Kairos 45

The question was simple:  » What democratic legitimacy is there to make certain decisions when most of the members who decide and think are part of the multinationals and the world of finance ? It was April 15, during the press conference following the National Security Council, in the middle of the Coronavirus crisis. Shile this question did not require any particular talent to be understood, we did not really expect an answer, knowing that it was impossible for them: one cannot ensure both the common good and the returns on investment, perhaps even more so in the health field. It was thus a question of giving the proof, at a time when the audience was at its peak — which is never given to us as a free media — that their speech is only spectacular gesticulation, a kind of com plan to hide what they are and who they really serve. 

When you ask a minister with a degree in communication from the IHECS, advertising option, a special degree in financial management, Minister of Budget in the Michel government, former advisor to a business law firm, from a family close to the political and financial world⁽¹⁾whose father was a founding member of the Cercle de Lorraine⁽²⁾at the heart of the power so⁽³⁾When asked what she thinks of this incestuous mixture of the public and private worlds, she is obviously not expected to do penance and immediately dismiss her colleagues for conflict of interest. There can be no answer, no acceptable motivation and no justification, and this explains why our presence is no longer desired at a government press conference. Our question of April 15 has sufficiently shaken up the lines. The reaction also speaks for itself, as the minister is surprised and taken aback, as if she had been served dessert before the entrée. You will conclude yourselves, after reading this article, if those who lead us are at the service of the common good or only represent themselves and their friends bosses and bankers. 

« Conflict of interest? This concept is non-existent for someone who considers that politics serves the interests of capital. She will express it clearly, when during my questioning on April 15, Sophie Wilmès will interrupt me:  » Sir, I do not intend to interrupt you (sic)But if you intend to give the CVs of all the people who work and have the right to a little privacy, I encourage you to finish your question and I will answer it . A little privacy , therefore, means that it considers that the fact of knowing what may be the possible personal motivations of those who lead us to make political decisions, is part of the domain of private life: fantastic reversal of the concept of general interest. 

1. MEDIA AND POLITICS 

In this dramatization of reality,  » the big media actors of the Belgian landscape⁽⁴⁾  » are the safeguards that protect the politicians from any questions that could break their game of representation. So there was only one attempt on our part on April 15, and Sophie Wilmès’ feverish search to prevent me from trying a second shot, that is, asking a second question⁽⁵⁾This is a perfect example of the process of matching political and media thinking within a well-defined framework, where the aim is to ensure that the listener and viewer will not move — he should not feel his chains. These tacit media-political agreements will also be evoked: the refusal of Minister-President Jeholet to answer my question on the evening of April 24⁽⁶⁾The silence of the press service of Minister Wilmès in the face of our many emails and phone calls, the silence of the minister in the face of letters sent by citizens inviting her to explain her refusal of our presence at the press conference. However, as one of our readers will say:  » She announces on her site « to be with the listening »… ». Announcement effects precisely… communication processes, where we notice that the more we say we are listening, the less we hear. 

(…)