In the middle of
January of this year, a total of almost 500 very high-powered leaders from
every continent took part in a conference held in Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia
Discussions
lasted three days and the outcome was “a
commonality of views that affirm the importance of moderation in the context of
its application to global issues and situations, especially to matters relating
to social, economic, financial, religious, and international politics”.
I can find no
fault with this concept, being a firm believer in moderation in all matters and
particularly to those discussed and agreed upon at this meeting. Also, I find
my idea of “moderation” as being very much in line with theirs: ‘moderation is derived from an inner
conviction that the path to a life of wisdom, fulfilment and happiness comes
from a balanced approach to human endeavour’ and this is absolutely
appropriate in creating an ethos of unity when co-operating on international
relations. To avoid conflict, opposing views need to recognise a common and
mutually agreed ‘alternative’ that all can “buy”.
Three specific
action points came out of the meeting:
Moderation is the responsibility of all areas of the
state and should not be the domain of one party;
The ongoing recession reflects extreme market-driven
motivation with no thought of social justice;
Collective moderate action can correct extremism and
de-fuse tension and conflict;
Nobody but
nobody can find fault with any of this but even so, I have a problem and two
questions. The problem I have is that, again, it is a top-down approach to what
should be a bottom-up solution. Politicians never learn that you cannot impose
such views; they have to be thought-through at the base (we small people),
refined and then articulated upwards. The job of the politicians is to provide
and prepare the fertile ground where such articulation can take place.
My two questions
are cynical:
- Is this concept just another “talking shop”, a chance for an exchange of views with nothing concrete coming from it?
- With 500 high rollers discussing US, why were we, the small people, NOT involved in any way?
So, to the Foundation of Global Movement of Moderates,
I ask you to kindly consider my points and give me answers to my questions. I
shall make a point of following (any) progress.
Until next time
(in moderation)
Peripatetic
Scribe
I hope it will not be just another talking shop as we have enough already. A nicely thought-through piece P.S. and another great debating topic for me to use. Somehow 99% of the globe seem to have forgotten what ancient Greece and its thought-providers have created - a valuable base on which to build a stable house. My thanks,
ReplyDeleteMark NZ
Thank you for this blog as it is a useful and objective view of what could be done. Your comment on the top-down approach is very clear but it has always been so as far as I know. However, that does not mean it cannot or should not be changed. You have spoken in past articles about the shrinking thinking class; here in Germany I am proud to belong to this small group. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteHans, Bremen
Well done, P.S. This has arrived just as I hoped. It gives me time to read and think about your views and consider the implications. The underlying messages behind this concept are vital but usually overlooked so will do my best to get them back in the public eye locally. As you know, here in Devon we have a reputation for being "somewhat critical" of our leaders - and with justification. Thanks - will be in contact via John Price soon.
ReplyDeleteHi James and pass my best wishes to John - I will see him soon. I understand the people of Devon have a "difficult streak" in them and that's one of the positives that attracted me to the county! I believe jointly we are going to share some "interesting" moments!!
ReplyDeleteHans, thank you for your kind words. I agree that the top-down approach is as old as I am (if not older!) but, as you say and I agree, that is no reason to accept the status quo. I want the "quo" to lose its status! Look forward to more comments from you.
ReplyDeleteMark you are so right. Most of us tend to ignore the past (and in terms of Greece and Greeks this is one particular problem they have as a people - they know they cannot capture the wisdom of the past). Building a stable house is of paramount importance but we need to look at the great thinkers in order to supply us with the plans!
ReplyDeleteSound and interesting ideas you propose but I think that in some cases too much public involvement is wrong. If you look at the case of California where the public have effectively shut down any form of government (via "Propositions") you achieve nothing but stalemate and chaos. Maybe this is an extreme case and turns Plato on his head. but it is something to avoid. Otherwise a super piece of writing. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteWalt in San Diego
Walt, thanks for your response. I feel the Californian "Propositions" have bastardised democracy. Sorry if that is harsh but... What happens as you so rightly say is chaos by the ballot box. I know they are in heated debate(s) about the way forward but, and apologies for the cynicism, I wonder which will occur first - a balanced budget or the San Andreas Fault making itself known (again).....
ReplyDeleteWalt, thank you for your comments. I agree that the Californian "Propositions" have created chaos via the ballot box but that's what they wanted (?) I know they are in heated debate about the way forward but, and apologies for the cynicism, but which will come first - a balanced budget or the San Andreas Fault making itself known (again)...
ReplyDeleteA brilliant blog again, P.S.! I will definitely discuss it with my students and I wish I could do it with Croatian politicians as well.
ReplyDeleteThank you
Lucana