Green versus Red versus Blue, exit Yellow

As elsewhere, Antwerp's socialists (Red) and environmentalists (Green) don't seem to be natural partners to work together. I think liberals (Blue) and Green are much closer ideologically as both are in favour of entrepreneurship and freedom to express yourself but they don't recognise this because I think the Blue are too much attached to the past to recognise in full the potential of the new economies such as clean energy although they too recognise the digital possibilities.

In Antwerp a collaboration between the socialists (Red) and environmentalists (Green) collapsed. The main reason is that a socialist candidate seems to have used accounting tricks and this became public as should be in good democracies so people know what they may expect from politicians they have to elect although the Red seem to disagree as they defended their candidate; also in the past they had members who were creative. And thus the Green no longer want the Red as partner during coming elections. Should this collapse surprise? Not really as I think Red and Green are unlikely partners (although many think the opposite) and this mistake by the Red to keep one of their own in power without further clarification in order to remove any doubt how he may behave as a possible mayor was a good excuse to stop the collaboration. Here I try to explain why I think Red and Green are unlikely partners:

Green + Blue + Red equals white, in my opinion the perfect combination in politics

The Green are in favour of entrepreneurs who want their own business but with inclusion of the latest and clean technology. Many live a healthy life, often eat little or no meat and fish while they are in favour of legislation to protect our environment, the reason why they are called the Green. Many are higher educated, often live in cities where they can socialise with (often successful) people from every part of the world while they love to discover the world, and continue to do so after their pension. But often they have little feeling with workers, and thus many don't understand why those people (often on lower income who are in direct competition with immigrants who are often paid even less for the same jobs and often are priced out of areas where they were born, often by wealthier people from abroad) are angry with more immigrants while new technologies (such as digital revolution or solar panels) are too complicated and/or too expensive to support while these new technologies don't seem to result in work for many unless the higher educated.

Socialists on the other hand are more concerned about employees who work for employers and thus have also close links to unions (as a reaction, also other parties linked themselves to unions). Often the environment is second as securing work for people comes first and thus often they complain about too much legislation while they ask for slower environmental actions as well as subsidies to help ordinary people to install the new technologies. They also protest against outsourcing as that result in people losing jobs here, exploitation in developing countries and environmental damage due to transport of the products over longer distances (here they have common points with Greens). They defend pension rights, sometimes it seems even without understanding that many (younger) people understand that, as we live longer, we will have to work longer (but differently to prevent burn-outs) although they are right that one of the reasons why we have troubles is because certain people pay too little social contributions. Socialists defend the right that everyone can have their own house with garden in the countryside, even when this causes the destruction of more environment. I think a more likely natural partner for socialists are conservatives to keep things as they are although leading socialists started to recognise the need to work in clean environment, that immigrants also need chances and thus contribute to our pensions and that people can be who they are. Nevertheless, the price socialists paid is that the leaders alienated a certain section of their original voters while others don't take them serious and prefer the original, i.e. the Green and thus socialist parties became small, certainly in western countries where much of workers right are realised.

Thus, l think Red and Green are not natural partners. But Green and liberals (Blue) are much closer, although without recognising this. Unfortunately, many liberals now have a tendency to defend big companies and capital while in the past they would equally have an eye for small businesses and the self-employed although often they think they still defend them. The Green took over the role to defend small businesses instead of importing products that are produced on the other side of the planet by people who are underpaid and work in conditions that cause harm to people and the environment while destroy local businesses here. But both are natural in defending free thinking and often defend the right to be yourself: straight or gay, to have children or not, to marry or not as long as it doesn't harm others and thus reduces the freedom of others.

For me, the best government is with people who have all three colours in themselves: defend workers' rights, stimulate people who want to start their own business and consider the environment and animal and plant life. This means people who support investments in science to further move into the direction of a fair society (such as good healthcare and education and clean environment and with opportunities to start a business or be an employee at a business) whereby everyone has chances within what they are able to do although we should also realise that some people are losers, whatever we give them.

In a perfect society, parties are no longer needed and people are elected who discuss legislation in parliaments to reach an agreement. This may (soon?) be possible in the Western world (already many smaller parties need to form coalitions instead of a few big ones). However, in developing countries this ideal probably still take decades as employees have to unite to improve workers' rights versus employers rights as already happened in the West (and this without the West lecturing countries how to do it although of course we may disagree with their actions and sanction them). Certainly in Africa this may still take very long as Africans still need to learn how to work together to improve their own position because, as that continent has most natural resources that others want and thus African countries should be the ones setting conditions for those who want the resources, in many places corrupt politicians hold on to power while people fight against each other so these countries remain weak while the rest of the world takes to sell elsewhere expensive, the only price is to keep leaders in power.

And religious parties? Yes, they existed and were part of the dominant elite that kept ordinary people ordinary people or educated them into their ideology. Often they still excuse religions and their human right abuses in the name of a God. Their time may soon be over, certainly in the West, as even these politicians now dare to oppose church leaders if necessary.


Popular posts from this blog

Brexit, refugee crisis and the EU

(7i) Return to (travel) business in times of a virus

(20b) Coronavirus statistics: how to present data about cases and mortality