If my memory serves me right, it was Bertolt Brecht who came out with the slogan that the luckiest countries are those which do not need heroes. Their public affairs are run well and prudently by “normal” and tranquil people who manage life with quiet proficiency.
And again if memory serves, it was Mario Azzopardi who once opened a debate about this issue though few followed on his prompting. But it merits consideration.
Countries which do not need heroes do not seek confrontation, whether external or internal. This does not mean that they accept stagnation or internal injustices or that they become subservient to outside commands. It means that such a country would have discovered ways by which matters are discussed and decided in an open and free manner, one that everybody accepts, and that allows for the dynamic development of the nation without the need for a saviour or a heroic caudillo who claims to know everything because he/she is superior to all the rest.
***
REVOLUTIONS
Too many revolutions start out by giving expression to the enormous need for change in society and thereby responding to the huge aspirations of citizens for a different and much better life. Then they disappoint greatly.
In the beginning, the enthusiasm for the momentum of change is widespread and spontaneous. With time, the feeling begins to fade. Aspects of the new regime that previously were not so salient, come into the foreground. They end up dominating the different – “new”? – structures that have been established. In a short while, these become as oppressive and as corrupt as the governance structures that have been removed and which they have replaced.
The example of Iran show this best. The Ayatollah’s revolution took off on the back of an incredible popular ferment against the Shah’s corrupt regime. Today, that revolution has become a state construct that crushes all those who want to live their lives free of the yoke of abhorrent precepts – such as in the treatment reserved for women.
***
THE SOCIAL MARKET
Perhaps the greatest legacy that Europe will be deemed to have left the rest of the world – one which might help to compensate for the memory of the colonialism that Europe practised with its various imperialisms – is that of the social market. Likely, it might have become the greatest pull factor that brings to Europe so many refugees and migrants, regular or not.
It is a pity that the way the concept gets expressed ties it too closely to the European demochristians. Actually the model owes its creation mostly to democratic socialism, when the latter decided to sever ties with Marxism-Leninism and set out to establish social justice on the foundations of a “tamed” capitalism. Later, the demochrisitians followed the same path and sought to make it work even when they were in government.
It is obvious, that on many issues, the model helped to service capitalism. There were many other issues though when this was not the case. Where a democratic parliamentary system was applied in tandem with success in achieving economic and social progress, the model placed Europe at the forefront for peoples who took stock of how governance was conducted in the outside world. And they would conclude: We’d like to be doing what they’re doing.