I believe that the Labour Party stands a very good chance of winning the next election. It would deserve this victory despite the burdens it carries created by a number of mistakes and inadequacies in the governance of the country post-2013.
What is of interest will be what happens following this electoral win. The best outcome would be for the new Labour government on the basis of its mandate, to launch robust changes in the island’s econmic and social management in order to promote productive activity and an effective solidarity towards all those who are being left behind. As a first priority this would mean well thought out, wisely implemented reforms in the fields of education, the environment, energy, infrastructure and economic development.
An outcome that one just would not like to envisage as a consequence of the victory would be the consecration of some local economic and social coterie, with the excuse that it is replacing the Nationalist elites that have ruled the roost for whole generations. In reality, this would merely serve to renew the old power centres that for decades kept this country in a logjam.
***
THE AFGHANS
It seems that the Afghan people are split into two camps. Members of the “modern” group live in the cities, many were children in 2001 and became adults in a country which as of that year, was deeply affected by the values of the Americans who had invaded. And there are the Afghans who live mostly in mountains and valleys well outside the cities within tribal setups run according to the most rigid rules governing religious and social behaviour. The rules are experienced as an essential part of their identity.
It does not seem like there is any way by which the two camps can agree to live together in peace, though both sides form an integral part of the Afghan nation. On the tribal side, there is a deep fear that the “others” will corrupt the social-cultural certainties they have always believed in. The “moderns” are terrified of the total violence that the “others” are ready to practise in order to safeguard precepts that they consider to be sacred and that they live by.
***
SUSTAINABLE?
Given all our recent experiences during the Covid-19 pandemic... Given the ever increasing threat of climate warming... Given the arising complications in the management of global digital systems, with regards for instance to the rights of privacy, cyber security, financial instability, abuses resulting from fraud and other crime... I cannot but feel puzzled.
Why in the discussions about globalization, voices are not raised to question whether it is sustainable...? The features just listed are clearly aspects of globalization. Or perhaps questions have been raised and I have missed them...
Still if globalizaion is not sustainable... or if there is a risk that it might not be... should the topic be placed on the agenda? I believe so and that it should be discussed in depth.
Yet, if there was movement on these lines, and it was concluded that globalization is not sustainable, the emerging problem would then concern how it could be stopped. Or would it be sufficent to simply slow down its momentum? In any event, who would be responsible to carry this out?