Italian President initiates a New Era of rational political

                               I would like to make a PROPHECY today that: 

                               Italy has sounded the death knell for absurd partisan political.

                                         Frank Li   Mar. 31 2013  in Waterloo, On. Ca.

                      http://frank-waterloo.blog.163.com/blog/static/20523902920133161836368/

Oct. 4, 2009, the 2008 Nobel laureate in economics, Paul Krugman, the professor of the Department of Economics at Princeton University, who published article <The Politics of Spite> in the New York Times, said that:  

 

"The guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they're against it — whether or not it's good for America." 

"It's an ugly picture. But it's the truth. And it's a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America's real problems has to understand."  

 

Prof. Paul Krugman has pointed out the absurd and irrational reality in the government of the United States. If we look back to the past, and take a look at present, it has the universal significance in the democratic government worldwide. The difference is only the matter of more or less.  

Perhaps, it was that the autocratic monarchy, or one-party dictatorship, has caused too much harm to humans, people eagerly advocate democracy; some countries even actively plant multi-party democratic government everywhere by force. However, the facts are that, besides killing of the innocents and creating of chaos, they did not bring any good to our world. 
 

In the world today, in concerning about the democratic government, the number of them that is worthy of appreciation is too small. As my perspective, in comparatively speaking, the government of Germany is the most rational, followed by the government of Canada. I am so sorry for that I only cited two countries, I really can not cite the good example of more. 

Talking about the parties, Soviet writer and journalist Vasily Grossman who had incisive comment in his book <Life and Fate>:

"Human groupings have one main purpose: to assert everyone’s right to be different, to be special, to think, feel and live in his or her own way. People join together in order to win or defend this right. But this is where a terrible, fateful error is born: the belief that these groupings in the name of a race, a God, a party or a State are the very purpose of life and not simply a means to an end. No! The only true and lasting meaning of the struggle for life lies in the individual, in his modest peculiarities and in his right to these peculiarities."

I appreciate the views on the parties of Vasily Grossman. In most of cases, in some of extents, parties are the tools that were wrongly used by irrational people to harm human society. Please seriously think about that, if there is no support from the partisan forces, as any separate individual would not have the ability to endanger our society.

In China, historically, people think that officialdom is dirty. Rational people are far away from it. Once there was an ancient story, that a wise man washed his ears and flees to hide himself after heard that he will be appointed as a governor.

I once said that in an article, the parties has been adsorbing human scum with accumulation of mindless person, the irrational person can not make a rational policy. If partisan politic is not to an end, the world would be ruined soon. Also I have proposed to organize the think tank by various professional experts without political background to develop national policies.

Because of this, after I knew that "Italian President Giorgio Napolitano has asked a select group of people to offer a policy platform to end the impasse in forming a new government" from the report of <Italy: Napolitano invites 'select group' on cabinet>. I am pleased very much. I deeply believed that Italy President Giorgio Napolitano has made a landmark decision.

Such a smart political method may be likely followed by other countries to settle thorny political issues. Thereby, it will play the role to affect the history of the development of human political. It may be an initiation that sounds the death knell for absurd partisan politics.

 

Now, here, I think of that, in the emails exchanges, the former Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Railways of Saskatchewan, Canada, Wartman Mark who once said to me:

 

So Frank, if we start our thinking with a focus on how we can develop and do our best to make the life in the world around us healthier, happier and more meaningful and satisfying experience for others and ourselves it shapes how we think and how we act.  If this is where we begin our thinking, our actions and our living will be more respectful towards others and the environment and in the end I believe our lives will be more joyful, satisfying and productive.  We will want to live and work to capacity with more hope, joy and satisfaction. 

Given the limits of our planet in terms of resources, we can compete with each other as individuals, families, communities, tribes, nations…… to see who can get and keep the most resources. Those born in places of wealth and plenty have a natural advantage and if the world is just about competition to see who can get and keep the most and the best a lot of people will suffer terribly.  The environment will continue to be fouled to the point where it cannot recover and the price to all life will be beyond imagination.  On the other hand, if people regardless of where they are born and what their national or racial background realize that this awesome world with its great regenerative and productive cycles is also fragile and all we have to sustain us and they truly recognize that it is the inheritance of all of us, there is tremendous hope and opportunity.  

We know that by 2050 there will be around 9 Billion people living on the earth.  Given today’s circumstances and the distribution of resources, environmental degradation, human exploitation, suffering and death will be multiplied many times as some people and groups try to build their security at the expense of others.  Those others not born in wealthy, resource rich often sparsely populated countries will do everything possible to survive and as we have seen with lost civilizations in the past they will eat themselves to extinction.  The luckiest, wealthiest, strongest and most ruthless of those will as is often the case survive the longest.  As wise people like Jared Diamond (Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed ) have indicated, these stories from our past should warn us and enable us to learn better ways of living in relationship with the earth and with one another.  

If we see the earth as one entity that needs to be loved, nurtured, respected and cared for and which in turn will sustain life and provide untold opportunity for the future and if we accept this concept as the foundation for our living and our decision making it can positively affect everything we do.  I believe it is this understanding and sense of oneness that enables the best of passionate, compassionate and creative living.  It is a moral compass, it is like a sea anchor that keeps us on track even through some of the most intense storms and conflicts.  If we seek to live from these foundational thoughts it has a profound effect on all our decision making from the personal and interpersonal, to the social and political.  

Unfortunately all of that is tempered by the fact that we live in a world where there is no consensus upon those foundations.  The fact is there is a range from those who think and act as above to those who live from the foundation that the luckiest, trickiest (sometimes some of the smartest), most aggressive and most powerful should get the most and the best of everything and everyone and everything possible should be at their disposal to accomplish their ends. 

The foundations people choose to live by affects how they analyze and makes decisions around even such issues as supply management: On what basis should our government make decisions?  Should they make a decision that will only benefit under 20,000 Canadian farmers who are under the protection of supply management and those companies along with employees who work in the processing, transporting and retailing of those supply managed products?  What about all those other farmers who have a comparative advantage (land, feed….) and could be successfully producing SMP (current supply managed products)?  Would the US which subsidizes SMP through purchase for school lunch programs as well as in other ways and which has such a large industry simply overwhelm the Canadian market if the supply management barriers were removed or could Canadian farmers compete and build successful market arrangements with other nations around the world? The challenge of such decision making is immense and the impact of such decisions can be very significant.  In the political sphere in a democracy all of the potential strategies and decisions are also analyzed as to their impact on political popularity.  “If we make this decision will we gain or lose significant votes?”  So Frank, what do you think Prime Minister Harper and his government will choose to do?  They have said unequivocally that they support supply management and that they will defend it at the WTO.  But if they are completely intransigent and will not even discuss tariffs on SMP, Canada is simply excluded from the discussion tables and a decision may be made by others.  The government also knows that if they don’t move on SMP it could negatively affect many other vital areas of trade.  So, the public face is no movement on SMP but who knows what is happening in the private discussions????  We are a trading nation and Saskatchewan is a highly productive trading province we need open doors and good relationships in order to move all that we produce.   The question is can we develop those trade relationships and still protect the SMP industry or do we need to revise or give up supply management?  In a world where there is and will be incredible famine, can we justify only producing limited quantities in order to maintain our relative wealth?  Should we not be trying to determine our maximum sustainable production and enabling that production and distribution to maximum benefit of all?  However, if we produce to our maximum and we provide food products to where they are needed the most, will we not negatively affect and in some cases destroy domestic production?  Are there ways that we can in fact provide product where it is needed while at the same time enabling optimum domestic production and distribution? 

Well anyway Frank, this is just a glimpse of the macro picture.  As you know these are not simple issues.  Before us are huge complex decisions that can have positive or negative impacts on individuals, industries, nations and the world.  People with the knowledge, skill and courage to engage in production and trade are taking a risk.  And they are depending on those in power to make wise decisions.  The risks and the impacts and the potential rewards are there just as surely for the entrepreneurial farmer as for someone further up the production chain and for many more in the economy.  

What we know for sure is that people have needs and desires and the work of filling those can be incredibly rewarding.  And if done from a solid foundation of caring for the earth and for one another the benefits will be widespread and long lasting.   

Let’s hope that the best of wisdom, compassion and sound economic analysis prevail.

All the best,

Mark

                  Italy: Napolitano invites 'select group' on cabinet

                                               30 March 2013 16:03 ET
                         http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21981679

Italian President Giorgio Napolitano has asked a select group of people to offer a policy platform to end the impasse in forming a new government.
 
President Giorgio Napolitano addressing the media

Italy has an "operational" government at the moment, President Napolitano says.

He named 10 "wise men" to work in two separate groups.

His announcement ended speculation that he might resign - a day after political parties failed to agree a coalition government following February's inconclusive election.

Mr Napolitano said he would serve out his mandate that ends on 15 May.

Italy has been governed by a group of technocrats led by Mario Monti since late 2011 - when centre-right leader Silvio Berlusconi resigned in the middle of an acute economic crisis.

President Napolitano said that Mr Monti's caretaker cabinet was still "operational" and "in charge".

However, the continuing political stalemate is delaying reforms that could help revive Italy's recession-hit, debt-laden economy.

'Wise men'

The president finished consultations with Italy's main political leaders on Friday.

In the absence of agreement, Italian analysts had said Mr Napolitano was contemplating quitting to enable a successor to try to form a new cabinet or dissolve parliament and call new elections.

But the president announced that he planned to stay on "to the end".

Instead, he said he asked "two small groups of personalities" to formulate "precise programme proposals" that could be supported by political parties - and serve as a basis for a new cabinet.

The first group will be asked to work on pressing political and institutional issues, while the second will focus on economic and social problems.

Among the 10 "wise men" are Enrico Giovannini, head of Italy's Istat statistics agency, European Affairs Minister Enzo Moavero Milanesi, Bank of Italy deputy director Salvatore Rossi and Valerio Onida, a former judge on the country's constitutional court.

"I want to underline one more time the need for all political parties to demonstrate their full awareness of the gravity and urgency of the problems facing the country," Mr Napolitano said.

There has been talk of the possibility of the president ultimately seeking to form a temporary, technocrat-style administration, the BBC's Alan Johnston in Rome reports.

He adds that for the moment nothing is clear, except that Italy's political paralysis continues.

The country's parliament is currently split in three main blocs - each without enough seats to govern alone.

Pier Luigi Bersani's centre-left coalition won the most votes in the February election, but failed to secure a majority in both houses of parliament.

The bloc has ruled out an alliance with Mr Berlusconi's centre-right alliance, which finished a close second.

The protest group Five Stars Movement led by former comedian Beppe Grillo garnered a quarter of the vote, but has refused to support either group.

Italy's 10 'Wise Men'

Political and institutional reform group

Prof Valerio Onida - University of Milan constitutional law expert
Luciano Violante - former parliament speaker from Pier Luigi Bersani's party
Mario Mauro - senator in Mario Monti's party
Gaetano Quagliariello - senator in Silvio Berlusconi's party

Economic and social reform group

Prof Enrico Giovannini - statistics agency head
Giovanni Pitruzzella - Competition Authority head
Salvatore Rossi - Bank of Italy deputy head
Enzo Moavero Milanesi - European Affairs minister
Giancarlo Giorgetti and Filippo Bubbico - parliament commission heads