Elections - The Debate - Opening Statements and Free Debate
A woman, dressed in brown, sits in front of a flickering screen, on which a silhouette of the country is shown. Hands clasped, she speaks, first in Kitets.
Citizens, you are listening to the National Information Service. In preparation for the elections of 4th March, the leaders of the four major political movements and groupings have appeared here, for the purpose of communicating to you their ideals, their positions - in effect, how they intend to govern. At the heart of any democracy is information, information made freely available to all citizens. For this to be hidden leads to a crisis in governance and people's rule. We will - and are, now, here - making every effort to ensure that this tragedy does not befall us, to provide a flow of truthful information to the people, to the citizens, so that they for themselves may make their own decisions in a rational way.
Present, from left to right, are Altay Sancar, of his newly founded Ecological-Socialist Movement, Vistek Rikkalek, of the refounded People's Association, Írenet Isteresskemar, of the newly founded Democratic Movement, and Yasemin Demirkol, of the newly founded Progress Party.
The format for this debate is as follows. There will be no exact time limit, but the debate itself may not exceed four hours in length nor be any shorter than one hour. Candidates will begin with their opening statements, and then will move to free debate - before then moving to closing statements. Civility is an expectation; not conforming to these rules and expectations set out will result in warning, then expulsion from the debate.
She repeats this in the four other national languages of Istkalen.
The candidates will now present their opening statements. We begin, first, with Ms. Isteresskemar.
II: Good evening to all. Our nation is under attack. Our ways are threatened, our very sovereignty is threatened. Compradors, foreign agents, at every level of government and society act slowly to bring us down. The West does not like us, you see. Our ways are too free for them; they would prefer that we bow down to their materialistic neoliberalism, to become incessant, vapid consumers as the rest of them are. We are a nation of workers, of producers, and we will remain that way. The Democratic Movement seeks to turn our nation into a fortress. We will shut out the West, and seek total independence, politically, economically, and socially. We will make no agreements with the outside world; what agreements we have foolishly engaged in we will disengage from. To throw our lot in with them is to sacrifice ourselves. We will lead an internal drive for the expansion of industrial and agricultural product, while not forsaking the sacred independence and autonomy of our individual workers, not forsaking their humanity, the humanity of our production. We must take nothing from the West, neither imports nor their ways. If we do so we forsake our identity as workers and become idiotic, drooling consumers. Socially, every aspect of the West must be thoroughly eliminated. Foreign literature, foreign language, must not be taught in our schools; both corrupt the individual, corrupt the nation. Those citizens which seek foreign education must be expelled permanently; they cannot be trusted. The same goes with foreign clothing, foreign art. This clothing, this music, this art, this film, all of the West; they are inherently materialistic, inherently decadent. Our ways must be maintained against this; we will purge this all from the nation, and replace it with a wholesome and authentic expression of our own great and independent culture. Istkaleners - we must stand against the foreign hordes, and defend, uphold, our nation!
Thank you, Ms. Isteresskemar. We will continue to Mr. Sancar.
AS: Thank you to all who are listening. The basis of our nation is the agricultural worker and the miner. The rest merely consume from them. The cities, for example, take from them and return to them very little which they themselves cannot produce. This has weakened our nation greatly. What the Ecological-Socialist Movement wants to do is overthrow this inequality. Everyone becomes a farmer, everyone becomes a miner, performing other, more specialized actions merely part of the time, not for their own profit but for the benefit of the community, a community that will form through necessity and shared vocation. In the new society there shall be no divisions between people. Everyone together will hold everything in common, everyone will be perfectly equal; there will be a uniformity, and that uniformity a blossoming unity. The sobriety and strength of our people is rebuilt; they become able, again, to defend our nation from the foreign invaders, to defend it from internal corruption. Our society thus becomes equal, strong, and united.
Thank you, Mr. Sancar. We will continue to Ms. Demirkol.
YD: Good evening, citizens. Our aim is simple - rational government. We want to democratize the government, to make it more accountable to the people, to ensure that it acts in their interest; so too do we want to technocratize it, ensure that those sitting in government are genuinely qualified to their tasks. For too long have we had ideologues with nothing beyond a primary school education dictating to us what we are allowed to do, to produce, and how. No more. We want, in a nutshell, to remove from governance ideology and replace with it healthy and democratic pragmatism. We intend first to entrust power over all industry to the workers' associations, which shall operate on the collective principle. Then we shall engage in our political reforms. We will ban political campaigning, the tool of demagogues alone, completely. We should not elect people based on how well they lie to us, but rather merely how well they work, how skilled they are. We will seek also to strengthen the Council of Examination to truly ensure the ability of the elected to serve in office; accountability, democracy, are sacrosanct, but both are useless when power is allowed to go into the hands of the corrupt and the manipulators. We want finally to end the controls over social life. It is not for the state to determine what people can or cannot do, unless if they decide to harm other. Let the people do as they wish,; they will be happier. Let us, then, put an end to superstition; let us see science and reason prevail in our Istkalen.
Thank you, Ms. Demirkol. We will continue, now, to Mr. Rikkalek.
VR: Citizens, thank you. Istkalen is a nascent democracy. For the first time in perhaps the whole of its history, power is directly in the hands of the people, of the workers. Our aim is to protect this workers' democracy through social change. The present structure, the present norms, and in certain ways the present culture of Istkalen imply, necessitate, a more authoritarian state. They require the state to dictate to the people what to do, how to behave; they posit that the state is the highest authority on the good of society, and therefore that its will is inevitably good for society. Within the workplace, we see a slavish obedience to a master, which, even if elected, remains a master; within the city, the same obedience, but now to the municipal authorities. There is no question of accountability; it is simply believed that the state can do no wrong, and thus that the person who protests is themselves in the wrong, a traitor to our society. What the People's Association seeks to do is begin a peaceful "revolution" in culture and society in order to modernize the country and allow for the permanent establishment of democracy. We want first to turn the workers' associations from the elected bureaucracies they currently are into genuine communities, bonded by shared vocation. Obedience to the state, then, will become participation in the community, a democratic participation rather than the old slavish devotion. So too do we want to democratize the arts, the universities, housing, every conceivable aspect of life that is presently managed by the state, every aspect of life that demands obedience. We want, very simply, to pull down the role of the state and replace it with the direct rule of the people.
Thank you, Mr. Rikkalek. We will now move to the free debate portion of this debate.
YD: To Mr. Sancar - is Istkalen even capable of feeding its population under your proposals? That is what, I think, we all really need to know.
AS: It does not matter. Those who die should die, must die; they are sick and a cancer on the nation, on the world. Their deaths will be a mercy killing, and both the world and the nation will be left better off for it. A revolution is, and will be, always violent, and this is no exception. We seek to create a new society based on labor, and those who cannot labor, and who cannot survive on their own labor, do not have a place in it. As I said, we are not a society of the bourgeois and the proletarian, but of the urbanite and the non-urbanite; the former must either integrate into the latter or simply be removed from society.
II: This is all very well, but quite honestly I am not one for genocide. Do you feel, Mr. Sancar, that you have any moral...doubts about your plans?
AS: No. Those who die cannot even have been considered human. Humanity is labor; that is to say, it is created through labor. The urbanites do not work. Therefore, they are not human. They may become human, may be restored; but if they do not, they must be squashed as one would squash a cockroach or an ant.
II: But you yourself are an urbanite.
AS: Yes. Once the revolution is complete, I will kill myself, for I no longer have a use for myself.
II: I really don't think we should have to listen to this, but I will say one more thing. Mr. Sancar, please seek help, you obviously need it. Continuing on, yes, there is a difference between the cities and the countryside, or really Kirelesile and everywhere else, and this difference should be resolved, but not through these means. We should instead seek, through development, to make the countryside more attractive for the residents of Kirelesile - by constructing housing, and particularly by decentralizing industry, in line with traditional systems.
AS: I am not anti-industrial, if that is what you are implying. I too believe that industry should be managed by the communes I propose - that it should be decentralized, not abolished! Madam, please stop trying to pass these falsehoods on the people of Istkalen!
YD: Regardless, Mr. Sancar, without the 'urbanites,' how is any of this to be managed? How do you intend to maintain industry if you have killed all the experts and the manual workers? We do not imply that you want to abolish industry, we imply that you would leave it completely unusable.
AS: Workers, manual workers, are not urbanites, in my vision - they do work, and have the same sobriety and strength of those of the countryside, and thus they are honorary members of the citizens of the countryside. Even without them, the farmers can make do.
VR: Regardless, I would like to ask Ms. Istersskemar a simple question. How do you intend to maintain industry according to your desired system? A certainl level of cooperation is necessary, but you yourself have admitted, in the past, that you want an economy of independent producers who cooperate economically only in the context of the market . How does any of this work? Developed indutry requires cooperation between more than two people.
II: The answer lies in automation. Currently, it is not possible for any of these things to be maintained without the employment of manual laborers, an undesirable practice but a necessity. Once we push forwards automation - and much of the technology is already there - whole factories can be managed just by two. I am not one to abandon the principles of the nation to adopt those of the West, as you are; I will always remain firm to our own ways.
VR: The whole of society is based around cooperation. People are not atoms floating around; for anything to function they need to be bonded together. The economic vision of the People's Association reflects this. We seek to maintain the system of independent producers, but complement this with a system of cooperation. For the good of the community, together they will organize labor that is necessarily cooperative in nature. This is not a reflection of tradition, that is true, but it is a reflection of what developed with the collapse of the state during the occupation - it is a relfection of a more natural, democratic state.
YD: I would like to criticize the proposals of the People's Association from the other direction. How is this efficient, or at least more efficient that a more centralized or planned economy?
VR: Efficiency is not the most significant concern everywhere. Totalitarian government can be efficient, but it is not ideal. In the same way, totalitarian and dictatorial government in the economy is efficient, but far from ideal. Both trample on individuals.
II: The cat is calling the kettle black. You are the only dictator on this stage.
VR: Strong measures are needed in an emergency. But the emergency is now over.
YD: In an economic emergency, then, would this govern the economy? Would the state command the economy if it deemed it to be collapsing?
VR: The state would intervene, yes.
YD: So then individual rights matter only sometimes, not always?
VR: When the exercise of individual rights threatens the stability of the whole of society, they do not matter. Society has its rights as well, which must be respected.
II: In my opinion, the individual is sacrosanct. Society is constructed from individuals, it is not something above; society can only be free if all individuals are free. In no circumstance should rights be curtailed, even if it is harming the economy and the state.
VR: So you would prefer disorder and feudalism to order and democracy?
II: Disorder, yes. Feudalism, no. But feudalism would not arise if the people had rights; they would defend them, would they not?
YD: A person might give up their rights if promised stability. We must respect certain bounds of personal freedom; but we must also act always in the interest of the whole, in the interest of stability and the general welfare, in order to preserve a democratic and republican system. Extremism in either direction will get us nowhere.
II: When the 'interest of the whole' conflicts with these bounds you mention? What happens then?
YD: There should be no conflict. But the interests of the whole override the interest of one, and will always do so. The state, in such unlikely circumstances, should act in the favor of all society rather than giving in to one person, who might very well bring everything down. We must think not of rights but, again, of the preservation of the democratic and republican system.
AS; Does opening the country up to foreign powers do that? In reality, I feel, you want, and so does Rikkalek, to preserve only the power of a certain class.
II: I concur here.
YD: Trade and connections with the outside world are necessary - to maintain the legitimacy of the state, and to maintain its economy. To remain a hermit state is to become susceptible to a genuine invasion and takeover, whether political or economic.
VR: We must also rememeber that the occupation has thrust us into the wolrd, whether we like it or not. We must act to defend our position, lest we be eaten up. Anti-imperialism, non-alignment; these have helped us gain relevance and thus security. So too have economic agreements helped improve our economy and thus life for the average person.
II: Indeed, invasion is now a threat; but this is but another invasion. Preparation must be done by ourselves. At the same time, international connections will merely limit our ability to deal with this. The only way to remove the threat which faces it, the necessary and inevitable way, is a drive to the south and the expansion of the people of Istkalen. This is possible only by ourselves, outside of the international community. Even then, how does defense require the selling of the control of our resources to other bodies?
VR: Cooperation demosntrates our legitimacy, and what you speak of is not control, per se; it is beneficial to all parties involved, and will significantly better the lives of many Istkaleners.
YD: Exactly.
AS: Action is far above material. People do not care if they are starving or full; they care only if they have control or do not have control. A starving person with autonomy over their own life is happy; a full person without is not. So too does this apply here.
YD: But we are not sacrificing control over ourselves. The state entered into the agreement with the agreement of the workers, and it may exit at any time.
II: That is what they always see. It is not necessarily true.
VR: This is conspiracy theorizing.
II: Which is of course what they said about you going down to Kirelesile and doing all sorts of things, but that turned out to be true in the end.
VR: My personal life as no bearing on this.
(TO BE CONTINUED)