My Fellow Liberals,
Today is June 7, the day when we put our maiden topic up for discussion :)
The results are as follows:
Topic 2 'Political differentiation of Liberalism' wins with 10 votes in favour;
Topic 7 'Challenges faced by liberals in conservative / religious countries' is second with 4 votes (will be discussed next month - July 7); and
Topic 5 - 'Rule of Law - its effects on Development' is third with 3 votes (to be discussed from August 7).
Reminder:
1. On the 7th of every month, a topic would be thrown in for discussion. Every 25th in the same month, discussion closes and a summary of our deliberations would be framed and posted on the 30th of the same month for the benefit of all members.
2. Initial input on any topic is restricted to 100 words (plus or minus 10 words max) and all / every member is free to post / comment. Anybody can start.
3. Each member representing his / her country may contribute thoughts / ideas with data / examples please. This would help substantiate your arguments.
4. Initial input needs to be posted by within 5 days of the topic being introduced (ie) by the 12th of that / every month.
5. The floor is then open for debate / discussion across members with no word limit until the 25th of that month (ie) for 13 days. This is to encourage free flow of thought and expression.
6. It is a cycle and this system will be followed every month.
7. One member can please volunteer to summarize the entire discussion and post a brief version of about max 500 words in the form of an article and this will be posted on the 30th of that / every month. Please mark key words for easy accessibility on the net.
8. This would be the final statement that could be picked up by search engines and we can also use this statement to express ourselves to the media.
Happy blogging!
Sangeetha
Hope this works now Zia!!?? :)
ReplyDeleteThats great. Thanks Sangeetha. Let us get the ball rolling. So dear friends, what should be the starting point of our discussion. In my opinion that when you talk about differentiation, then first you should have detailed know how about your product, it will be followed by the overview of competition, you also need to know the similarities in yours' & competitors' products. Then only you will be in a position to select the differentiation factor of your product for pitching.
ReplyDeleteIn our case, Liberalism is the product, whose charateristics may be defined by my other colleagues. It is competing in the political market against other ideologies such as Conservatism, Socialism, Anarchism, Nationalism, Greens, centre-right, centre-left & so on. Let us explore our similarities with other products on offer. And then we may decide, what dissimalarities of Liberalism can be important enough to become our main differentiation factor.
I'll talk later about the political scenario of Pakistan in terms of political parties orientation & likely space for Liberals among them.
Zia
Dear friends, it appears that there exist not much interest among ourselves in such debates. May be some other topics are gaining more attention.
ReplyDeleteWe should know that this blog will die down, if we didn't participate & will speak hollow of our tall claims pertaining to committment to liberalism. Self interest is supreme, but I remember Maslow's self actualization was much talked about at Gummersbach. May be this blog doesn't qualify for that.
Let me cut the crap here, gals & guys, this blog is our creation & we have to take its ownership. So wake up & do some writing, thats it.
Zia
Thank you Zia :). Everybody seems to be caught up in 'Our Reunion' and have somehow sidelined the very purpose of us meeting at Gummersbach.
ReplyDeleteSome are finding the topic too heavy and would like more guidance.
I was thinking, maybe, you can spell out what the topic actually means so that it will help the others contribute.
Thanks so much for expressing what was on my mind :)
Sangeetha
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI developed a discussion document for my constituency. It starts by emphasising the importance of voting for a party because you understand their plan. Using pictures, it differentiates between the ‘big, fat government’, ‘the small, thin government’ and ‘the selfish government’. The big, fat government says “come be part of my family I want to look after you”. The small, thin government says “I will enable you to look after yourself” and the selfish government says “I will use the plan of either of the afore mentioned but I only look after my own people”. Using bullets, columns and examples it describes how the three addresses key problems in SA.
ReplyDeletePosting on behalf of Stefan......
ReplyDeleteMy qestion for the blog is:
What makes liberalism so different to other political mainstreams?
I think that part of the answer lies in the values we subscribe to both politically and as individuals, personal or individual freedom being the foremost of them. Other political mainstreams may also believe in freedom - but they have 1) a different understanding of freedom and 2) it is of lower priority.
Another part of the answer is that liberalism is not an ideology in the same sense as conservatism or socialism is. A lot of what liberals want to achieve has little to do with attaining some kind of utopia but with getting something that is within our reach. Less perhaps. In the process we use our common sense and maintain a sense of proportion and realism.
A third important point concerns the liberalism commitment to the use of reason whener we are looking for solutions.
Kind regards,
Stefan
Interesting micro picture by Karen & potent structural clarification by Stefan. Question remains determination of lethal liberal pitch for winning elections.
ReplyDeleteWe make the picture simpler, we say that Liberals are good & sensible people, just look at these crooks around you, conning you in the name of race, religion & class; please vote for us, we will make this earth, a liveable place for u.
Oops! these thankless masses again go & vote the crooks in power. And liberals remain in self-pity & go for merry making among themselves while cursing the voters who had just missed again the biggest gift of nature. Will liberals always remain on the periphery of power & will never become the core? At least, this what I am seeing for last many years.
We are living in an imperfect world, where electorate has to be taken as a rational being weighing idealism & pragmatism simaltaneously. Mostly pragmatism has a greater weight with a tinge of idealism.
While talking about liberal ideas in developing countries, we forget one important issue of the conduct of fair elections. Muscle power is eesential for winning elections here. Now, question remains that whether liberals will opt for revolutionary path or incremental approach to gain societal acceptance & win power. Obviously, I'll go for later, but I've to be practical enough to adjust my tactics accordingly for pragmatic politics. No matter, how good my ideas are, I have to win power in an imperfect world to implement them incrementally.
I might sound ruthless to you, but please study history, power has remained a more ruthless game than one can imagine & I cannot remain oblivious to this fact.
In my next post, I'll talk about societal differences on the basis of institutional evolution & liberals adjustment of their message accordingly.
Zia
If I understand correctly, Stephan is saying that Liberalism is more of a "bottom-up" approach to development as compared to Socialism and Conservatism which is "top-down". Do we as Liberals then not have an ideal we are trying to achieve?
ReplyDelete@Zia - a "frank" question...who is your target audience and do they understand what you are saying? If no, why so? If yes, how do you expalin liberalism to them?
This is what I think.
ReplyDeleteLiberals do have values and in my opinion, they are too objective and don't go down well in society for that very reason. Somehow, people prefer to believe in ideologies however irrational the ideology may seem. I see that happen every time in India.
Huge promises are made around election time, logically and practically unattainable commitments, absolutely visible to a rational mind...yet the electorate fall for all of them. Why, I can never understand.
All of us people fall in love with ideals. Period. But when it comes to attainability, I think, the liberal approach is the best...but the problem - fellow countrymen don't buy it.
How would a liberal politician get the electorate to look at what he offers? How should capitalise on his theories to gain votes?
Me thinks, Liberals haven't got a clue. They are still debating within, that is why they cannot compete to win. That is why they only participate in an election. They are very poor salesmen and that is bad for the future of liberalism in the world.
We all are part of a collective system known as Society. And relationships in a society are based on institutional arrangements. And these institutional arrangements always evolve, adapting to internal & external pressures. As historical experiences differ, hence every society will be at different evolution stage, in terms of acceptance of change. We may also recognize the fact that majority of the society remains pro-status quo, where appetite for something new remains low.
ReplyDeleteIrrespective of the source of innovation, it will only gain broader societal acceptance if backed by major elite groups of the society. And these elite groups will only support such changes, if it ensures sustenance of their interests. Here I am talking about incrementalism; otherwise revolutions, which are rear, results in major realignment of elite classes, where interest aggregation will have a volatile trend, but eventually it matures into like any previous status-quo.
All these interest groups comprises of the power structure of a society. And they draw their legitimacy in the name of race, religion, class or any combination. Their tools of power capture can include bullet, ballot or combination of both (especially in developing countries). Major political segmentation has been done among conservative & social democratic leanings. Elections are contested on perceived stances on political, social & economic fronts. If you look at political sloganeering of parties of any strand, their underlying identity may remain the same, however level of emphasis on different issues will always shift.
This is a subtle difference, as liberals, we have to understand. We have to work on lowering defenses of voters against liberal ideas & direct approach may not always be a better way. We may adopt indirect way of pushing liberal ideas under the pretext of prevailing popular themes. Like in Pakistan, I can talk about the Golden Muslim period of 8th-12th centuries under Abbasids, when acceptance of plurality took them to zenith. Every society has its own myths, where it builds its own labyrinth of superiority.
We have to push liberal ideas among these myths by suppressing some portions & highlighting some. And what I am talking about is communication wranglings in our worlds, practiced by conservatives, socialists & liberals of every hue & color. However, as liberals, we have to mold these myths to our advantage to create a sense of continuity in success formula for the emotional satisfaction of the masses. We may then have a chance to come near to power.
Zia
Karen has a valid query on client segmentation for liberalism & our approach towards them. For simplification, we divide society into haves & havenots, please don't take this as a socialist brag.
ReplyDelete'Haves' in any society represents elite groups that manage the government & the economy, whereas 'Havenots' represent masses that doesn't enjoy much influence but can be manipulated by different elite groups to create wider space in power jostling. 'Havenots' can have limited leverage in democratic dispensation, whereas in dictatorial regimes their influence becomes more distorted & limited.
Now in a democratic dispensation, liberals need to work in both niches of the society to gain a sustainable foothold in power structure for incremental implementation of liberal agenda. With separate socioeconomic background, demand dynamics of the two niches will be different. Catch for the liberals is that their offerings should be acceptable to both parties & meet their self interest.
Conservatives & Socialists, both have paternalistic attitude towards electorate. Former plays on the fear of unknown & supports heirarchial structure; hence restricting social mobility & inducing crony capitalism. Whereas, later elaborates class antagnosim & advocates large government; hence raising the specter of nepotism. Both these strands will end in stronger governments & lesser liberties.
For political differentiation, we need to understand that without capability, talk of liberty is meaningless. Paternalism sells & is evident from politics worldwide. We need to show our sensitive side to Havenots, where we will alleviate their constraints, so that they can enjoy their liberties. Our message will hinge on:
1. Capability development of havenots through investments in social sectors
2. Community participation & accountability in collaboration with local & state governments for fund flows/generation
For 'Haves', its utility lies in greater social harmony & lesser bureaucracy. And to reduce friction among 'Haves' on the issue of inefficient allocation of resources among them, we should advocate further diffusion of power among different power centers of the state. Message for 'Haves' would be based upon:
1. Push the concept of further competition among different elite groups
2. Greater diffusion of power will allow more level playing field; with fear of retaliation & loss of reputation becomes balancing factors in power game
These messages require further elaboration. I appreciate comments from my fellow friends.
Zia
Sangeetha, It appears that most of our friends have not much time to discuss issues on our blog. However, I believe this blog remains one of our platform, where we can highlight issues close to our mind & heart. And we should not budge from it, even if response is not much encouraging.
ReplyDeleteI just like to discuss one topic, which has lately attracted my attention and it is 'LIBERAL NATIONALISM'. And in this regard, I would like to take India as an example, a country that is subsumed with numerous sub-nationalities, languages & cultures. And still able to induce a unique social contract among its inhabitants based on 'civic nationalism' not 'ethnic nationalism'.
As liberals, it provide us governable model especially in developing nations, where majoritorianism is an issue that bent upon suppressing minority rights. I am not syaing that conditions are ideal in India. However, keeping in view the literacy level, large rural base & cultural diversity, it is indeed a remarkable achievement that India has sustained itself as a governable territory that is also booming.
I think that 'LIBERAL NATIONALISM' provide us the liberals a working space in the third world. We may not be in agreement with number of policies of 'All India National Congress', the governing party of India. However, we should give it a credit of maintaining India as a secular state, that became the jump board for future reforms & sustainable growth, as society evolves.
Zia