the internal dynamics of the countries of the hegemonic complex which defines the world affairs, nor, much less their interest.
b) To formulate with "legislative" clarity the demands and for them to be realistic.
Realistic and necessary, I consider, under present conditions, the following:
- Abolishing the immunity and subjecting the political staff to a court composed of the group of judges ( chosen by a draw ) with the participation of the civil jury.
- To institutionalize the competence of "ελέγχειν"(control, audit) of the political personnel (administrative and judicial). An audit to also concern individuals (eg for Member of Parliament every six months by the group of citizens chosen by a draw from his electoral periphery ) and civil groups.
-To establish the political responsibility (the "ευθύνειν") of political staff for political acts(or omissions) which harm the civil society. To be clearly stated that the purpose of "πολιτεύεσθαι" ( to be politically involved) is the interest of nation of society and not the nation of the state ( government). It is inconceivable in the 21st century to live in the regime anterior to that of Solon.
- To give the citizen the right of "legitimate interest" for the harm caused by the bodies of the administration, of justice and by political personnel. Facing the citizen, to be answerable directly the administrative, judicial and political official, and in the further alternative, the State.
- To require the compulsory expression of opinion (the will) of civil society before any political decision (governmental or legislative) and the ability to raise policy issues that it believes need to be addressed (eg the effective functioning of the administration). Practically it could mean to exploit the possibility of scientific opinion polls, it is not necessary to collect each time the whole society in Syntagma Square. It could mean, before taking any decision, to be obliged to poll on what the civil society wants. Or even more, to create a lasting polling Municipality, which will discuss and decide on the country's problems at the political level. This is an example. We can find a thousand and one ways. But it is necessary for the civil society to enter into politics. To participate in the decisions.
-So, it would be clear what does the civil society consider its interest and what not. For the time being the obligatoriness of opinion would be sufficient, rather than its mandatory character for the political authority. The "ελέγχειν" and "ευθύνειν 'combined with the electoral process, would balance the willi of political power to be autonomous.
-To require from the Parliament to resign from the abusive "jurisdiction" to legislate on issues of political accountability of its members and particularly to be involved in managing their responsibilities. To subject all the cases of immunity and scandals since the dictatorship onwards, to the justice. The cases that go back to "ευθύνειν" of the politicians, by their nature, can not be barred.
- Most of these do not require revision of the Constitution. Otherwise, the civil society to require the suspension of those Articles of the Constitution which reserve the political authorities the status of assignor.
c) In addition, in regards to the ways of political activity.
-I have already mentioned the direct, without wasting time, massive and peaceful encirclement of the Parliament and Maximus st..
|The banner demanding the direct democracy|
- Just to add to this proposal by stating that if the political authority attempts to block, in any way, the expression of civil society's beliefs, at the location of such autocratic act, all should gather as one body supinely on earth. The only thing it will achieve is its total delegitimization . The "social contract" that is encasing the civil society to the status of an individual, requires at least its silent consent. If that is disputed massively, that presumption is bursting, therefore it is required to re-adjudicate the body of civil society. In any case, the political class appeared unworthy of carte blanche given to it by civil society and the worst, it abused its role with disastrous results for the country.
Translated from Greek by @MoonPurpose
Original article by George Kontogiorgis here
Read the Part One here:http://serbiasos.blogspot.com/2012/03/call-to-civil-society-what-needs-to.html