. As problemáticas que são propostas pelas sondagens de opinião são subordinadas a interesses políticos, e isso orienta muito fortemente tanto o significado das respostas como o significado que é dado à publicação dos resultados. A sondagem de opinião é, no momento actual, um instrumento de acção política; a sua função mais importante talvez seja a de impor a ilusão de que existe uma opinião pública como somatório puramente aditivo de opiniões individuais; a de impor a ideia de que existe alguma coisa que seria como que a média das opiniões ou a opinião média. A “opinião pública” que é manifestada nas primeiras páginas dos jornais sob a forma de percentagens (60% dos franceses são favoráveis a…), esta opinião pública é um artefacto puro e simples, cuja função é a de dissimular que o estado da opinião num determinado momento é um sistema de forças, de tensões, e que não há nada de mais inadequado para representar o estado de opinião do que uma percentagem.
. Sabe-se que qualquer exercício de força é acompanhado de um discurso que visa legitimar a força de quem o exerce; pode mesmo dizer-se que o que caracteriza uma relação de força é que não se tem senão a força que se dissimula enquanto tal. Em resumo, para falar com simplicidade, o homem político é aquele que diz: “Deus está connosco”. O equivalente de “Deus está connosco” é, hoje em dia, “a opinião pública está connosco”. Este é o efeito fundamental de uma sondagem de opinião: formar a ideia de que existe uma opinião pública unânime, e assim legitimar uma política e reforçar as relações de força que a fundamentam e a tornam possível.
Extrato de “L’opinion publique n’existe pas” (Quelques remarques critiques sur les sondages d’opinion) par Pierre Bourdieu - 24 octobre 2012
adaptado de um e-mail enviado pelo Cid
Não esquecer: As sondagens são instrumentos de acção política.
Obama: «Construiremos um regime legal apropriado».
Bush: «Bravo, amigo! Já estás a apanhar o truque!»
Pois é, esta posição não é apenas defendida na caricatura de Josetxo Ezcurra. É a «evolução na continuidade» do prémio Nobel da Paz de 2009, Barack Obama. «Evolução» nas palavras, «continuidade» nos actos. Não acredita? Leia o discurso de Obama sobre segurança nacional nos Arquivos Nacionais em 21 de Maio:
1. Limpar a porcaria deixada pela anterior administração...
Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions.
That's why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let those detainees go in the past.
Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford.
But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight;
For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable — a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass.
2. Prender pessoas que não cometeram crimes...
But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States.
3. Prender pessoas preventivamente...
Al-Qaida terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture — like other prisoners of war — must be prevented from attacking us again.
4. E tudo dentro das regras da lei...
But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process;
Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al-Qaida that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law.
That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law.
5. Construir um regime legal para justificar todas estas ilegalidades...
That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category.
We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.
But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.
6. E as frases seguintes fazem lembrar o ex-presidente Bush...
Right now, in distant training camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and — in all probability — 10 years from now.
Nobel Prize-winning playwright Harold Pinter, who has died at the age of 78, strongly opposed the war in Iraq, calling it ''a bandit act.'' In a speech he gave in Sweden, he said President George W Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair should be tried as war criminals for instigating the invasion.
The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading - as a last resort - all other justifications having failed to justify themselves - as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.
We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.
How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.
(...)
Early in the invasion there was a photograph published on the front page of British newspapers of Tony Blair kissing the cheek of a little Iraqi boy. 'A grateful child,' said the caption. A few days later there was a story and photograph, on an inside page, of another four-year-old boy with no arms. His family had been blown up by a missile. He was the only survivor. 'When do I get my arms back?' he asked. The story was dropped. Well, Tony Blair wasn't holding him in his arms, nor the body of any other mutilated child, nor the body of any bloody corpse. Blood is dirty. It dirties your shirt and tie when you're making a sincere speech on television.
L'invasion de l'Irak était un acte de banditisme, un acte de terrorisme d'État patenté, témoignant d'un absolu mépris pour la notion de droit international. Cette invasion était un engagement militaire arbitraire inspiré par une série de mensonges répétés sans fin et une manipulation flagrante des médias et, partant, du public ; une intervention visant à renforcer le contrôle militaire et économique de l'Amérique sur le Moyen-Orient et se faisant passer – en dernier ressort – toutes les autres justifications n'ayant pas réussi à prouver leur bien-fondé – pour une libération. Une red outable affirmation de la force militaire responsable de la mort et de la mutilation de milliers et de milliers d'innocents.
Nous avons apporté au peuple irakien la torture, les bombes à fragmentation, l'uranium appauvri, d'innombrables tueries commises au hasard, la misère, l'humiliation et la mort et nous appelons cela « apporter la liberté et la démocratie au Moyen-Orient».
Combien de gens vous faut-il tuer avant d'avoir droit au titre de meurtrier de masse et de criminel de guerre ? Cent mille ? Plus qu'assez, serais-je tenté de croire. Il serait donc juste que Bush et Blair soient appelés à comparaître devant la Cour internationale de justice. Mais Bush a été malin. Il n'a pas ratifié la Cour internationale de justice. Donc, si un soldat américain ou, à plus forte raison, un homme politique américain, devait se retrouver au banc des accusés, Bush a prévenu qu'il enverrait les marines. Mais Tony Blair, lui, a ratifié la Cour et peut donc faire l'objet de poursuites.Nous pouvons communiquer son adresse à la Cour si ça l'intéresse. Il habite au 10 Downing Street, Londres.
(...)
Aux premiers jours de l'invasion une photo a été publiée à la une des journaux britanniques ; on y voit Tony Blair embrassant sur la joue un petit garçon irakien. « Un enfant reconnaissant » disait la légende. Quelques jours plus tard on pouvait trouver, en pages intérieures, l'histoire et la photo d'un autre petit garçon de quatre ans qui n'avait plus de bras. Sa famille avait été pulvérisée par un missile. C'était le seul survivant. « Quand est-ce que je retrouverai mes bras ? » demandait-il. L'histoire est passée à la trappe. Eh bien oui, Tony Blair ne le serrait pas contre lui, pas plus qu'il ne serrait dans ses bras le corps d'un autre enfant mutilé, ou le corps d'un cadavre ensanglanté. Le sang, c'est sale. Ça salit votre chemise et votre cravate quand vous parlez avec sincérité devant les caméras de télévision.
«THE Nato war is a bandit action, committed with no serious consideration of the consequences, confused, ill thought, miscalculated, an act of deplorable machismo. Yet, according to opinion polls most British people support this war, believing we may have a moral duty to intervene and the moral authority to do so.
What is moral authority? Where does it come from? How do you achieve it? Who bestows it upon you? How do you persuade others that you possess it? You don't. You don't have to bother. What you have is power. Bombs and power. And that's your moral authority. »
