comment made at 7th GSBR workshop.

2月16日、独トリア市議会議員(緑の党選出)のSigrun Priemer氏を迎えて北海道大学大学院法学研究科「研究推進ボード(GSRB)」によるワークショップが開催されました。

Thank you Naomi, I briefly introduce myself; I am Yoshida Toru (I always present my name by Family name first, as the world standard requires), Associate Professor in this faculty. My task as a discussant might not fully fit to the function I was given to (you see, a Japanese presentation begin always with an excuse) since I am rather a specialist of French politics, where as you know, the Green Party is, lets say rather vulnerable compare to Germany. Nevertheless, I d like to stress that I m honored to be a part of this workshop from the Initiative of the Graduates Students of our University.

Anyway, my comments comprise two points; one consists about my feelings and appreciation on Green party’s Politics and then a simple question to Miss Priemer.

I always thought that the most innovative and most valuable things as a political movement from the Green Party ,is that it brought a kind of instantness in a positive sense of the word, meaning “personal problems are public problems, and I fight for it, but once resolve, back to daily life.” But these attitudes are hard to last in the political world, when we remind for example the experiment of the Paris Commune, although the contexts are quite different.
But the Green Party resisted and grew up to be one of the successful governmental party.

This is certainly a great achievement, an achievement that Japanese can only admire and envy, but it is also easy to assume that it has its limits. And I d like to know, from an active member of the movement what it is.

I mean we could not omit the importance that the Soixante-huitard, the 68’s generations new left movement had to the Green party, as in Japan, we have seen the important factions of them going to the extreme, to the leftist terrorism, to the “dark side” and we have just now in heard also the positive side, all the characteristics that you mentioned.

As far as I know, the very core ideas that these revolutionary generations had presented such the radical democracy has not really got a large support from the civil society, but as a party organization, the Green had a larger electorates. And I d like to know how had, as a movement, the Greens had survived or managed these dilemmas, namely between Power and Ideas.

Second point.

The values that the Green Party brought in politics, such as gender issue or human rights as Miss Priemer emphasized, has become now a common property and shared values among the non-extremist parties, from the Left to the Right, even for the most conservative political party. In that sense we could say that these values have become just ordinary.
And this, in my opinion, is making hard times to Die Grune.

Of course, we can always state that the ideological goals are not achieved yet, but political norms are not the subject to be fulfilled unless we become a kind of naïve political romanticist.

Since, as from the 90’s , the Green politics has achieved a larger horizon, and what do you propose what will be the next political agenda or issues that this movement could bring in this 21st century.
We can easily imagine that the ecological problems are surely the main points, but these are now although imperfectly but firmly “Built in” in a global politics. And the Identity politics, including the gender or immigrants issues are still salient indeed, but these could not always be the most salient or at least to be a main issue for the electorates.

So what will, you think, that the next “Silence Revolution”, what will be the name that replaces “the post-materialistic values” named already 35 years ago?

These 2 points are my questions, rather than a comments to Miss Priemer’s todays presentation.