There is an ongoing critique concerning the way almost all politicians, no matter if left or right, consider economy as a priority for their actions. The latest example are the negotiations for free trade agreements across the Atlantic (between Canada/EU resp. USA/EU). Everybody will be affected by them; but the problem is, the public does not really know what IS negotiated, because the negotiators seem to be eager to keep this secret. Now and then, something slips out, like the intention of making it possible for corporations to sue whole states for lost profits because of their national laws, which gives rise to the suspicion that health of people and environment will not be of any priority in the future. Which means, public rights would be legally violated, and the laws of any country may be undermined.
Where does this priority come from? There is, of course, a certain dependence on corporations who provide for a country with many jobs; politics here has to deal with the possibility that factories be closed in favor of new factories in other, cheaper countries. Whenever a member of Parliament e.g. tries to elevate certain taxes, or thinks about any legislation that would cost companies money, there is some threat of losing a lot of jobs in the process.
The point is, by our system of a "free" market especially corporations (because they are big enough to be able to invest money to "move" factories) are given a great deal of power. To take power from them and give it back to the community, we certainly would have to take matters in our own hands; that means, communities would have to provide for the needs of their members instead of leaving this to nationwide or even globally operating corporations. There is no easy way for (re-)gaining this kind of autonomy; money would be needed, but no money without taxes, no taxes without jobs, no jobs without... . In the first place, people would have to work out a concept for a possible change of structures.
Because we already are way too much in the hands of big economical players, the question is: Why giving them even more power over us, over individuals, over communities? Any politician who helps corporations to get more power is clearly not acting in the interests of most people who voted for him. (I very much doubt it could be in the interest of anybody at all.)
Economy is a complicated matter. The consequences of any alteration of existing rules, let alone structures, are hardly to be predicted. Claims about economical growth, made at the beginning of a fiscal year, usually don't hold. The reason for this is simple: There are too many factors that had to be taken into consideration, which themselves are anything but stable. Economical development to me seems not predictable in the way a lot of people claim it to be.
In spite of that, politics has to provide for the communities' needs - that means, jobs must not only be created, but have to be stable. Any corporation has a big advantage on its side: money to invest, and therefore the possibility to dictate maybe not any condition they like, but certainly a lot. The problem are the many "ifs": "If we have to pay taxes that high, it won't be profitable any longer." "If we have to pay minimum wages, we cannot compete." "If we have to consider environmental factors, it will cost us more than our competitors in xy-country." etc. etc. (It seems doubtful whether anybody using such arguments thinks himself to be a member of the very community he claims to provide for, but this is another question.)
Politicians usually believe this; at least in some cases (as far as I know) the threat has become real. But I think there is more: To provide for the needs (or better: wants) of a global corporation gives politicians a lot of importance - at least in their own eyes, but often enough in the public's as well. And maybe it's this kind of powerful feeling, to play a powerful role for powerful corporations - to partake of their power -, that makes a lot of politicians do a lot of stupid things. The problem with free trade agreements like TTIP is, the negotiators of the politic establishment not only give up part of their power, but with it they give up power of the sovereign - our power. It can be given away only once. This cannot be in conformity with any constitution - at least I hope so.
We need to question the neediness that's behind these kinds of action - not only the politicians', but the neediness of anybody else who voluntarily takes responsibility for more than a handful of human beings. We need communities that value the single person and her autonomy enough so that this neediness won't arise. We need people who are courageous enough to start thinking about how to take back the responsibility for our life in our own hands, despite the threats of companies and global corporations. Let's try to strengthen local structure.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen