:Inurop

Despite the major need to be relativist considering their successes, the pacific revolutions, made of carnations, tulips, orange, or of jeans, have a common point: the movement starts from the incoming generation and its refusal of political systems where the “survey and punish” takes all its signification. If man starts from the principle that a revolution is the violent rupture of an order, with the dynamic to establish a new order, theses revolutions are however not. These movements are steps of evolution within a process of middle-term, often coupled with a necessary economical adjustment and structural political, social and societal reforms aiming the democratization and the modernization of the system.

Man sees frequently, by the simplistic eye of mass medias, the electoral release as a revolution, even if these ones do not have the quintessence. The charm of the armed deflagration driving to a national virtuous rebirth by the end of a vicious system and the advent of contemporary ideas comes mainly from revolution in England (1642/1660), France (1789, 1848, 1878), Italy (1860), Germany (1918), Spain (1936). If the Italian and German revolutions had for goals to constitute or to re-constitute geopolitically the State-nation, the countries of Central, North and South East Europe, have a conception of revolution more pointed on the exogenous domination, as much political as cultural, maintained on the people. The affirmation of the independence is therefore a huge factor of beginning a revolution, as have shown the one of Serbia (1805), Poland (1830), Hungary (1858), Finland (1918).

But it is well understood that what is sometimes named “democratic revolutions” are within an action sensibly different. If the notion of national rebirth is present in the popular post-polls movements, and, according to the cases, a high will of State independence, it is primarily the end of a regime which is targeted. The totalitarisms of right and from left will provoke the movement. Budapest (1956) and Prague (1968) will be examples, with the reunion of the both characteristics of the revolution –the political clash and the independence–, with in plus the end of a regime written in a no revolutionary but evolutionary frame, democratic, and more or less pacific. It does is by the tetanization of State powers by the low, decided, persisting, tenacious, massive movement, without violence, that these pass from omnipotence to impotence, until their definitive implosion under the cold pressure of the street.

In Portugal, against the Salazar’s ethocracy, in Serbia against the human factor which had triggered four wars, in Georgia and in Ukraine against the figures of the post-socialist inertia, young people have proved the responsibility of their civic action. And now? Will it be at least the turn of Belarus? If the movement of the anti-totalitarism youth has been initiated by the activists of Otpor –“resistance” in Serbian–, fighting against “Slobo” (Slobodan Milosevic), the repeated phenomena is today shown for example, even taught, and applied in appropriate situations to the evolutionist step. Because the theory of evolution as a long transformation step by step, not contradictory of the others, is applicable to theses phenomena.

Today, it does is the young Zubr –« buffalos » in Belarussian, group of opposition of which we published already the interview in July 2004, see Archives– which demonstrate their will in Minsk, calling “Sasha” (nickname of Alexander Lukashenka) to free the country from its dictatorial grip. They live in Europe. In a soviet State. The last one. Man has a lot analysed and regretted the inaction of Western Europe during the attempts of real democracy in the so-called “popular democracies” from 1948 to 1989. Here is the occasion to forget the old west-European bargain’s pursuits to deal with the real stakes. The backing to the young Ukrainians has functioned, and has been a success of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). It has not been a revolution. Like the Georgians, they won’t join the European Union next year. Because there is a lot of work, transforming the individual energies in national dynamism: it has been done in the 90’s in the Central and Oriental European countries which carry currently the European voluntarism.

The risk is to pass through, by tiredness for a well-known historical serigraphy, which could be boring for the medias. The risk is that the west-European youth, comfortably installed in an atone conformist consumerism, could be uninterested in its pairs for which the life is a condition of the actual regime. The risk is that the revolution won’t be fashion anymore, even if the phenomenon is not one. The risk is to be afraid of a Russia which just has congratulate Lukashenka for a re-election by a factice poll, because our fear of the energy weapon. The risk is to hush the ENP. The risk is to negate the principles on which is based the European Union. The risk is to not believe anymore in a united Europe in a particular and communitarian democracy. The risk is to let down and let go, to abandon, and all the reactions what man can wait from this political gloom. The risk is to have a too much weak will to evaluate, to influence our collective evolution by the expression of man’s cultural prism. The voluntarism, when man’s live in a country without free press, without real multiparty political system, without development, where money is nowhere, where it is hard to survive, is natural. The obliged values are solidarity, will, and generosity. Indolence is the luxury of societies without consciousness of world’s reality. The hurt youth tries the recall, hoping that Europe play its advantages. But this one should be conscious of it, and that every part of it then put it in exergue for commune efficiency, responsible and thus confessed, energetic and thus reactive, for the people inside, as for those which had the misfortune to be born on the other side of the border and which demonstrate actively their existence, just there

No Comments