15th January, 2010 - The debate

Last Wednesday, 13th January, we had a debate about the banning of extremist parties. There were two different opinions: ones were for the ban, the others against it.
There were many arguments (more from one side than the other), defending and refuting the question that triggued the debate.

The ones who defended the banning of these polical parties often appealled to the past, with examples from the Holocaust mainly. It was also said that the Humans Rights are disrespected by this parties, who suport violence and an authoritarian regime, and that is the reason why they should be banned.
On the other hand, the other half of the class strongly stated that extremist parties shouldn't be forbbiden because we live in a democracy, and democratic regimes are based in freedom of will and speach; not allowing these political opinions is disrespectful of Human Rights as well, and it's totally anti-democratic. Besides, a dialogue between all the parties is necessary to a good balance in the Parliament.

Personally, I don't find common points between the two "wings" of our debate; there were two completly oposite opinions, with totally different ideas.
Well, maybe one thing is common: both talked about Human Rights. Wrong or right, both mentioned it.

The Debate - II

I was waiting for this debate to happen since our project's presentation (the role play), since our main research question was exactly the one set in the debate and one of our objectives was to make people think about the topic.
So, should extremist parties be outlaw?

I was (and am) against the banning of extremist parties of the Parliament; what I said in the debate is what I believe in.
Usually, in this kind of debates, I like to support an idea different than mine; I even defended anarchy in the last debate, when I'm not an anarchist. In this case, however, I was pretty sure about my arguments and ideas, and, even researching, I couldn't find any proper argument, an argument I thought solid and strong enough. So, I chose to defend my personal opinion.
Because, when I think about it, I can't think of any reason that would made us behave in such an extremist way (and this choice of words was not arbitrary). Like we said during the discussion, the ban would be completely anti-democratic and we are not defending that this parties should be in the Government. No, we are only defending that every political opinion should and must have the right to be heard, and people must have the right to choose who wants to see in the power.
You see, when someone votes in a party with such characteristics, known by everyone (or it should be), something is not right. When we agree with the ideas of such party, is because we think that something different has to be done!
That's why dialogue is necessary: a dialogue between all the parties, sharing their different ideas, would lead us to more effective Government, a Government which listens to all the opinions and possible solutions. This is what would happen if the Parliament worked as it was supposed to.
I tried to defend this idea with what I thought it would work to show my opinion, with the arguments I believed where correct and true. That's why I researched the right articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document I find necessary to have in mind during the discussion of this matter.

About my speaking skills:
Since we where focussing on accuracy, I believe that I could be better on this subject. I know that I am (or I try to be) fluent while I speak, but I know that, while speaking, I sometimes have some lack of vocabulary; is like I forget the right words and expressions - or maybe this is just my impression.
I'm really curious about the video; I never watched or listen to speaking in english, and I would like to see me - people tell me that I have a strange accent, a certain mixture, and I don't know what is is! I'd like to see if that's true.
Besides, while I have fun trying to find that accent of my, I'll be learning.

The debate

Last Wednesday we had a debate where each group defended one form of government. My topic was anarchy.

I confess I was totally wrong about the anarchist system and beliefs; I was one of the many who still think that anarchy is nothing but complete chaos and disorganization. I found out that it wasn't quite like that.
I researched for the debate, trying to figure out what anarchy really stood about, and I found out that is something even more utopian than communism!
Yes, I would definitely like to live in an anarchist society, with everything that should exist in one, but I am reasonable enough to know that is virtually impossible! Not because of human nature or something that implies the necessity of conflict between men, but because of the lack of respect for the others and that sense of share and responsibility for the community; the one is part of the group.
Besides, organization is no synonym for laws and order; organization is needed in any society, but laws are just a way, not only to organize, but also to oppress the people.
These were the ideas I tried to defend.

I can't say I'm a defender of anarchy this moment. Like I said, is virtually impossible to install an anarchist society right now!
But, I'm an utopian. And, as an utopian, this sure would be a really amazing society to live in, if everything were going according to the plan.

Fish-eaters and the Crystal Coffin

Democracy, oligarchy or monarchy? That's the question (?).

As far as I'm concerned, within certain limits, I agree with a Parliamentary Monarchy. Lets face it: it is not to different of what we live now - the King would have the same role as the President of the Republic, with a little difference: we could not choose who he was.
Although, having a King is good for a Nation more and more unattached to it's country - take Spain, per example, or England (even with a different form of Government): the people is all together when it comes to the Royal Family, they have something that creates a bound between them, besides the cultural characteristics.

But this is something we could talk, and talk, and talk.

Read this texts was an important activity: our generation is getting everyday less interested in politics, and we can't forget that we are the ones who are going to rule in the future! We are the ones who are going to be in politics!
We all have to discuss these themes, because is a part of our duty as citizens. Why are we citizens to so many things, if we benefit with it, but not to vote or to participate in the political life? Isn't that our duty, too?
Generalizing, of course, the youth of today don't have any interested in this subjects, which is a pity. I'm afraid of what it will happen when they DO have to worry...


In another topic, reading about the different aspects about this three regimes was nice too. And, once again, important.
I think my opinion was stated before: democracy, on the contrary of what so many say, is not the perfect system. Or, maybe it is; what it isn't perfect is who runs it!
Probably, we can not blame the regime itself; we have to blame the ones who consider themselves powerful, just because they are part of the government, superior to others because they can make laws.
I think democracy is coming to an end, because we live in a cycle: we have a democratic system; then, when something goes wrong, we need more authority, and dictatorships and oppressive regimes are chosen by the people (which is ironical, by the way); and when the people starts to see how much it was lost, democracy comes again. It is happening right now - this crises is leading to a social agitation, and, one day,maybe not tomorrow, maybe not in ten years, but someday, it will get to an end.

History speaks for itself.