mirrors to outside

Cri de coeur

Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:24:58 +0200

It goes without saying that the Netherlands lives polarized times. Results from last elections have shown an increasingly fragmented landscape of political preferences. So far, this fragmentation has given us a complicated government formation process. But it is giving us more than that. The fragmentation of political views is also a fertile ground for distrust and frustration in the public administration. In times of polarization a great number of people distrust their government. The creation of a compromise between political opposed views, the core task of a government, it's doomed to produce unsatisfactory results to whoever choose for sharp political views. And we go another round in an spiral feeding the discontent with "those politicians", "hanging to power at the cost of their ideas". An impossible dynamic, that feeds on itself and breeds more polarization and frustration.

And yet, there is another concerning element in our current maelstrom. It is not only that we are spiraling down towards political polarization. It is also that our current winning pole feeds on intolerance for the difference. So we are not only becoming more different, but we are also becoming less and less tolerant for anything that is different.

The tenant of our cherished democracy is that he who gathers the support of the people, governs. That support, sadly enough, is being gathered today with the demonization of our own people. The movement that -today- Wilders leads is a process that devours our own friends, our own citizens. The Netherlands, and Europe, is a land of others. We all come from somewhere else, we all believe in something different. We all have build into this piece of earth that we inhabit. We all have worked and paid taxes, and committed mistakes, and helped a neighbor, and paid a fine when crossing a red light. We all have donated to some charity or filled in hours of communal work in the mosque. Wilders asks us to forget all this. Wilders break through the dutch politics used a mirror and a torch. A torch lighting the darker corners of our country, the ones that we rather did not look at. And a mirror that only reflects our mistakes and our frustrations. Thanks to his mirror and his torch we are reminded that indeed, many of us fear each other. We have been transfixed into staring, perhaps unbelievingly, to a country deeply divided. And not only divided. We are staring to a communal slope, to a slippery slope of descent into more hatred and more exclusion.

Ask yourself then. Is this the leading that you where wishing for? A leadership where our fears become the motor of a political agenda?

Long time ago, perhaps ten years ago, we all welcomed the upcoming of the wilderians -then called fortunites- in politics. Democracy is a system that flourish on different opinions, that need sharp evaluations and even thorough shakes. Then we thought that we might have grown too comforted with ourselves, too lazy to tackle the debate that the fortunites brought to the fore. Indeed, whatever was called multiculturalism then, seemed to be a doctrine for the lazy minded, a recipe for slouch and clientelistic policy. Debate was needed. Today the day, we have had ten years of increased harshness, and no solutions. Time to ask ourselves: is this where we were meant to go? Are we getting closer to a better country, to a better political debate? I don't think so. What started as a much needed evaluation of the taboos of dutch politics, has grown today into a growing challenge for being more intolerant and more nonsensical. I belong to no organized church, but I still cringe at hearing that "the Islam is an ideology instead of a religion". How could it be that the political debate of a country become so degraded that such a simplistic, insulting and obviously wrong statement has become center of the debate that would lead to a new government? Our politics of today are reigned by fear and discontent. Fear in the big parties to loose yet another election, discontent as a winning political agenda.

Our political leaders are transfixed in the mirror of Wilders. Stagnated. The Christian Democrats, a most pragmatic political organization, have been maneuvered into an impossible position. To govern with the most intolerant politician in decades, or to accept their failure at leading the last decade of government. Or the liberals, once upon a time a force for the rule of law, try to accommodate themselves into a movement that was ejected from their own ranks few years ago. Staring at the mirror of Wilders, Christian Democrats and Liberals stare at their own mistakes. They try, pathetically and desperately, to forget their principles and become part of this new order, this increasing cacophony of intolerance and harshness.

The origin of the movement that storms the dutch politics today is to be found in a profound identity crisis. Crisis that is not a dutch one, but an european one. Wilders ask a powerful question: Who are we? Who is the dutch people? That was, and is, his mirror. With his torch he points the isolationists aspects of our nation. Wilders tells us what we must not be. But this politic is empty of any other content. A question, and a negative answer. If there is hope for yet another day for our country, this question merits yet another answer. Wilders answer to his own question asks us to reject our own citizens, and send them away. We need to think again about ourselves, the dutch people. The dutch people is -indeed- not muslim. Neither christian. The dutch people is muslim and christian... and jewish, and buddhist, and atheist. The dutch people is open and is close, it is solidarian and egocentric. Libertarian and libertine, socialist and neoliberal. The last election gave us yet another reflection of ourselves. We are all different, fragmented and opinionated. Pass is the time when one, or maybe two political parties where able to represent us all. Does this mean that we are doomed to another fratricidal moment in european history? Are we in an impossible to govern country? Not at all.

Broaden your sight. At the turn of the century we are faced with a vibrant society. Diverse, yes. Difficult to govern, yes. But alive. One report after the other tells us that the welfare of our society grows. Our kids can go to schools and universities that did not exist few decades ago. Our parents, retired, discover that the end of their working life opens the begin of a new creativity season. Most of us struggle, successfully, to balance work and free time. We live in a country that influence, and is influenced, by the world at large. And then I wonder: isn't all this reason enough to be proud of ourselves? Who are the dutch people, and who our government should be, is the question of the day. The answer is, funnily enough, simple. We are an heterogenous crowd, coming from the four corners of the world, decided to build a good life here and now. So far, we have managed quite well. Do we need a government that denies all this?

I don't think so.

Iran and Venezuela

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:34:21 +0200

Reading an article on Iran's Green Movement in the New Yorker, the parallels with the Venezuelan opposition strike me as, to say the least, spooky. How can it be that countries so different and so apart exhibit the same patterns of political upheaval? Would it be that after all these years of combating the deterministic tenants of marxism we come back and find patterns that repeat itself, as if societies will be doomed to walk the same trodden paths? Or is it that the current globalization lead us to inspire ourselves in the few examples available, creating a reality that repeats itself in the most disparate circumstances? The hypothesis might multiply, but the fact is that reality mirrors itself, to our constant wonder.

On the other side, once I tweet on this similarity, I had reactions from both dutch and venezuelan friends asking what in god's name could I possibly mean. Iran and Venezuela the same? I must surely mean something else. Driven by these reactions, the following lines; so that perhaps somebody might point my own mistakes in seeing shared traits between Iran and Venezuela. Up to then, here yet another attempt to impose some order in the constantly dynamic and chaotic palette of international relations. An amateur comparison in between Iran and venezuela, then. Four statements and a conclusion of sorts.

The regimes of Ahmadinejad and Chavez originated in the same gross failure of the development policy for the third world from the seventies.

To be a citizen of any third world country in the seventies implied reading over and over again that the future was ours. There were many projects of industrialization, massive literacy programs and the extensive growth of the public sector as a benign service provider, a combination that promised to create a welfare society with fair roads to personal development. The regime of the Sha in Iran, and the coalition between social and christian democrats in Venezuela ruled their own countries for decades, promising a bright future... that never came to be. Levels of critical poverty increased exponentially, at the same time that an incipient middle class had access to high education and well paid jobs. The subsequent decades, the eighties and the nineties, showed the hubris of the previous governments and their developmental policies. Corrupt state-run services collapsed, creating wide discontent and eventually bringing up a generation of populist left wingers that capitalized the implosion of the state, winning popular support. Whatever we call neo-liberalism might have balanced the economies of the first world, but did nothing to prevent the collapse of the third. Accordingly, with a never seen before mix of violence and democracy, the Iranian and the Bolivarian revolution came to power.

Both regimes elicited strong oppositions, based in the minimal but existent middle class. Opposition that eventually produced street mobilizations, which in turn created the expectation of regime implosion. An unrealistic expectation, actually.

The middle class created by the previous welfare state reacted strongly to these regimes. Almost from the first electoral win of Chavez, street demonstrations grew and showed a civil society strongly opposed to the new politics. In Venezuela, this movement climaxed in 2002, when after a series of massive street protests the government was toppled by a coup. In Iran 2009 the green movement, produced widespread admiration in the western media, which expect the "government of the Ayatollahs" to crump and disappear. Reality proved these attempts to go back to the seventies quite mistaken. The coup in Venezuela retained power for only few days, when a combination of internal squabbles and public pressure brought Chavez from his imprisonment back to his position as president, in record time. In Iran, the green movement was strongly repressed and posterior elections showed its lack of popular appeal, as much as subsequent elections in Venezuela have shown the popularity of Chavez regime. The key issue is that opposers from both the regimes of Chavez and from Ahmadinejad are middle class citizens, whom have seen their horizons dwindle. On the other side, the majority of the Iranian and Venezuelan peoples are not middle class, as in the USA or in Europe, but poor. This segment of the population is still today strongly convinced that their governments are substantial improvements in their quality of life.

The politics of Chavez and Ahmadinejad are based on surgical repression, increased control of the media and blame of internal crisis to external actors.

A relevant part of the support that both Ahmadinejad and Chavez still command is due to their strong and innovative control of the media. Both leaders still claim not to have political prisoners, and even if this is highly debatable (probably more in Iran than in Venezuela), it keeps being repeated. The Chavez government has financed a humongous network of small news maker, creating a de facto fully new “news cycle”. On the other side, prominent opposers to both regimes have been hounded up in courts and in the street to the point that they have abandoned their countries. The repression of these regimes is not comparable to the shameless and murderous repression of the third world right wing dictators of the past, rather a surgical and precisely orchestrated attack on public figures, those that can be successfully accused of being anti-patriotic. The ongoing meddling of European and North American government in foreign soil serves this strategy well. It is hard to deny today that the reach of the States is worldwide and mostly harmful.

None of the policies developed by Chavez and Ahmadinejad have even begun to tackle the structural problems of their societies. In many issues, the situation has grossly worsened. At the same time, both Chavez and Ahmadinejad have produced successes not seen since long time ago.

The fundamental question is why the majorities of both Iran and venezuela keep on supporting Chavez and Ahmadinejad. Even if angering most of my friends involved in venezuelan opposition politics, it is impossible to deny that the Chavez administration has invested an unbelievable amount of resources in the welfare of the poor. The serious problem is that a huge majority of those efforts, the so called "missions" are rife with corruption and inefficiency, doomed from the start to fail in the long term. But when a authoritarian government have been concerned by the long term? The fact remains that as long as Chavez remains capable to blame the USA as interventionist (not a crazy accusation anyway) and the government of Chavez remains capable of maintaining the network of missions (in a country that did not see any effective poverty reduction effort for decades) the popularity of Chavez and his government will not dwindle enough to loose an election.

Opposition to Chavez, and likely to Ahmadinejad keep on painting them as monsters reincarnated. But as long as political opponents to Chavez and Ahmadinejad will not recognize the conquers of these populists, showing that they are not so interested in ending with the current regime per se, but are as interested in the majority pf the country as chavez is, the world will go on being amused and threatened by these two -most prominent- populists.

Summer crowds and nature: time for ecopopulism?

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:36:13 +0200

In some other time, at some other place, going on holidays with a tent had the unequivocal association of going away from the crowds. The ideal day of such a holiday would be waking up, crawling out of the sleeping bag, and opening the doors of the tent to a lonely swat of green forest. You and some nature, alone. Or perhaps with a few friends. Days later, when back at your own house in the city, the holiday would be reminded as "those beautiful days of rest" when "nobody was around".

Being a family man settled in Europe, I have tried to keep going on camping. Quite successfully indeed, since pretty much every free week that we have had in the last years, we have been sleeping in a tent, or about to. Starting with an scandinavian tour in 1997, and just coming back from the spanish Costa Brava past week, by now I could claim to have known camping sites in Switzerland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium and The Netherlands, not to mention Austria, Slovenia and Croatia. Camping in Europe is a fascinating experience, if only to experience the very real and very different national idiosyncrasies in the flesh. Fresh croissants in France, ultimate pulchritude and order in Switzerland, late fiestas in Spain... The standard cliches of the European tribes become augmented and amusing, to say the least, when waking up in a tent on European soil. What you don't get, though, is the sense of solitude.

Differently than other continents, whatever might be called European nature is not only a natural resource, but a scarce and demanded one. Accordingly, is managed to reach the most people; which implies a level of crowdedness that surprises the neophyte. Forget the opening of your tent to some lonely forest: you are more likely to see the tent of some other people as first sight in the morning. Which launch the next question: what are all these people looking for? How comes that we leave our crowded cities each holiday to wake up in a crowded camping site?

Few years ago I thought up an economical hypothesis. Which of course, as any other guess of mine about europeans and their acts, turned out to be only partially true. What I thought then was that the camping holiday, I mean the european camping experience, was driven mostly by the wallet. If you compare with the costs of any other holiday accommodation in europe, camping is by far and large the cheapest. The simplest bed and breakfast is at least two or three times more expensive that a standard camping. So I thought that camping was, to put it simply, the last refuge of the proletarian. But with the pass of time, I have come to believe that our limited budgets do not explain the whole picture. In the last decade, with the boom of behavioral economics, we have learn that humans tend to be motivated by lots of other nudges -as Cameron and Obama would name them- than the plain economical ones. So I decided to go fully empirical in my wonderings, and begun to ask people, campers themselves. Why do they come to these incredibly crowded places? What do they expect to experience, what do they tell afterwards to their friends? The answers, perhaps unsurprisingly, are not so different than my own after hiking in the virgin rain forests of the Amazonas basin. People keep on talking about the peace and quiet, the nature, the clean water and the beautiful trees.

No doubt, I could go totally arrogant and paternalistic, and claim that my interviewed subjects, being europeans are simply ignorant. Because they never had access to the Real Peace and Quiet of the Real Nature, all these poor people does not know better, and have to be content with the impoverished lawns that pass by wild nature in this continent. But such a reaction would obscure a more deep, and interesting motivation. The fact is that independently of the level of wildness, disregarding biodiversity indexes of all kinds, people still love to go out and camp. If I am allowed to dramatize my own current hypothesis, people do need nature, and will take it in whatever way it is offered.

Which brings us to politics, green politics. For members of most green european parties, it is almost a dogma to believe that our parties are elitist and far away from what "the common men in the street" might possible want or understand. Deep in our minds sits the uncomfortable belief that all our discussions on global warming, or about natural resources policy, are a bit too far away from the relevant issues for european citizens. But what if we have caged ourselves in our own discussions, forgetting than in very simple, but very important decisions of europeans today -like the one of what to do for holiday- our party has a fundamental role to play? What if the drive to expend one or two months away from home and go camping is a drive that can be translated in voting green?

It is a stretch of imagination, no doubt. But being faced with the throngs of camping-goers all across europe makes me wonder. Would it be time to try some eco-populism?

Summer dives, crowds and prostitution

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:21:00 +0200

As if it would be some sort of duty, perhaps a light form of the discipline that I haven't manage in the last ten years, I sit in front of the keyboard this morning, first of a normal week, the first working week since holidays where started in this northern country. It is about time to report on my blog, and why not be extremely unoriginal and go and talk about holidays, prostitution and crowds in La Costa Brava?

Since about a year already, my family got caught in scuba diving. As pretty much any other sport in this organized north, such being caught implies becoming member of a club, and assist the orderly classes given in a local swimming pool, eventually going out to explore the -cold- waters of The Netherlands. Behind are the unplanned and unprepared dives that all my life I have done in the Caribbean. Here diving is about having the proper equipment, the right training, the good planning, even the correct attitude; all which is supposed to bring people up to... the right accreditation, certified-by-the-EU-carnet included. All this, of course, under the unstated promise that the summer is for some other latitude, warmer and richer in biodiversity and transparent water. Not surprisingly then, about six weeks ago we started the rented car towards the warmer and promising south, in a sort of peregrination towards the dive centers of the Mediterranean. Cap d' Ague, L'scala, L'startits... Names well known for european divers, and terra incognita for us, since we have been biking, walking and climbing the last decade. Always open for something new, they say. And there we went.

To talk about the water itself is a bit of an exercise in the obvious, since in our internet days there is nothing that I can say other than what a couple of google hits would deliver. No doubt, for Caribbean standards of biodiversity the Mediterranean is pretty much a dead sea. But it is still a sea, and each opening eyes under transparent and warmth water delivers, always, a surprise. Squids and octopuses, morenes and sea basses, sea cucumbers and jellyfish, even some minuscules barracudas. A constant delight to the eyes of my nine years old son, by first time discovering snorkeling in a rocky shore. Delight, must be said, that went from the moment of dunking the mask in the water to the moment of taking out if it. Because the beach was a very different story indeed.

I must acknowledge that all the photos that I have spent my life seeing of the rocky mediterranean shore are indeed true. The minuscule bays, with blue green water and fishes that even from the shore are to be seen are no photoshop miracle. But there is a catch: most of those bays, about 99% of them indeed, have no land access. Which is great if you have a boat of your own. But if you are a simple tourist, limited to park your car at a short distance from the water -to be able to carry all your gear-... you become part of an unbelievable huge crowd of people that is trying exactly for the same spot. And besides the fact that scuba dive gear always looks pretty cool in the midst of other people, the cool dies about five minutes after being trying to make way in a mass that has occupied pretty much every square centimeter of the sand.

And not only the beach. Because the decades, or rather the centuries in which the Costa Brava have been a touristic destination, makes that every single camping to be found has capitulated to the Club Med approach. Huge fields where tent concentration is comparable to the deportation camps of Frontex, but instead of having desperate migrants for neighbors, we got the drunk adolescence of the rest of europe. No surprise that in the books on small campings of south europe that we lay hands on, no reference was made of Costa Brava. There might be some idyllic small camping place somewhere. But we did not find it. And accordingly, we expend some relevant time driving in between towns, chasing a vague reference here and there. Which is when we witness the next surprise in this otherly order europe: the road prostitution of spain.

It is enough to drive outside pretty much every other town. The road becomes what any other road of the european countryside is: a two lanes, sunny and picturesque way between siesta sleeping towns. With the addition of the ladies of the road. Waiting under an umbrella, sporting long legs and browned by the sun skin, waiting for clients as if for a bus that will not bother to come. More likely waiting for my drunken neighbors in the camping, eager to sport their manhood in spain. Apparently in the middle of nowhere, surely without any protection beyond the suspected presence of their pimp, perhaps driving around, perhaps not.

Prostitution in Europe is one of the last refuges of national identity. Because indeed in every country that by now I have travelled through it has different shapes. From the low key, classy and strictly under appointment Swiss model, to the blatantly regulated exposition of the trade in the vitrines of The Netherlands. Passing by the uncountable brothels in the no man lands between France and Germany. Adding now these girls on the spanish roads. Which gives reality to the nightmare of road prostitutes killers that we have heard of in the newspapers. Once I wondered how somebody could pick up so many women and kill them before being brought to prison. Now I need not to wonder. The road prostitution in Spain, open and without any pretension of safety or control seems to be one of those high risk professions that the european trade unions regulate to the last detail. I very much doubt that there is any such concern for the spanish prostitutes. Women that, if we believe to the official statistics, are mostly undocumented and of migrant origin. Another group of the dispossessed, forgotten by Brussels and other european -chic and progressive- capitals.

So here I am again, writing from my very safe terrace in an Utrecht cafe, enjoying the last days of sun of this ending summer. And even if I would like to think in policy that could recreate the once endless diversity of the ocean, even when I read about sustainable ways to go about fisheries and ecotourism, which might get implemented... I keep on going back to that other old profession, as old as the fisheries are. I think in that woman waiting in a road in spain.

European opposed poles

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:51:40 +0200

As a member of the dutch green party, these are emotional days. By first time in almost a decade, we dutch greens have a real chance to form government. But at the same time we witnessed a historical record of gained votes by a xenophobic right wing party, the Freedom's Party from Geert Wilders. The celebrations of past days have a strange lining, knowing that the other celebrating party is the one that represent all what we fight against. Meanwhile Wilders' party want to stop the migration of muslims, we strive for integration of minorities in our society. When the Freedom party thinks that global warming is just a media mirage, we sought to incorporate the fight against environmental damage in a newly empowered economy. How comes that a country can reward the two parties that are most opposed in the same election? Few days after the dutch elections we witnesses a similarly dumbfounding result in the Belgium elections. The electorate choose to reward two parties that are at the opposite extremes of the political spectrum. Even if the Belgium case might be understood in the context of the culturally different regions of Belgium, still it shows an unprecedented dichotomy. Is this polarization a blip in european politics, or a sign of a rather concerning trend?

One of the noticeable characteristic of the dutch campaign was its total dislocation from european politics. Not too surprisingly though, since this was not only another national campaign, but one in a country that rejected the EU constitution, back in 2007. Europe is not a popular campaign issue in The Netherlands. And still, the level of disconnection was high. It looked almost as if we wanted only to look at ourselves, forgetting that we are just another member of a coalition, where the developments of one country affect, beyond any doubt, the others. And so is the question: what is the relevance of the dutch elections for europe? What do tell us, europeans, the electoral trends in the small netherlands?

Let it be said, in first place, that the result of the dutch elections is by no means an exception in today's europe. From Spain to England -passing by Belgium- the greens are in the move, gaining almost unprecedented amount of votes everywhere. And at the same time, the far right is also in the move all across europe. Let us remind ourselves that traditionally centrist parties, like the english tories, had joined the far right in the european parliament, which has transformed itself from a fringe curiosity to a not irrelevant political force. Christian democrats parties, mostly centrists, have seen abrupt cuts in their electoral share. In one word, polarization is the narrative of our years.

The traditional enemies of polarization, Social and Christian democrats, are responsible for the creation of the europe that most of us know today. All across europe a political culture of diminishing disagreements and building consensus reigned, creating a welfare state where pretty much anybody have the right to a reasonable level of social security. The levels of poverty seen in many other countries are not to be seen in Europe. So... Why would we want to change our leadership? Has the consensus building model of european politics proved itself insufficient?

One hypothesis to explain the failure of centralism in the last elections could be called "the tragedy of success". It is possible to think that the long term goals of Social- and Christian Democrats are already accomplished, and in one way or another the electorate is well aware of it. These big political families might have nothing else to offer than "more of the same", and are accordingly considered irrelevant. It could be that fifty years ago the attainment of a reasonably compassionate capitalism was an ideal dream, but today is pretty much the european reality. What remains as the unattained dream is the harmonizing of that capitalism with the evident depletion of natural resources. Or, said otherwise, living in a way that combines welfare and low ecological impact is still a dream that every european cherish, but few parties focus on. Perhaps is here to be found the reasons for political success of the green european parties: with all their shortcomings, they do focus in one of the big questions of our time.

The other relevant question of our age, without doubt, is the aculturalization that both migrants and residents experience today. As a migrant myself I can attest to the many difficulties contained in the process of making a new country my own. And much has been written about the fast change that many european neighborhoods have experienced in the last decades, with the inflow of migrants. It is also difficult for the european resident to adapt to a reality that in few decades became multicultural, to say the least. No doubt the fast and disruptive migration experienced in Europe explains the rise of the xenophobic, or nationalistic right wing parties.

As a registered member of the european green party, it is my own opinion that natural resources are being depleted, with increasing damage to our quality of life. I also think that migrants are here to stay, posing daily challenges to the european status quo. I can not foresee a realistic european politics that denies these two basic facts of our reality. But independently of my own convictions, or the convictions of my political opponents that perceive those facts in a very different light, it is undeniable that the traditional politics of social and christian democrats is being driven out, or driven itself out of the two questions that our day pose to governments. Will we -greens and xenophobic's- miss the centrist politics of yore? Probably. Europe successes are build in a desire of consensus, in a drive to harmonize the intrinsic cultural differences that must coexist in this small part of the world. The results of last european elections signal to a future of striking disagreements and unworkable coalitions. But also signal to a new chapter of european politics. If there is anything to advice to a emerging european politician, is to focus in the questions that are driving electors right now.

For once, this will be no empty populism.

the day after

Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:07:31 +0100

After election day, the clips of the international press flows in beside tweets, emails and comments from friends abroad. I barely tweeted my happiness of living in Utrecht (where GroenLinks became the biggest party), when the flood came back: "what are you talking about? The newspapers here reports the winning of extreme right wingers! How can you be happy to live in Utrecht?" So here three points describing the dutch political landscape as I see it.

-Elections are photographs, not videos. The snapshot from 3 March shows one of the ugliest faces of the Netherlands indeed. The full video is much less clear, though.

It is true that the elections of two days ago can be described by the impressive win of radical right winger Geert Wilders. Wilders politics are as bad as they can get: in a recent communicate from the scientific bureau of his party, the polish migration towards the netherlands is explained by the muslims that are -obviously- overtaking Poland. I fail to have words to describe this level of hate mixed with nonsense. The politics of Wilders are xenophobic and, even worse than that, stupid. For him all problems of europe today start and end with muslims. And there is no doubt that his repeated plea has gained him adepts. But Wilders won elections in only two cities, from the hundreds of NL.

The political dynamics are more than a plain increase of the right. The centrist christian democrats, after having a hideous week of loosing the governing coalition, remain the biggest party in the country. The social democrats, even after loosing many of the votes gained in the last election, remain being a force that is unmissable in the government-forming conversations that are taken place in each city right now. Last but not least, a centrist left and a centrist right parties (GroenLinks and D66) have booked victories to a scale far bigger than the one of Wilders.

The question is which coalition will rule the country after the elections of 9 June. Two obvious options are on the table: a centrum right wing, with extreme right wingers as allies, and a centrum left wing, with moderate lefties as minor partners. The Christian and the Social Democrats will remain being big parties the 10 of june, but not big enough to run the country at their will. How much will Groenlinks (the left wing green party), D66 (a democratic liberal party) and the PVV (Wilders' party) will grow will facilitate a coalition ruled by the Christians going right, or a coalition ruled by the Socials staying in the center. The possible growth of the liberals, the party where Wilders started his shenanigans more than a decade ago, will move the balance of power to one side... or the other. Christian democrats and extreme right wingers in one side, and social democrats with liberals and -perhaps- the greens or the liberal democrats of D66 on the other side. That is the choice that The Netherlands has today.

-GroenLinks won with a leader that is attractive to the middle and well-off class. We need to complement her soon. It is impossible to ignore the disgruntled majority of dutch citizens.

Groenlinks had, back in the nineties, a high moment of popularity. We where almost at the point of being invited to form national government, when the the right wing tide of 2000 begun and we were kicked back to the junior league of politics. Our popular leader quit, and his follower took a long time to gain the measure of the dutch elector. But she did. Femke Halsema enjoys today the spotlights. Her nuanced and still sharp style of debate has won the accolades of a politically-interested public tired with the devaluation of the traditional political class on one side and the shrill and scary politics of hate on the other side. But beware: the public that today supports Halsema is a public that, by far and large, enjoys great levels of welfare. The devaluation of Christian and Social democrats is due to an increased discontent in a vast sector of the dutch population that has not shared the increased level of life quality of the nineties, that is scared by the looming economic crisis and -even when is difficult to acknowledge- looks with discontented eyes the growing migrant dutch population. Europe at large, and The Netherlands in particular, is wondering if her mix of socialism and capitalism will raise to welfare the lower classes. It happened once, in the late eighties and the nineties. Will it happen again? The lower classes today do not see -yet- the greens as a political force capable to improve their condition. If GroenLinks want to cash the goodwill that Femke Halsema has won the last year in hard votes and real political power, GroenLinks needs a complement to Halsema. A figure that not only connect our political agenda with the educated middle class, but also explains and sells our election program to the disgruntled elector. As a matter of fact, a great deal of responsibility lies right now in two -by far and large under the radar of the public attention- groups. One is the candidate commission that will determine who is joining Femke Halsema in our electoral ticket. Is this commission capable of recruit or support a figure that complements Femke? The other group is integrated by the many negotiation commissions that are right now starting to work out local government coalitions. If GroenLinks enters the government in the relevant cities of The Netherlands with visible points of her own, we will have something to sell in June.

-The Netherlands is experiencing the last wave of the radical right wing tide that flooded Europa in the last decade.

For many of the political observers away from The Netherlands the results of the local elections of 3 of March tell that the xenophobic right wing is in the march. But that is nothing new. In the whole europe the xenophobic right wing has been making progress since at least a decade, and in some cases since long before. Most of those processes have reached the end of their political capital. Berlusconi, Haider, Rajoy, de Winter, Blocher... All figures that are not likely to win elections again. The extreme right wing has not been capable to manage a government anywhere. They have been capable of mobilize great discontent an fear, also in the Netherlands. Here, the experiment with right wing mavericks at the government failed already a decade ago, with the first cabinet lead by Mr Balkenende. It is still possible that in The Netherlands they will have another chance, after June. But just looking at their election programs, at the quality of their cadres and at the viability of their ideology in a world that becomes more and more connected, diverse and dynamic... let us know that the exclusionist political project of the xenophobic right is doom to fail. The question that occupies ourselves today, those of us that believe to be progressive enough to embrace an uncertain, challenging but still desirable future, is how much damage are we going to let them make. We might stop them in June, or they will stop later.

GroenLinks today needs Femke to make her newly gained position sustainable. GroenLinks today needs fast agreements of government in the cities where we won the elections, with recognizable points. In about two months from now we should be capable to tell the person that voted for GroenLinks: "this is what we are doing for your city". And far more important, to the person that has not yet voted GroenLinks that message is unmissable. And GroenLinks today needs yet another face, or a team, capable to tell that other elector, that angry and frustrated worker from any ethnicity, that isolating us from the world is no option. That to improve our troubled society we need to open ourselves up to new challenges, to new realities. Wilders want us to go back. We need to tell the ones that suffer today that the future can be better than that.

vision Kleurrijk Platform, my proposal

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:49:54 +0100

In a recent conversation with few members of the commission writing the next election program of Groenlinks, the Kleurrijk Platform tackled some of the issues we would like to see in. Along the conversation we all realized that a coherent background, a vision of sorts for our proposals is yet missing. Here three paragraphs to outline what such a vision could be, at least from my perspective

time, quality, politics

Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:07:45 +0100

Common arrogance and the future of Copenhagen

Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:19:32 +0100

I sit in front of my computer to write down some lines on the failing of the Copenhagen talks. Meanwhile outside the window of this cafe the weather is colder than ever in the Netherlands, at least since I arrive in 2000. Global warming? Global cooling? It is indeed hard to connect the dotted lines in between what every single weather scientist predicts and what we experience in the street. As a matter of fact, if the tragedy of the commons (the scenario where privately owned cows deplete a public owned grass field leaving every cow owner poorer) would not have been invented about two centuries ago, it could be reinvented again to explain global warming. Nobody owns the international climate system, meanwhile all of us pollute it without experiencing individual consequences... Up to the moment that it will too late to do something about it.

But hey, our international civil society has grown in knowledge and organization, and events like the Copenhagen summit had happen in the past, and will go on happening in the future. There is indeed the shared feeling that agreements in between disparate actors should be reached, if we do not want to finally and definitively screw out the place where we live, where our cows feed, where our grandchildren will be born. The well known problem, alas, is that the diversity of our global society has so far defeated the attempts to reach a meaningful agreement on climate change. Everybody seems to be the culprit. I propose an exercise: open the browser of your preference, and google "Copenhagen failing XXX" where XXX is the country or personality of your preference. You will immediately find a press article, a pundit analysis, or an opinion column from a relevant journalist or political movement blaming XXX for the failing of the Copenhagen effort. I believe that after ten minutes of substituting XXX by different -and disparate- names, you will be all the more bewildered and confused, if not fully deprive of hope. If everybody is to blame for our incapacity of agreeing in preserve our common biosphere, what then? What is the next step?

Well, it is true that the internet is a cacophony of different voices, where google connect us with every wacko in the world. But the world at large is amenable of simplification. In the words of more than one participant in Copenhagen, it was very simple: the first world should put up the money, and the third world should put the willing to use it. In the first days of Copenhagen, indeed, there was hope. Billions where mention and apparently were committed. But the talks failed all the same. Was the money not enough? Or where the third worlders too greedy? As a matter of fact, both and none of the answers are correct.

Towards the end of the previous century, and in this decade, the first world has learn that market driven measures indeed drive the improvement of our societies. Facing the financial meltdown, the fundaments of our economy are left untouched, since we understand that even when mistakes -big mistakes- can and indeed do occur, no alternative is available. The first world has learn that seeing societal problems as market problems is the way to solve them. Facing unemployment or social security, our leaders think in terms of budgets and financial provisions, and so far, our societies progress. On the other side, in the third world, the market has a much narrower and negative association. All across the third world since 1980 a broad implementation of neoliberal guidelines took place, which by the year 2000 have failed to deliver what they promise. It is no coincidence that in the whole of South America traditional left wing governments have majorities never heard of before. With such constituencies and leaderships it was unthinkable that the third world would accept the raw deal that was placed in the table. For many of the leaders of the third world today, the mere acceptation of a bunch of money is equivalent to high treason. Not only to their electors, but to themselves. It was the intellectual arrogance (or laziness) of the first world the mayor factor that undermined the Copenhagen summit. How is possible to believe today that whatever solved our problems will solve the problems of the third world? Far worse, how is it possible to believe that we first worlders are believable trading partners for countries and continents that have been depleted of natural resources by ourselves? Why should they believe that we are not in the prowl again? In the words of one of my many friends in the environmental movement in south america: "they chop down their forests and became rich. Now they want to buy our forests. No way I'm selling". Indeed in Copenhagen the almost defunct idea of environmental colonialism made a comeback. And it took the first world by surprise. Isn't that a good joke? European politicians felt so righteous, that they were horrified of being called colonialists. Very funny indeed.

To go back to the start of these lines. The tragedy of the commons have been routinely used to illustrate the coming global warming tragedy. But it is a misguided metaphor. Because today the great resources that might look like belonging to everybody, actually belong to the third world. That grass field where the cows have to feed is, actually, the amazonian (and other third world’s) forest, processing the pollution of the whole world. And the majority of the industries needing this huge CO2 processing system are nor in Brazil, nor in any other country with pristine nature. Are you still surprised that Brazil was one of the hardest negotiators in Copenhagen? You shouldn't. If I would be you, or any of the first world leaders interested in reversing our warming climate, I would actually listen. Our first offer, of buying some piece of Brazilian forest for the future of our kids in Europe, has not been taken. Instead of hearing ourselves and decide to raise the bidding, or offering something else, it would do good to hear what the grandparents-to-be of those brazilian kids-to-be-born actually want. And you would be surprised: they do not want anything else that what we want: schools, hospitals, security, labor. Are we going to answer this with some euros extras? Or are we going to engage, once and for all, in the dialogue that is asked since the summit of Rio de Janeiro in 1992, a dialogue between south and north for sustainable development?

For as long as the west, or the north, does not recognize that the forests are not to be bought once more, the coming summits a la Copenhagen are doomed to fail.

The style and the shout, or why Tofik Dibi is very wrong

Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:00:14 +0100

It has been said that history moves in cycles. There are moments to destroy and there are moments to create, there are moments to shout for renovation and there are moments to develop a style. Political parties are not foreign to these cycles. In the european arena there have been moments to denounce the old europe, with big words and inspiring speeches, and there are moments for making the alternative come true, the slow building of consensus and alliances. Even inside our little GroenLinks we have seen those waves. We have had the call to arms against the old left, embodied in Halsema's Vrijheid heerlijjk delen. We also have had the reaction of Kritisch GroenLinks. And we got the long toekomst project, where all these waves where to be given a place into some other groenlinks, a newer, fresher and better one.

Depending on your level of optimism, those where successful, or fully irrelevant, processes. You might read the beginselen produced already a year ago, with the corresponding political priorities, strategies and structures, and you might believe that they lead us into a better direction. Or you might compare those texts with the ones written ten years before and become aware that groenlinks have not changed much. In any case, wether you belong to the optimist or the cynic side of GroenLinks, it seems clear that we have left our identity crisis behind, and we are working for increasing our share of participation in the country's government. But you might be, even there, wrong.

How else to understand the comments of Tofik Dibi in the Trouw from few days ago? Under an apparently innocent call to change our name, Tofik questions the core idea of groenlinks: there is no possible green future without left, and no left is possible without green. For Tofik, apparently, the link between traditional left wing standpoints and environmentalists goals is one that only weights on us. Because being left is no hype no more, we better be greens. Who knows, maybe Tofik is right. Maybe what Groenlinks needs to win big in the coming elections is just a cosmetic change of name. Now, even if our party is geared for the future, the future itself remains hard to predict. But I would like to risk it. I believe that Tofik is very wrong. And I also believe that Tofik's plea not only does not help anybody, but is a pain in the ass.

The pain is one known to us Groenlinksers, and probably to any other member of an association of several thousands of persons. The group expend time and energy discussing and eventually agreeing. And then, when the discussion is closed and we expect that our politicians will carry on our plans, we discover that they think otherwise. We discover that their silence during the long work of agreeing in our ideals was due to the simple fact that they where busy elsewhere. Now we discover that they have something to say indeed, they come and propose just another principle's discussion. Why now? Why not a year ago, when we where wondering about our identity? If you wanted to change the identity of Groenlinks, Tofik, I have the infamous question of Nijhof in my mind: where where you? Why now?

And then, we have the issue of being wrong. Tofik is wrong to believe that a change of name will bring back to us all these electors that we loose in the years passed by, and more. Because even if for Tofik and his sympathizers the old left (that cabal of sour old men trying to save the world with their dusty and outdated ideologies) is the main reason to be concern about GroenLinks... the reality is that we are in the middle, or even at the start of a serious economic crisis. The CWI's of this country have run out of budget long ago, because they did not predict the amount of people to be left without jobs. Of all times, this is not the moment to throw away whatever remains of our left wing credentials. Because increasingly so, this country is facing a moment of economic disarray. A moment in which labor creation will be the core task of any forthcoming government. A moment in which we electors are going to ask ourselves, more than ever: what does this party have to offer me? Are they going to make my sources of income more reliable? Or not?

Faced with these question there are many answers. GroenLinks have quite some of those. But none of these answers pass by changing our name and makeup our image, or seriously eliminating the half of GroenLinks that tells, loud and clear, that our goal is a country where solidarity matters. In times of economic pain is when our politicians have to be sharper than ever explaining why green is actually needed for social solidarity... Because solidarity, that old flag of left wing politics... Is very much needed when labor is being destroyed by the minute. Let's not drop that part of GroenLinks so easily.

A start of sorts, Tofik’s manifesto

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:07:16 +0100

It took about nine years for Groenlinks to come out from the closet of shy multiculturalism, and write a manifest celebrating the growing generation of cosmopolitans that, coming from the south and being born in the north, decided to make from The Netherlands their country. As a matter of fact, we should be happy that Tofik Dibi once and for all recognizes the value of a rising class of dutch people, actually of european people, that does not recognize itself in the silly debate of pro and against Wilders. The world in which we are living today is much more rich than the simplistic manicheism used by Wilders now, and before by Fortuin and Verdonk. Reasons enough to celebrate Tofik's manifest.

A detailed reading of it, such as the one made by Bas Heijne in the NRC, let us know how far we still has to go. Yes, it was time for somebody in the body politic of this country to say that allochtonen are much more than scary caricatures. A recognition, though, is only a begin. Because it is not enough to claim that a group has big potentialities. The real problems that allochtonen face today in Europe are not going to fade away by recognizing that we are way cooler than Wilder's pompadour. Some of us might be very cool. But that does not get us a job, nor diminish any of the myriad of forms in which discrimination works.

If Groenlinks want to play a relevant role in the making of our society, embedded in a country that becomes more kleurrijk by the minute, Tofik's manifesto is a start. The real challenge ahead is faced by Groenlinks' election program writers. Are we capable to match the elan from Tofik with hard core measures? The discussion on inburgering today is stagnated in getting as much people as possible, independently of their age, to talk better dutch. Is that all that we have to offer to the newcomer? I hope not, I know that the dutch society has much more to offer: jobs, education, participation... How these issues come to play a role in an appropriated inburgerings course? That is an important question that so far has received precious little attention. And for the ones of us -allochtonen- that are not newcomers any longer: how is a government with Groenlinks going to influence our life? Shall we finally see anti-discrimination measures that give us a fair chance to get a job?

After the disappointingly poor declarations of Femke Halsema about the head scarves, and even after the small minded expulsion of Tariq Ramadam from R'dam's university, the manifesto from Tofik is a fresher breeze coming from the creme of Groenlinks leaders. By far and large, it is not enough and happens rather late. But it's a good start. And it is never too late to start saying the good things. Now, let's see if we can back our statements with policy.

Heerlen VIII, coming soon

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:47:26 +0100

It was one of my first insights in GroenLinks. In AMOK, operational center of Kees Kalkman, a few members of the Europa Werkgroup meet in order to flesh out the position of Groenlinks regarding the Heerlen Group. That was in 2003, or about. What begun few years before as an irrational attempt to create a europe of citizens politically active across borders was being recognized by Groenlinks. And the tale went on since. Now we are called Network of Individual Supporters of the European Green Party (EGPISN), having an active core of five to ten persons that organize -always across the border- activities and discussions for members of the many European Green Parties.

So it was that this weekend -starting Saturday 3:30am in Utrecht, I'm still amazed at myself- I attended to the preparing meeting of the yearly event of the EGPISN, this time planned to happen in Lille around February. Meeting friends is always nice, and certainly when one is still getting his own bearings in the Lille station and is welcomed by the great Luc Lamotte in the middle of the street, brought to an hotel, assigned a room, and still with time to score breakfast and shake hands all around. Besides, in my own ignorance I thought that Lille was yet another small countryside french town. Not quite. It was certainly cool to be greeted by buildings of Koolhas, and later to perambulate in the corridors of quite an extensive museum of fine arts.

Anyhow, old friends and all, this post is not -only- a remembrance of nice things past. Around Saturday 10:00 am the sessions started, and we where deep in thinking and discussing what will happen with the EGPISN. There where no easy discussions neither. The reality of our group is that it seems to have reached a plateau, and we are facing the need of reform and reactivation, partly by the establishment of new goals, and partly by the effective use of our new structure. As the Heerlen group begun there was a certain spirit of challenging the party structures, and for a while it looked like we where not going to get away with it. Allowing members of a national party to become members of an European party (a federation of national parties, not of persons) was quite radical some years ago for many aparatchniks. But no longer. In successive meetings of the EGP the board have been agreeing with our views, ending up recently with our recognition as a formal and existing group inside the EGP. If you want, an extra party of sorts in the federation.

Of course, that didn't come without what might feel like bureaucratic structure. In the forthcoming Heerlen VIII meeting, planned to happen in Lille we should elect our own internal coordination team, where eight persons will come from "us" and four will come from "the EGP". A distinction a bit strange, because in the end we are all members of one or another green party, but whatever. We expend quite some time the Saturday figuring out how would we produce a fair and transparent election process.

In the end all comes down that in the next full fledged Heerlen meeting we will elect eight persons to carry on with what has been done so far... And perhaps challenge our party structures once more? The next goal of the EGPISN is putting for herself is to convince the EGP that we can have members... that aren't members of any green party. It sounds contradictory, I know: Why members of political parties would create structures inside their own party to encourage participation of non-members? On the other side, it just follows the logic of the green movement. Created -also- as a challenge to the idea of traditional political parties, we are just trying to increment the participation of citizens in politics.

All in all, it was a nice weekend. Soon enough minutes will become reports, and a complete picture of our discussions will be made public. Then will be the time for turning on the torch again, hopefully in Lille at the begin of coming year.

to marry is to migrate, and to migrate is to marry

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:05:20 +0100

M. looked beyond his shoulder. Disheveled hair, the faint smell of sleep, the warmth of her body streaming out the cover's end. M's wife was still at his side, about to wake up. His own life seemed to concentrate in this instant of waking up and recognize his sleeping companion, blissfully unaware of whatever he might think. M was a migrant, a migrant of country and a migrant of people. To say goodbye was no small death for M. It was more of another step in not being recognized, in waking up to a world of sleepers. Beloved ones, hated ones, irrelevant ones. Sleepers all the same. To migrate is to loose your own substance, your presence. Even better: to migrate is to refuse loosing oneself into the life's of others. Migrate and become the uninvited and unacknowledged guest that is not there, that even when placed in front of your eyes, would not be seen. Have you ever got into a conversation with the cleaner of an airport toilet? Of course you haven't. Migrants strive for invisibility and M. was no exception. Let her sleep, busy with her own dreams and nightmares. Who would want to confront her with the undeniable otherness of her husband? Not M. The wet dreams of progressive politicians, that society where diversity would be cherished and praised, belonged only into their meetings and manifestos. Out there, in the real world where M. lived, diversity was not praised. Terrorists and fanatics where thwarted and poor descriptions of others, sure, but M. had no interest in the education of strangers. Let then be, let them sleep on. M. preferred a world of sleepers talking to each other, a slumbering city involved in its own nightmares for as long he could remain awake, and apart.

M. sensed her waking up. Something in her warmth, in the rhythm of her breathing. Sensing it, M changed. The idea of being awake in a world of sleepers melted away with her smell invading and overpowering him. Her leg coiled on his, and her nose hid in the inside of his shoulder. So much for solitude and independence, so much for the romantic and solitary hero of a cheap pulp fictional thriller. A sarcastic smile grew on him. The world outside might be indeed a nightmarish combination of scared idiots, but it did not matter anyway. Here and now she was waking up on him. And just as her slumber receded away, his mood cleared up. M the migrant of people was not about to migrate again, not quite yet. He was here and now, just another confounded human waking up in Europe. Uninvited and unacknowledged? Perhaps out there. But not now, not in this room. A finger curled on his chest, a fist opened and without wanting it, caressed him. They were awake.

She knew of his being awake before her. He is awake and thinking about me, said the same voice that commanded her to wake up a second ago. He is neither happy. The fear of being left behind tackled her once more. What to do? Weren't her efforts enough? She has carved a place for him in her own life. Undemanding as he seemed to be, she knew from the first time they meet that if he was going to stay around, she must make a space for him herself. And she certainly wanted him to stay. Sure, perhaps another man would have been better. Or easier. Their first months they even have to build a shared language, nor his Spanish, nor her Dutch. There was a time of careful commitment, of painfully giving up long established routines. And still, years on, they hang on to each other. She wondered as much as him about living with somebody else. Could she pick her life on as it was before M? Probably not, even if she would want to. Aware of his fantasized detachment, she gave as much space as she could, guessing that he was doing pretty much the same. And still he was scary. He is not like me. And again, who is? More than once he has tried to tell that to migrate is to marry, and to marry is to migrate. Probably, even though something must be escaping her. What does he actually feel about this country of mine, my body? She would not know. Neither he, for all what matters. With the thinking that he might actually be as insecure as herself she finally wake up. Morning. Morning.

La negra se va

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:56:04 +0200

Porque carajo escribir sobre Mercedes Sosa? Soy acaso tan arrogante como para creer que podría añadir algo, cualquier cosa, al despido de semejante figura? Seré recordado por mis torpes lineas sobre un tema mas grande que la vida misma? De una u otra manera, esa es la pregunta que encaramos cada vez que decidimos enfrentarnos al teclado. La respuesta, obvia ya que estas leyendo esto, es positiva. Soy tan pretencioso y arrogante como para escribir. Lo que hace a Mercedes aun mas importante. Mercedes no era así.

Mercedes Sosa fué lo que muchos de nosotros sueña, pero nunca será. La artista, la creadora, la intérprete que se nutrió de una inmensa corriente subterránea, haciéndola pública. Tan pública que su voz se convirtió en una linea de acción. Una linea musical de verdad (como las que Chatwin buscó erróneamente en Australia), que mapeó las íntimas y poco entendidas corrientes de nuestros sentimientos. A veces queremos saber como es eso de subir a una montaña andina, y nos basta con oír “canción con todos”, tarareada infinitamente por los cientos que caminan con una mochila, yendo a otro pueblo debajo de las estrellas y encima de los valles. A veces queremos saber como se siente eso de ser emigrante, y es suficiente con enchufar los audífonos en “todo cambia”. Hemos sido agradecidos, de verdad verdad agradecidos? presta atención a “gracias a la vida” y encuentra un espejo.

Hace un par de noches volvía de Bruselas, tarde y conversando con my muy holandesa y muy amiga Lin, periodista de profesión. Haciendo despliegue de nuestras tragedias, como uno hace después de un día largo y satisfactorio, terminamos hablando de Mercedes. Para mi sorpresa, Lin entrevistó a Mercedes años atrás, en Creta por si fuera poco. Como cualquier otro zurdo latinoamericano, me encontré dividido entre la envidia y la admiración (también porque alguna vez Lin oyó a Atahualpa en vivo, pero eso es otra historia). Lin, por su cuenta, se avergonzaba de si misma, porque no pudo sacar nada de su conversación con la negra, nunca escribió ni mucho menos publicó la entrevista. Tanto la entrevistadora como la entrevistada tenían un gran jetlag, pero en todo caso, las limitaciones de Mercedes son ya parte de la leyenda. Leyendo la miríada de obituarios que aparecieron la semana pasada, los mas de distinguidos periodistas, el hecho aparece una y otra vez: Mercedes siempre fue difícil de entrevistar, usando manidos clichés de la izquierda, los lugares comunes, las repeticiones. Mercedes fue difícil de entrevistar, porque siempre tuvo poco que decir. Muchos periodistas se frustraron con la simplicidad de Mercedes en carne propia. Y eso es lo que la separa, lo que la distingue. Mercedes no fue líder política, no inventó música nueva, no tenia una voz nunca antes oída. Mercedes fue la antípoda del confiado y auto-promocionado artista que hoy conocemos tan bien. Mercedes no fue arrogante. Ella fue, ni mas ni menos, la interprete de la gente, de mucha gente. Quizás la ultima folclorista. La entendida en las cosas de la gente, capaz mejor que nadie de interpretar y darle la vuelta a nuestros sentimientos de una manera que al oírla, al sentirla, sus palabras nos agarran el estómago y de ahi se expanden al resto de nuestra sangre y nuestros huesos. Oye a mercedes una vez mas, y vuelve. Vuelve a ser uno, o una, entre tantos.

Mercedes cruzó fronteras. Nuestras fronteras, las individuales. Puede que seas un amante del jazz, repitiendo discos de heavy metal y Bach, como yo. O puede que seas un intérprete de Dvorak, Bartok y Piazzolla, como mi esposa. Quizás un amante de la música internacional o un admirador de Oscar de Leon o un sofisticado clasicista capaz de oír los errores de Ashkenazy tocando la quinta de Beethoven, crítico de los murmullos de Gould al piano. Todos ustedes, todos nosotros, volvemos a ser cuando oímos a nuestra negra.

Nuestra negra se ha ido. Pero no, no realmente, no. Seguiremos enseñando a nuestros hijos creciendo en esta lejana Europa, que “el que bebe de tu vino, gana sueño y pierde pena”. Ayden, con sus ocho años floreciendo en un mundo que no podemos predecir, sabe que “si se calla el cantor, calla la vida, porque la vida, la vida misma es como un canto”.

Mercedes, gracias a tu vida.

La negra is gone

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:53:09 +0200

Why in godsname writing about Mercedes Sosa? Am I pretentious enough to believe that I can add anything meaningful to the parting of such a figure? Would I be remembered by my clumsy lines on an issue bigger than life? In one way or another, that is the question that all of us face when deciding to hit the keyboard. The answer, obvious since you are reading this, is yes. I am pretentious and arrogant enough to write. Which is what makes Mercedes even more important. She wasn’t.

Mercedes Sosa embodied that which many of us dream of being and will never be: the artist, the creator, the interpreter that taped in a huge undercurrent and brought it forth. Brought it so much to the front that her voice became a guideline. A real Songline (as Chatwin wrongly sought in Australia), mapping the intimate and barely understood currents of our own emotions. Would you want to know what is to walk in the Andes, trying to reach the top of a mountain? Hear “cancion con todos”, endlessly hummed by hundreds walking under a backpack, heading to yet another small south american town under the stars and above the valleys. Or would you prefer to know how it really feels to be an migrant? plug your earphones in “todo cambia”. Have you ever been real real grateful? pay attention to her voice remaking once again “gracias a la vida”.

Last night I was coming home from Brussels, deep in the night and chatting in the train with my very dutch and very good friend Lin, journalist. Parading our tragedies, as one does now and then after a fulfilling day, we came to talk about the demise of Mercedes. It turned out that many years ago Lin interviewed Mercedes (In Crete, from all places). As any other left-winged southamerican can imagine, I was thorn out between the admiration and the envy (also because Lin heard once Atahualpa Yupanqui alive, but that is another history). Lin, on the other side, was almost ashamed of herself. She could not make head or tails from the interview, which was never published. A jetlag was involved, but in any case, the shortcomings of Mercedes facing an interview are part of her legend. One can read the myriad of obituaries from distinguished journalist appearing the past week, and the fact comes again and again: Mercedes was very hard to interview, since she has very few to say. Falling back to commonplaces, repeating old cliches of the left, many journalist were frustrated by the simplicity of Mercedes Sosa in the flesh. And that is what made her. Mercedes was no political leader, was no inventor of a new music, nor she had a voice unheard off before. Mercedes was the full opposite of the self secure and self promoting artist that we have become to consider normal in the last century. Mercedes was not arrogant at all. She was nothing more, and nothing else, that an interpreter of the people, of many people. She might has been for all what matters, the last of the folklorists. The one versed in the lore of the people, capable beyond any other to interpret it and bounce it back to you in a way that would grip your stomach and expand from there into all of you. Hear Mercedes once more, and become. Not be-gone, but be-come. Come back to be one of the many. Mercedes transgressed borders. Our borders, the individual ones. You might be a jazz-lover, heavy metal and Bach perpetual hearer, as I am. Or a Dvorak, Bartok and Piazzolla piano player, as my wife is. A world music fan, a lover of the Oscar de Leon’s salsa or a sophisticated classicist capable to hear the slips of Ashkenazy playing Beethoven’s fifth, and criticize Gould’s humming. But all of you, all of you will be tackled, gripped and transformed when hearing our Negra.

So, our Negra is gone. And again, she isn’t. We will teach our sons, growing in this cold Europe that “el que bebe de tu vino gana sueño y pierde pena”. Ayden, with his eight years blooming into a world that we can’t predict, knows that “si se calla el cantor, calla la vida, porque la vida, la vida misma es como un canto”.

Mercedes, gracias a tu vida.