Attributing “power” is always problematic, because in each case there is always a question of defining the goal in view: either create or restore. On the other hand, it always requires an assessment of the nature of the powers in question, which are related to the limit, whether it is appropriate or delegated, granted without validity or limitation. Obviously, experts multiply language because political theories provoke it, because it can be a matter of political power, but, requiring the building of an economy, it can be individualized with the option of guest government officials.
Naturally, complexity is often given priority due to the need to communicate this to the owner and the desire for a replacement announced by opponents. There are also differences in assessment in relation to the target holders of power, but often before the growing democratization of the regime. Moving away from elitist adjectives influences their effective hierarchy and strong relationship with the concept of “pragmatism” that William James (1842-1910) concluded, guided by gradation, either by the results obtained or by the gradation of intervention. In the United States, it seems that pragmatism has become dominant in the sphere of political power, which does not mean that the integrity of values is guaranteed. In all this complex business, predicting the future requires a lot of effort, because decision-makers always put their position at risk in the process in which they were active, and social choice is always a risk that is often overlooked.
We question this because the difficult days in which we find ourselves seem to inspire new practices in a hierarchy of issues that challenge the respected power potential in question. It is not the number of problems with a reliable life that is at stake, as the number of published information and opinions increases the number of published materials. It seems that it is the hierarchy of risks that challenges the severity of those who intervene. The listing is not covered by possible secrecy, because suffering or fear does not contribute to the concealment of the image. But when, on the same week or day, the intensification of Covid-19 clearly threatens Europe itself, and ten European countries find themselves in an alarming situation for authorities and people of all ages, it is not reassuring that diplomacy between Paris and Moscow brings a difficult search for calm, leading to dialogue between the respective ministers of foreign affairs and the military, and precisely in Paris, to resolve differences.
There are many problems in this area, but it is difficult to achieve peace of mind for the population affected by the pandemic crisis. The crisis of the “common home of men”, which faces an environmental problem that does not convince the young inheritors of the legacy that a generation that will live, but that will not live, will create to leave them. The issue of migrations, the creation of protective walls against the net saving of lives, also seems to be overlooked at times. There is a duty to protect the planet “The Common Land of People,” and we see a “creed of values” articulate a legacy for the heirs of youth, in whose lives we will not be involved. In managing what was left of the planet’s present and future, it does not seem advisable that the gaps between big and small ambitions continue to be so numerous that they thought they were taking on their own hierarchy, with untouchable populations and extended dominance.
Europe from a weary alliance considers itself to be under threat due to the new Covid-19 strategy, but the resolution of England to revise agreements on withdrawal from the Union or to discuss Franco-Russian tensions, in which, before the discussion of the presidents of Russia and Turkey, it is about Libya, the inability to give general safeguards to prevent a catastrophe of emigrants, including women and children, who leave the land they were born to die in waters they barely knew. Obviously, choices are sometimes a challenge to imagine that the Earth exists for only a few, when all of Nature knows that there are no species for which no end point is defined. The UN warnings about the “swamp” do not wait for the reaction of all denominations and nationalities to reinvent the global government that mends the disaster on the planet. Taking responsibility for rethinking the new global order is a challenge that is becoming evident and awaits commitment, hope and trust.
