Jonas Staal Power?… To Which People?! Jap Sam Books, Heijningen 2010 Contents I 7 Power?… To Which People?! 9 Introduction Jonas Staal Power?… To Which People?! 19 Suppose… (Concerning the work of Jonas Staal) Chris Keulemans Power?… To Which People?! 25 The necessity of enthusiastic artistic leadership in the formation and activation of creative coalitions in the Netherlands BAVO Power?… To Which People?! 35 Notes after a conversation with Jonas Staal Mihnea Mircan Power?… To Which People?! 45 The Sign of Withdrawal Marko Stamenković II 69 Appendix 205 Plea ii Rather a threat than a marginalized pawn 207 Jonas Staal Interview with Ronald Sørensen (Party Leader Leefbaar Rotterdam) 213 and Anton Molenaar (Leefbaar Rotterdam Representative for Youth, Education and Culture) Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei and Jonas Staal Against Irony 219 Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei and Jonas Staal Index nominum 223 Authors 227 1 6 7 Power?… To Which People?! Introduction Jonas Staal The reason underlying the conception of this publication is 1 tantamount to the motives that have formed the basis of my visual and written work of the last five years. The projects that I have realized during this period, and the way I wanted to direct them, all have been driven by an urgency that I want to call the urgency of positioning: the continuously present need to demand a platform; a platform to shape my existence and the theatre where I execute myself as interchangeable subject. The persistent question: what does it mean to live in these times, and how do I claim them as my own? To answer this question, it is necessary to penetrate the fun- 2 daments of the systems regulating Western thought today: the fundaments on which we show our ethical and moral perspectives. I claim, that the basis of this thought is formed by democratism1: an ideological framework that originates from – and aims to be an answer to – the slogan ‘Power to the People!’ The representatives of democratism institute an ideal model 3 in which those who find themselves in a (temporary) position of power can always be held accountable by the People. For this reason, they claim that in democratism, through elec- tions or referendums, the People always have the final say. According to this ideological principle, power is distributed over society; each individual who passes the magical age of eighteen is considered a full member of civil society, carry- ing the responsibility to assist in shaping the ideological fun- daments of society and to manage its development. Elections do not only form a so-called beginning of a renewed inter- pretation of this ideological principle, they also announce the moment when the leaders of the past years are judged for the way they have shaped the temporary position of power that they were given. Thus, the power of the people solidifies the outcome of the 4 elections into temporary leaders occupying temporary posi- tions. This dictatorship of the majority is meant to prevent 9 other forms of dictatorial regimes; the moment when a single which is often called radical, but which in fact appears to be individual acquires an unlimited mandate and is no longer ultraconservative and surprisingly unimaginative. In West- obligated to legitimate its consequences to the People. This ern Europe, these enlightenment thinkers have created the form is usually referred to as totalitarianism. The traumas of basis for a rapidly growing number of right wing populist the twentieth century have elevated concepts such as totali- movements. Within their discourse, which is finding ever tarianism and dictatorship to the level of obloquy. Anything growing support within society, a crucial inversion in the related to totalitarian thought, the idea that any vision could thinking about democratism is taking place; namely from be an absolute vision – or worse: could represent a claim to a structure that we can constantly redefine and change, to truth – is interpreted as an inevitable impetus for mass mur- a system which has become a hermetic vehicle of vaguely der and repression. In order to no longer know themselves formulated ‘enlightened’ values that are beyond question- to be vulnerable for these concepts, politicians employ the ing. Concepts such as tolerance and freedom are no longer important maxim: ‘The voter is always right!’ employed in favour of an imagination, a necessity for dan- gerous thought – i.e., the dangerous capacity of identifying 5 In doing so, an apparently full reversal has been effected: with the motives of individuals that are not our own, and from the People’s demand (‘Power to the People!’) to a com- will never have to be our own – but have become weapons of plete compliance with this demand by politicians (‘The voter a conservative wave, mainly employed by the ‘enlightened’ is always right!’). Each inception of totalitarian thought is to differentiate themselves from the ‘unenlightened’, who, always retorted with this maxim, whence it forms the ulti- owing to their religious background, will never be able to mate weapon of the stupid and dangerous among us when- become ‘enlightened’, or in any case are still far from it. ever the foundations of democratism are being discussed. For who would want to doubt the will of the People? Would This aspect can also be traced as the ideological basis of the 7 it not be the case that the foundations of democratism are Dutch political support for the invasion of Iraq by the Amer- affected, when politicians would place their truth on a level ican army in 2001. Although there was no possible rational higher than the truth of the People? For the democratic proj- argument to legitimate such a violation of international ect is a Triumph of the Will – and this will is always valid, treaties, the fact that Iraq was led by a dictatorial regime, a always right. Since it is not because of a will to power (civil- totalitarian state, and the conviction that this country was ians usually don’t vote literally to be in power themselves), underdeveloped by definition and headed by an actually but rather because of a delegation of power, assigned to a ‘retarded’ regime, rendered this violation unassailable and number of individuals, representatives, who are tolerated legitimate a priori. This is a case of exported democratism, in under the merciful, all-seeing eye of the People: politicians. which democratism is marketed as a better and high- quality system, especially when the undemocratic target market 6 Over the past years, the occidental interpretation of demo- refuses any co-operation whatsoever. Comparable obscu- cratism has been an ideological instrument, a weapon of rity was shown in the international response to the execution radical enlightenment thinkers – writers and opinion ma kers of the former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. Our Prime who used the separation between church and state and Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende argued: ‘I do think justice has related civil rights such as freedom of speech to differentiate been done, [but] you all know, the death penalty is actually themselves fundamentally from other forms of society which something about which the Netherlands have said: “this is had not experienced a similarly recognizable break. Often, not really how it should be.”’² So the inverse is also possible: they even dared to claim that their own enlightened doc- targets that Western democracies would like to realize (exe- trines were not ideological in nature, for they would merely cution of a dictator) are legitimated by having ‘retarded’ protect individual liberties in a ‘natural’ way. Under the cultures do the job as something which they cannot be fully guise of concepts such as Freedom of Speech, they intended blamed for; they have only just encountered democratism, to differentiate themselves from the Muslim community, as if they were still innocent and ignorant children. 10 11 8 Inevitably, an equally unimaginative opposition to the the question in, any answer will be favourable as long as his radical enlightenment thinkers has developed: the diversity question is well formulated. The referendum for the Euro- thinkers, pretending to stand for an intercultural dialogue, pean Constitution in 2006 proves to be an excellent model unrestrained tolerance toward ‘the other’, whom they thus to illustrate this: the political parties, who were against proclaim to be some kind of foreign fairy-tale figure. These it, celebrated their victory on account of the rejection by diversity thinkers merely advocate Human Rights, and dis- the omniscient voter. But also the parties who ‘lost’ cele- sociate themselves from ideological dogmas, of which they brated their victory, because ‘Democracy had triumphed.’ prove that their lack in differentiation could never lead to A triumph, for the power was in the hands of the people… something good. To do so, they use the Holocaust as a per- About which power and which people are we talking here, verse instrument to undermine any real discussion. They when each answer, each reaction, can always already be too champion democratism, freedom of speech, and equal claimed as right and just by the system itself? rights, albeit only on the basis of an apathetic ethics which suppresses any real difference. I suspect that it is the trauma of the so-called big ideologies 11 from the (even bigger) twentieth century that discourages 9 The basic assumptions of both apparently opposite move- our artists – our avant-garde – to affiliate themselves with ments lead to the following question: when we are flooded any ‘ideological’ viewpoint whatsoever (I place the concept with the umpteenth plea for Democracy, Liberation, Human ideological between quotes since – naturally – any utterance Rights, and Freedom of Speech: about whose democracy, or act has an ideological basis, the only difference being liberation, human rights and freedom of speech are we actu- whether one would wish to be held accountable for this pub- ally talking? We are speaking here of the liberty of those licly or not).