The Republican Government's foreign policy now stands on four basic principles: First, the Republic will respect self-determination and national sovereignty and will only intervene in the internal affairs of other nations when civilians are in imminent danger or when a democratic movement enjoys wide popular support but the natural balance of forces has been upset by artificial factors. Secondly, that representative republican government is not suited for nations that have yet to achieve the material and cultural conditions for its establishment and longevity and that the Republic will assist foreign nations to develop the appropriate conditions for democratic governance. Thirdly, that the Republic will pursue foreign policy goals guided by practical moral reasoning steered by the virtue of prudence. Fourthly, that the Republic will supplement official elite diplomacy with informal and unofficial negotiations with and between private citizens in the pursuit of her strategic and moral goals. These four principles, scrupulously observed, will recast Selucia's often strained relationship with foreign powers in a friendly and cooperative mold.
"For me it means a lot what just happened tonight. Tonight, Selucia's population has shown unprecedented support for our party, giving us more than 33 million votes, practically the best result in our history. The party still has a way ahead to travel in Selucia, and that, as they say, "a great power carries a great responsibility." We must work hard not to disappoint all those citizens who have decided to turn their backs on Factio Republicana's erroneous policies and have decided to trust us, we will fulfill our electoral promises, such us to put science as a fundamental pillar of society, and return all the rights that the successive governments of Factio Republicana have been cutting back on us."
". Since Plinius Cauco lost the Praetorship of Oriensos in 4449, all his efforts to recover it were in vain, until he decided to resign and give up his position to the chosen by the bases, which turned out to be young Rubio, from the IUVIM."In the first place, we have tried to have citizen participation to elaborate our regional electoral programs, we have met with them, we have listened to their demands, and we have processed what we thought were necessary. At the regional level, we have renewed many political positions that were stagnant, I believe that this renewal was necessary and, above all, a certain generational change, to get in touch with the young people, who are usually the largest group of abstainers. It seems that we have achieved it
"People seem to fear the IUVIM, as if they were something wrong, but they really give a lot to the party. From there, things are clearly said, even if they do not like it, and engage with the left-wing electorate, which is the one that really supports us. We can not focus on a right-wing electorate that will never give us their votes. "
she has declared."The world is going crazy."
"To think that in the 45th century, there are still prosecutions and expulsions of nations for reasons of nationality, religion, sexual orientation ... it is simply disheartening. The world should aspire to only one thing: that we should all be united. It is utopian, but hopefully in some future, borders will no longer exist. We should aspire to work hand in hand with others for the simple fact of being human beings like them, and not let ourselves be carried away by the unreason and hatred to attack those who they think differently from us or that come from places different from ours. "
"Neutrality can not be synonymous with complicity. Neutrality means respect for national decisions made by other parliaments or leaders of other countries, as long as these things respect life and human dignity, but neutrality can not be used as an excuse to be accomplices of regimes or people who torture, kill or oppress others, because in that case they go from being neutral to being complicit in a brutal case of dehumanization and violence, and that can not be allowed. We are the first nation that will always defend the national sovereignty of others, but not at any price, and not by putting this concept as an excuse to do what one wants, moreover if that is why thousands or millions of people have to suffer. If I had to choose between national sovereignty and human rights, I choose human rights. National sovereignty is a concept that, as a thinking species, we have created in society, to differentiate ourselves and grow better with those people related to us. But it can not be used as an excuse for the most basic principle: we are all equal and deserve the same respect. Whoever does not understand this is precisely the one who does not deserve to be worthy of the respect of others as a species. "
"I think those people who talk like that really do not know what they say. Imperialism is wanting to dominate the policies of another country under the premise that it must be subordinated, but criticizing the antisocial or oppressive measures of another nation is not imperialist, it's human logic. It's simple, there each with the words you want to use, but I wish we learned to understand and listen. "
We are approaching a moment in which anyone who on certain occasion does not think like us or opposes our ideas or opinions is accused of being the enemy, instead of learning to listen and understand the other point of view. And that is extremely dangerous. The moment we decide that our ideas are the only valid ones, without even learning from others or arguing clearly and without exceeding any limit, we are starting a dangerous game that never comes out unscathed. And many Terran nations are beginning to play. Selucia will not play yet, but we fear that this will seriously affect everyone, and will take time to recover.
Interviewer: Thank you for your time, Ms. Bousaid.
C. Bousaid: Of course, it's always a pleasure.
I.: In the elections in 4461 your party's share of the vote fell to the lowest it's been in 16 years. How is it like to see what was Selucia's dominant party for more than a decade collapse so thoroughly at the last election? Do you believe that the voters have expressed their strong opposition to your party's policies?
C.B.: Not at all, quite the contrary I would say. In '61 the Republican Party had the largest absolute number of votes in our entire history, and we've been around for almost a century! It fills me with confidence in the strength of Selucian democracy to see so many millions of Selucians turn to the polls for the first time in their lives. Although we performed wonderfully, more than expected even, Helios Sigilis was able to mobilize even more voters. The '61 elections were practically unprecedented, and I must congratulate Mr. Sigilis for bringing back this much passion and energy.
I.: Caesar Sigilis has been a fierce critic of your party. How do you respond to the fact that, under his leadership, In Marea decided to stop courting centrist and right-wing voters and focus exclusively on the left?
C.B.: In my eyes, and this is a view many of my colleagues share, social confict and partisanship are virtuous if there is real substantive difference between the parties and if this conflict takes place in a well-ordered republic, where we have good laws and properly functioning institutions. The fact that Sigilis, unlike his colleague Fulvia Arusa, has chosen to go out on the attack is a good thing, even if it means that he's been attacking my own party. Without political conflict you end up with a stale consensus, devoid of ideas and without a soul. So it is good that Helios and myself are channeling our ambitions towards a clash for the common good. Either of us may lose, but the Republic will win as a result. This does not mean however that we disagree on absolutely everything. We are both keenly aware of the inevitable tendencies towards oligarchy and corruption in any republic and the need for continual vigilance. And we both agree that capitalism is a morally and economically bankrupt system and that Selucia ought to transcend capitalism.
I.: If your party is, in your own words, anti-capitalist, then how do you cal yourselves a right-wing party?
C.B.: The left does not have a monopoly on anti-capitalism. While socialists and other leftists do bring good arguments against capitalism, these are often based on anti-religious prejudice and abandoning the role of patriotism and not necessarily in more morally-grounded criticism. Instead we believe that capitalism is idolatrous and rooted in individualism and in greed, which is a mortal sin in Hosianism. Capitalism destroys families, traditions, religion, and society, replacing them all with atomized, rootless, and unencumbered individuals. As a Hosian, I cannot but see capitalism as rooted in sin and vice.
I.: On the question of Hosianism, is it not true that Hosianism is, ultimately, incompatible with Republicanism? Yet you proclaim yourself to be both. Republicanism has historically been very critical of Hosianism, arguing that it saps public spirit and offers a principled deference to political authority, instead of encouraging political virtues like ambition in the service of the Republic, hatred towards those that abuse power, and a desire for revenge.
C.B.: That is true, if one speaks of the corrupted form of Hosianism, perverted and misunderstood by political and economic elites across the ages. Criticism against Hosianism's supposed otherworldliness is deeply rooted in Selucia's public psyche, and often that is for good reason. Charity on its own, one of the core Hosian virtues, is to some extent antithetical to true political change, as it focuses too narrowly on the moral improvement of individuals and ignores the necessary transformation of society as a whole. But there is also a strong element of righteous anger against injustice in Hosianism, as well as a profound understanding of human frailty and organic interdependence which resonates strongly with Republican views. The selflessness and compassion preached by Hosianism and the command that we "bear each other's burdens" can constitute the basis of establishing profound democratic and Republican altruism. Although our goal is the admittedly materialist transformation of the structures of society, as opposed to the idealist goal of improving the morality of individual citizens, compassion can be a powerful tool towards that goal if one assumes a Hosian or similar worldview, where the object of compassion is not independent of the other parts of society but is essentially dependent on others. In my understanding, Hosian compassion and Republican liberty need each other and can complement each other.
I.: Your party often talks about freedom and liberty, to the point of obsession. But you are also very critical of liberalism, and particularly its own view on liberty. In 4428 former Republican leader Hiroto Yukimura made a point of reviving a supposedly forgotten ancient view of liberty as "non-domination" which he contrasted with what he called the more impoverished liberal view of liberty as "non-interference". Where do you stand on this debate?
C.B.: The Republicans have always been critical towards the outdated liberal platitude that "my freedom ends where your freedom begins". Because it is so widespread, few realize just how unnatural this image of atomistic individuals, afraid of clashing with each other and jealously guarding their independence from invasion, really is. This view contradicts all social science and our most natural intuitions. Instead Republicans are aware that we are deeply social and, indeed, political creatures. Most humans don't want to be left alone in their independence, most seek to live together and for them being deprived of other persons is essentially a form of torture. In the liberal understanding I am unfree only when someone prevents me from doing what I have the right to do, in other words I am unfree when my liberty is constrained by deliberate human action against my "natural" rights. But this privatized way of thinking about freedom ignores the interdependence in our lives, particularly in modern societies. Since the "private sphere" does not describe a completely solitary existence, to what extent could we even speak of it being free from power relations, interference, inequality, domination, and coercion? And what of liberty beyond the private sphere? What about political participation or resistance to political power? Is this only instrumentally valuable as a way of achieving private freedom? If so, then why even be concerned about the type of political regime under which one lives? If I am free if I am not actively interfered with and my actions are not constrained, then I can be free even under a dictatorship if the dictator happens, on a whim, not to interfere with me.
The Republican account on the other hand is richer and more natural. We do in fact believe that people wish to pursue their own ends as far as possible, to live without fear, to bring up their family without anxiety, and to freely possess their property without insecurity. But we also believe that such freedom is only possible in a free state, one based on free institutions in which everyone can participate and be free from subjection to the will of another. This is only possible in a community that is free from dependence and servitude, whether imposed from abroad or by a tyrant within. We believe that individual liberty is secured not in opposition to the state and its laws, but through the state and through laws all citizens have a hand in drafting. This kind of liberty can only be maintained if the citizenry displays virtue, the willingness to follow whatever course of action will preserve the liberty and sovereignty of one's native land. But we are also realistic and we understand that people are by nature inclined towards evil, so we cannot rely on their good will to preserve a free state. Instead the task of the legislator is to channel self-interested behavior in such a way that one's selfish actions have consequences that, although not intended, promote the common good. And this can only be achieved through two mechanisms, the constitution and religion. More specifically, this requires a Republican constitution that converts private vices into public benefits, by exploiting the natural conflict that exists between the two main classes in any civil association, the upper class that wishes to rule and the ordinary people that wish to not be ruled, as well as the use of religious values and virtues to orient otherwise wicked individuals towards the public good.
I.: you raise the point that sovereignty is necessary for individual liberty and for democracy. How do you respond to Fulvia Arusa' argument that, if one had to chose between sovereignty and human rights, the choice should fall on the latter?
C.B.: I think Fulvia expressed her ideas beautifully and, as a matter of fact, I do agree with her assessment. Sovereignty is essential for democracy, but far too often tyrants have used the cover of sovereignty to defend their own abuses. Fulvia also made an excellent point, that these days debates on these matters have become needlessly polarized, with those that disagree accused of the worst things. I agree that nobody should be accused of imperialism merely for expressing concern about various abuses in other nations. But I also think that those that oppose war and believe that democracy cannot exist without sovereignty, and that the lack of democracy is not a valid reason to go to war, should not be painted as friends of tyrants and defenders of their abuses. We believe that a people has the right and responsibility to fight for its own liberty, not have it imposed by others. Liberty imposed is not liberty, it is subjugation to a new tyrant, even if a well-meaning one. Democracy, etymologically, means "power of the people". But then, without sovereignty, which people? If rights and freedoms are granted from above, from the archimedean starting point of a dispassionate great power or international institutions, or even domestic courts, this involves a transfer of authority from the hands of the citizens towards unelected external powers. Until we all live in a global state, which I highly doubt will happen any time in the next few millennia, our lives are governed by the sovereign nation states, and to deprive them of sovereignty, for any reason, is to deprive their citizens of the power to shape their own lives. Human rights cannot then trump sovereignty, for the simple reason that they are either too weak and abstract, too far removed from the actual daily lives of citizens, and for this reason they fail to motivate citizens to address and attack the power of transnational capital and other networks of private interest, thus allowing private power to reign, or, if they are not weak, they involve the transfer of political authority towards foreign states and nondemocratic institutions like courts or NGOs. Instead we believe that authority must be built from bottom up, by rebuilding civic and military ethics that seek to limit private and political power within the state. And this cannot be done by outsiders. The peoples of Terra must learn to fight for their own freedom. When they do, Selucia shall be prepared to offer her assistance. But until then we must live with the reality of our modern world, even if that means becoming complicit in other nations' crimes. It is a hard choice, but if we genuinely care about democracy it is one we must make.
"This is a very important milestone, because it shows that, if we know how to connect well with citizens, great results can be obtained. If you talk to the public with clear ideas, how you will try to improve their quality of life, they will not mind who you are or where you come from. The party made a risky move by electing me as regional secretary of Oriensos, taking into account both my skin color and my LGBT membership, but nevertheless, now I start my second term in office of Oriensos, and all because we have known how to connect, what was wrong in the past ".
He said, visibly happy,"There is no doubt that our democracy is one of the healthiest in Terra today."
"We work hard to make the lives of our citizens a little better each day, and receiving such support is simply incredible. When I became party secretary, I put all my efforts into changing things, and now I am reaping the results. Thanks to all the citizens for making this election day a peaceful, healthy and democratic event, as we have been doing for centuries, and thanks above all to all those who have returned to trust, or who have trusted for the first time, in this party, which wants to add always, and not subtract. In the same way, we want to thank the exercise of State opposition that Factio Republicana performs. In a healthy democracy like ours, it is essential to listen to the contrary, and although we differ in a multitude of topics, we can reach agreements in many others, and that is something that puts us above many things, understanding is the key, and we will continue working for it ".
This is how forceful the ambassador of Selucia, Valeria Laetitia, has been to the question of which candidate her nation will support in the face of the presidential elections to the World Congress. Without giving any explicit support to any candidate, she has completely ruled out support for Narikaton's Entwald von Thaller."Under no circumstances will we support the candidacy of a Thaller to the presidency of the World Congress."
"Under the proposals of Mr. Thaller, he does not hide anything other than wanting to guarantee greater impunity for totalitarian regimes and their discriminatory policies, and for that he will never have the support of Selucia. The government has not yet informed me of the candidate to support, but I do have specific notifications to not support such a candidate, and even though the vote is totally free, I ask the rest of Terra's democracies to do the same. Allowing a Thaller with such an ideology to get the power of the world's largest international body will not bring any positive consequence, only the persecution of those democracies that fight to take human rights to all corners of the world and impunity to those nations that allow and even encourage discrimination for any reason. "
she has begun."We can not lie"
"It is clear that it is a result that no one in the party expected and that has hurt me, especially. Losing the Praetorship of Insularia by just a handful of votes after more than 80 years of uninterrupted government of In Marea-Insularia Sinistram is a difficult thing to take on, but we must do it. For the time being, IMIS will go to the opposition, and will not support the Pars Laborem government in the region during this term. "
she said about the agreement between Optimates and Factio Republicana to form a new right-wing government."It is obvious that the new government will try to reverse all the social advances we have achieved, but at the moment it seems to be a rather unstable government"
he said on the radio. Sigilis, who achieved the best result in the history of his party in the two previous elections, has conceded the coup with dignity, and has said that, although it is necessary to learn from the past, he has already fixed his vision in the future and in returning to delude all those voters of the left who, during this last legislature and the appearance of new parties, have decided to turn their backs on him."We are condemned to understand each other"
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests