Centralization vs. Decentralization🌍 ecoTrain QOTW "In what ways has centralisation failed us?"
"Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Centralization vs. Decentralization
This week's QOTW is loaded with frustration at the perception of a problem as widespread as it is uncontrollable by ordinary citizens, as it forms part of the fabric made with the threads of Power at a world level, that tangle that concentrates everything that concerns humanity in one center in order to create and recreate strategies to keep the world as it is. This kind of theatre in which everyone plays their part, but many of the actions are predetermined by the ways in which power is exercised, seen as a centre from which connections with the periphery are radiated.
As a form of management, management from a center is nefarious in many respects, starting with bureaucracy, which is nothing more than a control of central power in order to dominate people with methodologies arranged in a standardized way.
But what is good for government control is not necessarily good for the people they "serve" and this has degenerated into chaos with all its aftermath. From this panorama is nourished the main question:
"How has centralization failed us?" and the rosary of questions that more than questions are observations of a critical and awakened mind: Isn't it interesting that all the political systems we have today, whether capitalism or communism, are based on a totally centralized system ... and all are completely corrupt. Isn't it interesting how every political system on the planet focuses solely on power and money in an attempt to dominate the world at any cost? This is just one example of how centralization has failed us, and by we we mean you and me, and ultimately everyone..."
Centralization is a political-administrative structure according to which power, authority and all public decisions and functions are granted to the State as the centre of the political, administrative, territory, legal and economic life of a nation.. Decentralization, on the other hand, is a process that transfers the affairs of the state capital to local entities to promote the sustainable management of natural resources, the preservation of the environment and the management of the territory.
In the words of Alexis de Tocqueville, decentralization has not only an administrative value, but also a civic dimension, as it increases opportunities for citizens to take an interest in public affairs, makes them accustomed to using freedom. These active and persistent local freedoms are born as the most efficient counterbalance to the claims of the central government, even if backed by a collective and impersonal will.
Seen from the confrontation, we can immediately notice how the difference between these two forms of exercise of power of one over the other, is abysmal. Decentralization decongests a group of functions at the central level, allowing a quick and timely approach to decision-making. However, there are those who say that it can generate a disproportionate territorial development, laying the foundations for the conformation of local elites with particular interests, which can attempt against the welfare of the macro of society. However, it should be noted that decentralization reinforces the democratic character of a State and the principle of cooperative participation.
So, if the superiority of one way of operating over the other is so clear, why do we keep betting on centralization? And, although it irritates, it must be said.... For power and money, which is the rudder that steers the ship of the world!
Based on my experience, I would like to share with you that Venezuela experienced a period of decentralization before the current form of government, rooted in a supposed socialism of the 21st century, totally centralized and totalitarian, was implemented.
During the time directed towards decentralization, a long way was advanced in terms of advantages for the states (territorial political divisions) that, little by little, were gaining not only independence to govern with people coming from the region, who knew from experience the region with its strengths and weaknesses, in order to implement plans adapted to the needs. The time came when the direct relationship between candidates for government positions and political parties was lost. People's mentality was changing, they were no longer voting for one color, but for one person. But, this situation was taken advantage of by the architect of this tragedy that we Venezuelans live today, the now deceased: "supreme commander" Hugo Chávez Frías.
Once in power, in 1999, he nailed his axe to a supposed war against the bourgeoisie, against capitalism, against the United States and the capitalist countries, allied with Cuba, Russia, China and other communist countries to "liberate" the world from the threat of capitalism, but being more capitalist than many, he wore designer clothes, famous watches, private planes and all the luxuries provided by the highest oil rent in the country's history. He squandered a fortune, created a network of giant corruption, supported the countries of the region with resources and money to buy allies, while the people were accustomed to receiving bonuses for loyalty to their government, thus creating the great "missions" that still exist today and that are nothing more than disguises to distribute money without real work, sowing the root of a cultural change based on populism.
Little by little he centralized so much that he knelt the regions at the foot of the capital. Everything was returned to Caracas. Even in these days, no state is independent and the people who dare to elect a Governor from a political canopy different from the "red, red" of the governing party, are condemned to more misery than the common one and the Governor is practically disqualified by setting up a "public servant," with more power than he who was elected by the people, to follow government lines. No opposition governor is free to truly administer his region, as they cut budgets to appear mismanagement, when in reality they do not let them govern by boycotting even initiatives that could serve the people, plunging them into more misery.
With this suffocating vomit, I do not want to inconvenience some people, but to emphasise that power concentrated in a space and in a small number of people corrupts, although no political system is exempt from sins in terms of the distribution of wealth, the well-being of people, work for and by all citizens, care for the environment, valuing and respecting all people without discrimination. But if the toxicity of centralisation were addressed by measures based on the opposite: decentralisation, the world would be a better place. There would be more awareness, more liberating work, less competition to climb the ladder of power that would no longer be so high, more freedom to undertake, more dreams to realize because people would be closer to the object of their dreams, closer to the earth, closer to the people, closer to the planet and without so many turns to achieve the production of goods and services kind to nature.
And although it may seem redundant after all that has been said, it is not superfluous to say... How much damage the centralization has done to us!
"I am grateful not to be one of the wheels of power, but one of the creatures that are crushed by them."
06/11/2019
The images are from Pixabay CC0 Creative Commons:
network by geralt
fantasy by cdd20
wound by cdd20
Separators:
Cat
Simplemente Gracias
For your kind reading, simply THANK YOU
Hola @zeleiracordero, excelente post mi amiga , un gusto verte nuevamente.
Bendiciones
¡Gracias por la lectura, @martha75! Bendiciones retornadas. Siempre es un gusto tenerte cerca.
fantastic post! and thank you for sharing a bit about Venuzuaela's history.. i didint know much about!
<3
Oh, much gratitude for your appreciation, dear @eco-alex. I embrace you infinitely.
I enjoyed reading your response, in particular about Venezuela. I know, many "progressive" types in the US love to mention Venezuela, together with Cuba, as an example of how capitalism and the US in particular have impeded what could have been a progress for the better. And even though I agree that US interventions have caused a lot of harm in Latin America, you can't throw everything in the same bucket. And yes, just because someone has the best intentions, or at least say so, does not mean they alone can change things for the better. On the contrary: simply the fact that they are trying to take charge by themselves implies more centralization. Unfortunately, these days I can see a very similar tendency in Bolivia, where the "benevolent dictator" just refuses to give up the sweet power. In the end it doesn't matter if it's left or right. If too much power (or anything) is concentrated in one place, things can not get better. Left and right eventually meet, creating a ring to bind them all.
Exactly! That's how I see it too. It's not a question of political tendencies, because in the end they all go for the same thing, getting power and staying in it at the cost of whatever. That's why centralization is a tool in their favor, it helps them maintain control and power.
Thank you, @stortebeker!
Power corrupts indeed..i loved reading your response, particularly as it applies to your country. Once enough of us wake up to the damages it does, maybe the world can change for the better.
Posted using Partiko Android
Thank you very much! Your visit is an honor.
This post was shared in the Curation Collective Discord community for curators, and upvoted and resteemed by the @c-squared community account after manual review.
@c-squared runs a community witness. Please consider using one of your witness votes on us here
Highly grateful for your support, I appreciate it.