Ens va sorprendre. El bar de Washington DC en el qual seguíem la nit electoral va emmudir. De respecte i admiració al senador McCain i, especialment, pel discurs de concessió que el d’Arizona va fer aquella nit.

En política hi ha formes i formes. I la seva manera d’acceptar la derrota i felicitar al guanyador és un exemple que molts haurien de seguir.

La britànica Emmeline Pankhurst va ser una de les fundadores del moviment de les sufragistes britàniques. Va dedicar la seva vida a fer real una cosa que avui és normal en els països democràtics: la igualtat de drets d’homes i dones en el vot.

El 1914 es va dirigir un dels seus discursos més famosos a Hartford, Connecticut, Estats Units. En aquest discurs, del que reproduïm una part a continuació, Pankhurst es presentava com un soldat i un presoner que havia abandonat temporalment el camp de batalla.

Gràcies a persones com Pankhurst, a la seva devoció, el seu lideratge, la seva visió i els seus sacrificis, moltes desigualtats es van superar. Una inspiració, sense dubte, per a tantes altres barreres que s’erigeixen en el nostre món actual.

“No tinc massa aspecte de soldat ni de presoner, però sóc les dues coses”

No he vingut aquí com a advocada defensora, perquè sigui quina sigui la posició que ocupi el moviment pel sufragi als Estats Units d’Amèrica, a Anglaterra no es tracta ja de defensar-lo, el moviment és ja part de la vida política. S’ha convertit en el tema de la revolució i la guerra civil, i així  aquesta nit no estic aquí per defensar el sufragi femení. Les sufragistes nord-americans poden fer això perfectament. Estic aquí en qualitat de soldat que ha abandonat temporalment el camp de batalla per tal d’explicar -sembla estrany que hagi de ser explicat- què és la guerra civil quan aquesta la lliuren les dones. No només estic aquí com un soldat temporalment absent del camp a la batalla; sóc aquí -i això, crec, és el més estrany de la meva presència- estic aquí com una persona que, d’acord al que han decidit els tribunals de justícia de meu país, no té cap valor per a la comunitat, a causa del meu estil de vida s’ha jutjat que sóc una persona perillosa, sota pena de treballs forçats en una presó. Per tant, algun interès ha de tenir escoltar a una persona tan peculiar com jo. Segur que molts de vosaltres penseu que no tinc massa aspecte de soldat ni de presoner, però sóc les dues coses. [...]

Vull dir a les persones que no creuen que les dones puguem tenir èxit, que hem portat al govern d’Anglaterra a la seva situació actual i per tant ha de enfrontar-se a aquesta alternativa: o les dones moren o obtenen el dret a vot. Els pregunto als homes nord-americans que estan en aquesta reunió, què pensarien si visquessin una situació semblant en el seu Estat; mataríeu a aquestes dones o els donaríeu la ciutadania, dones a les quals respecteu, dones que sabeu que han viscut vides útils, dones a les que coneixeu, encara que no sigui personalment? Dones que busquen la llibertat i el poder per exercir un útil servei públic. Bé, només hi ha una resposta a aquesta alternativa, només hi ha una sortida, a menys que estigueu disposats a retardar l’avanç de la civilització dues o tres generacions, cal atorgar el dret de vot a aquestes dones. Aquest és el resultat de la nostra guerra civil.

Discurs complet (en anglès)

Fragment extret de “Palabras que cambiaron el mundo. 50 discursos que han hecho historia”

La seva visió sobre la Guerra de Corea va dur-lo a mostrar en públic les seves discrepàncies amb el president Harry S. Truman. Per això, l’heroi de la Segona Guerra Mundial va ser revelat. Va acudir al Congrés per dirigir unes paraules de comiat a les cambres, el 19 d’abril de 1951.

El militar nord-americà més condecorat de la història, que va ser un dels cinc generals en la història del país, es va dirigir al Congrés i al país per deixar clara la seva visió de la Guerra de Corea i resumir els canvis, els reptes i les oportunitats que tenia davant seu el poder militar dels Estats Units.

Part 2, part 3 i part 4.

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, and Distinguished Members of the Congress:

I stand on this rostrum with a sense of deep humility and great pride — humility in the wake of those great American architects of our history who have stood here before me; pride in the reflection that this forum of legislative debate represents human liberty in the purest form yet devised. Here are centered the hopes and aspirations and faith of the entire human race. I do not stand here as advocate for any partisan cause, for the issues are fundamental and reach quite beyond the realm of partisan consideration. They must be resolved on the highest plane of national interest if our course is to prove sound and our future protected. I trust, therefore, that you will do me the justice of receiving that which I have to say as solely expressing the considered viewpoint of a fellow American.

I address you with neither rancor nor bitterness in the fading twilight of life, with but one purpose in mind: to serve my country. The issues are global and so interlocked that to consider the problems of one sector, oblivious to those of another, is but to court disaster for the whole. While Asia is commonly referred to as the Gateway to Europe, it is no less true that Europe is the Gateway to Asia, and the broad influence of the one cannot fail to have its impact upon the other. There are those who claim our strength is inadequate to protect on both fronts, that we cannot divide our effort. I can think of no greater expression of defeatism. If a potential enemy can divide his strength on two fronts, it is for us to counter his effort. The Communist threat is a global one. Its successful advance in one sector threatens the destruction of every other sector. You can not appease or otherwise surrender to communism in Asia without simultaneously undermining our efforts to halt its advance in Europe.

Beyond pointing out these general truisms, I shall confine my discussion to the general areas of Asia. Before one may objectively assess the situation now existing there, he must comprehend something of Asia’s past and the revolutionary changes which have marked her course up to the present. Long exploited by the so-called colonial powers, with little opportunity to achieve any degree of social justice, individual dignity, or a higher standard of life such as guided our own noble administration in the Philippines, the peoples of Asia found their opportunity in the war just past to throw off the shackles of colonialism and now see the dawn of new opportunity, a heretofore unfelt dignity, and the self-respect of political freedom.

Mustering half of the earth’s population, and 60 percent of its natural resources these peoples are rapidly consolidating a new force, both moral and material, with which to raise the living standard and erect adaptations of the design of modern progress to their own distinct cultural environments. Whether one adheres to the concept of colonization or not, this is the direction of Asian progress and it may not be stopped. It is a corollary to the shift of the world economic frontiers as the whole epicenter of world affairs rotates back toward the area whence it started.

In this situation, it becomes vital that our own country orient its policies in consonance with this basic evolutionary condition rather than pursue a course blind to the reality that the colonial era is now past and the Asian peoples covet the right to shape their own free destiny. What they seek now is friendly guidance, understanding, and support — not imperious direction — the dignity of equality and not the shame of subjugation. Their pre-war standard of life, pitifully low, is infinitely lower now in the devastation left in war’s wake. World ideologies play little part in Asian thinking and are little understood. What the peoples strive for is the opportunity for a little more food in their stomachs, a little better clothing on their backs, a little firmer roof over their heads, and the realization of the normal nationalist urge for political freedom. These political-social conditions have but an indirect bearing upon our own national security, but do form a backdrop to contemporary planning which must be thoughtfully considered if we are to avoid the pitfalls of unrealism.

Of more direct and immediate bearing upon our national security are the changes wrought in the strategic potential of the Pacific Ocean in the course of the past war. Prior thereto the western strategic frontier of the United States lay on the littoral line of the Americas, with an exposed island salient extending out through Hawaii, Midway, and Guam to the Philippines. That salient proved not an outpost of strength but an avenue of weakness along which the enemy could and did attack.

The Pacific was a potential area of advance for any predatory force intent upon striking at the bordering land areas. All this was changed by our Pacific victory. Our strategic frontier then shifted to embrace the entire Pacific Ocean, which became a vast moat to protect us as long as we held it. Indeed, it acts as a protective shield for all of the Americas and all free lands of the Pacific Ocean area. We control it to the shores of Asia by a chain of islands extending in an arc from the Aleutians to the Mariannas held by us and our free allies. From this island chain we can dominate with sea and air power every Asiatic port from Vladivostok to Singapore — with sea and air power every port, as I said, from Vladivostok to Singapore — and prevent any hostile movement into the Pacific.

*Any predatory attack from Asia must be an amphibious effort.* No amphibious force can be successful without control of the sea lanes and the air over those lanes in its avenue of advance. With naval and air supremacy and modest ground elements to defend bases, any major attack from continental Asia toward us or our friends in the Pacific would be doomed to failure.

Under such conditions, the Pacific no longer represents menacing avenues of approach for a prospective invader. It assumes, instead, the friendly aspect of a peaceful lake. Our line of defense is a natural one and can be maintained with a minimum of military effort and expense. It envisions no attack against anyone, nor does it provide the bastions essential for offensive operations, but properly maintained, would be an invincible defense against aggression. The holding of this littoral defense line in the western Pacific is entirely dependent upon holding all segments thereof; for any major breach of that line by an unfriendly power would render vulnerable to determined attack every other major segment.

This is a military estimate as to which I have yet to find a military leader who will take exception. For that reason, I have strongly recommended in the past, as a matter of military urgency, that under no circumstances must Formosa fall under Communist control. Such an eventuality would at once threaten the freedom of the Philippines and the loss of Japan and might well force our western frontier back to the coast of California, Oregon and Washington.

To understand the changes which now appear upon the Chinese mainland, one must understand the changes in Chinese character and culture over the past 50 years. China, up to 50 years ago, was completely non-homogenous, being compartmented into groups divided against each other. The war-making tendency was almost non-existent, as they still followed the tenets of the Confucian ideal of pacifist culture. At the turn of the century, under the regime of Chang Tso Lin, efforts toward greater homogeneity produced the start of a nationalist urge. This was further and more successfully developed under the leadership of Chiang Kai-Shek, but has been brought to its greatest fruition under the present regime to the point that it has now taken on the character of a united nationalism of increasingly dominant, aggressive tendencies.

Through these past 50 years the Chinese people have thus become militarized in their concepts and in their ideals. They now constitute excellent soldiers, with competent staffs and commanders. This has produced a new and dominant power in Asia, which, for its own purposes, is allied with Soviet Russia but which in its own concepts and methods has become aggressively imperialistic, with a lust for expansion and increased power normal to this type of imperialism.

There is little of the ideological concept either one way or another in the Chinese make-up. The standard of living is so low and the capital accumulation has been so thoroughly dissipated by war that the masses are desperate and eager to follow any leadership which seems to promise the alleviation of local stringencies.

I have from the beginning believed that the Chinese Communists’ support of the North Koreans was the dominant one. Their interests are, at present, parallel with those of the Soviet. But I believe that the aggressiveness recently displayed not only in Korea but also in Indo-China and Tibet and pointing potentially toward the South reflects predominantly the same lust for the expansion of power which has animated every would-be conqueror since the beginning of time.

The Japanese people, since the war, have undergone the greatest reformation recorded in modern history. With a commendable will, eagerness to learn, and marked capacity to understand, they have, from the ashes left in war’s wake, erected in Japan an edifice dedicated to the supremacy of individual liberty and personal dignity; and in the ensuing process there has been created a truly representative government committed to the advance of political morality, freedom of economic enterprise, and social justice.

Politically, economically, and socially Japan is now abreast of many free nations of the earth and will not again fail the universal trust. That it may be counted upon to wield a profoundly beneficial influence over the course of events in Asia is attested by the magnificent manner in which the Japanese people have met the recent challenge of war, unrest, and confusion surrounding them from the outside and checked communism within their own frontiers without the slightest slackening in their forward progress. I sent all four of our occupation divisions to the Korean battlefront without the slightest qualms as to the effect of the resulting power vacuum upon Japan. The results fully justified my faith. I know of no nation more serene, orderly, and industrious, nor in which higher hopes can be entertained for future constructive service in the advance of the human race.

Of our former ward, the Philippines, we can look forward in confidence that the existing unrest will be corrected and a strong and healthy nation will grow in the longer aftermath of war’s terrible destructiveness. We must be patient and understanding and never fail them — as in our hour of need, they did not fail us. A Christian nation, the Philippines stand as a mighty bulwark of Christianity in the Far East, and its capacity for high moral leadership in Asia is unlimited.

On Formosa, the government of the Republic of China has had the opportunity to refute by action much of the malicious gossip which so undermined the strength of its leadership on the Chinese mainland. The Formosan people are receiving a just and enlightened administration with majority representation on the organs of government, and politically, economically, and socially they appear to be advancing along sound and constructive lines.

With this brief insight into the surrounding areas, I now turn to the Korean conflict. While I was not consulted prior to the President’s decision to intervene in support of the Republic of Korea, that decision from a military standpoint, proved a sound one, as we — as I said, proved a sound one, as we hurled back the invader and decimated his forces. Our victory was complete, and our objectives within reach, when Red China intervened with numerically superior ground forces.

This created a new war and an entirely new situation, a situation not contemplated when our forces were committed against the North Korean invaders; a situation which called for new decisions in the diplomatic sphere to permit the realistic adjustment of military strategy.

Such decisions have not been forthcoming.

While no man in his right mind would advocate sending our ground forces into continental China, and such was never given a thought, the new situation did urgently demand a drastic revision of strategic planning if our political aim was to defeat this new enemy as we had defeated the old.

Apart from the military need, as I saw It, to neutralize the sanctuary protection given the enemy north of the Yalu, I felt that military necessity in the conduct of the war made necessary: first the intensification of our economic blockade against China; two the imposition of a naval blockade against the China coast; three removal of restrictions on air reconnaissance of China’s coastal areas and of Manchuria; four removal of restrictions on the forces of the Republic of China on Formosa, with logistical support to contribute to their effective operations against the common enemy.

For entertaining these views, all professionally designed to support our forces committed to Korea and bring hostilities to an end with the least possible delay and at a saving of countless American and allied lives, I have been severely criticized in lay circles, principally abroad, despite my understanding that from a military standpoint the above views have been fully shared in the past by practically every military leader concerned with the Korean campaign, including our own Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I called for reinforcements but was informed that reinforcements were not available. I made clear that if not permitted to destroy the enemy built-up bases north of the Yalu, if not permitted to utilize the friendly Chinese Force of some 600,000 men on Formosa, if not permitted to blockade the China coast to prevent the Chinese Reds from getting succor from without, and if there were to be no hope of major reinforcements, the position of the command from the military standpoint forbade victory.

We could hold in Korea by constant maneuver and in an approximate area where our supply line advantages were in balance with the supply line disadvantages of the enemy, but we could hope at best for only an indecisive campaign with its terrible and constant attrition upon our forces if the enemy utilized its full military potential. I have constantly called for the new political decisions essential to a solution.

Efforts have been made to distort my position. It has been said, in effect, that I was a warmonger. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes. Indeed, on the second day of September, nineteen hundred and forty-five, just following the surrender of the Japanese nation on the Battleship Missouri, I formally cautioned as follows:

Men since the beginning of time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have been attempted to devise an international process to prevent or settle disputes between nations. From the very start workable methods were found in so far as individual citizens were concerned, but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international scope have never been successful. Military alliances, balances of power, Leagues of Nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter destructiveness of war now blocks out this alternative. We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of the past 2000 years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.

But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.

War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.

In war there is no substitute for victory.

There are some who, for varying reasons, would appease Red China. They are blind to history’s clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement has led to more than a sham peace. Like blackmail, it lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only other alternative.

“Why,” my soldiers asked of me, “surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field?” I could not answer.

Some may say: to avoid spread of the conflict into an all-out war with China; others, to avoid Soviet intervention. Neither explanation seems valid, for China is already engaging with the maximum power it can commit, and the Soviet will not necessarily mesh its actions with our moves. Like a cobra, any new enemy will more likely strike whenever it feels that the relativity in military or other potential is in its favor on a world-wide basis.

The tragedy of Korea is further heightened by the fact that its military action is confined to its territorial limits. It condemns that nation, which it is our purpose to save, to suffer the devastating impact of full naval and air bombardment while the enemy’s sanctuaries are fully protected from such attack and devastation.

Of the nations of the world, Korea alone, up to now, is the sole one which has risked its all against communism. The magnificence of the courage and fortitude of the Korean people defies description.

They have chosen to risk death rather than slavery. Their last words to me were: “Don’t scuttle the Pacific!”

I have just left your fighting sons in Korea. They have met all tests there, and I can report to you without reservation that they are splendid in every way.

It was my constant effort to preserve them and end this savage conflict honorably and with the least loss of time and a minimum sacrifice of life. Its growing bloodshed has caused me the deepest anguish and anxiety.

Those gallant men will remain often in my thoughts and in my prayers always.

I am closing my 52 years of military service. When I joined the Army, even before the turn of the century, it was the fulfillment of all of my boyish hopes and dreams. The world has turned over many times since I took the oath on the plain at West Point, and the hopes and dreams have long since vanished, but I still remember the refrain of one of the most popular barrack ballads of that day which proclaimed most proudly that “old soldiers never die; they just fade away.”

And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty.

Good Bye.

Invictus, la pel·lícula que mostra com Mandela va fer ús de la selecció nacional de rugby per unir el país després del appartheid, ha despertat l’interès cap a la figura del president. I potser un d’aquests moments clau, rematats amb un excel·lent discurs, fou la seva pròpia investidura. Us deixo amb aquest discurs en anglès.

Your Majesties, Your Highnesses, Distinguished Guests, Comrades and Friends:

Today, all of us do, by our presence here, and by our celebrations in other parts of our country and the world, confer glory and hope to newborn liberty.

Out of the experience of an extraordinary human disaster that lasted too long, must be born a society of which all humanity will be proud.

Our daily deeds as ordinary South Africans must produce an actual South African reality that will reinforce humanity’s belief in justice, strengthen its confidence in the nobility of the human soul and sustain all our hopes for a glorious life for all.

All this we owe both to ourselves and to the peoples of the world who are so well represented here today.

To my compatriots, I have no hesitation in saying that each one of us is as intimately attached to the soil of this beautiful country as are the famous jacaranda trees of Pretoria and the mimosa trees of the bushveld.

Each time one of us touches the soil of this land, we feel a sense of personal renewal. The national mood changes as the seasons change.

We are moved by a sense of joy and exhilaration when the grass turns green and the flowers bloom.

That spiritual and physical oneness we all share with this common homeland explains the depth of the pain we all carried in our hearts as we saw our country tear itself apart in a terrible conflict, and as we saw it spurned, outlawed and isolated by the peoples of the world, precisely because it has become the universal base of the pernicious ideology and practice of racism and racial oppression.

We, the people of South Africa, feel fulfilled that humanity has taken us back into its bosom, that we, who were outlaws not so long ago, have today been given the rare privilege to be host to the nations of the world on our own soil.

We thank all our distinguished international guests for having come to take possession with the people of our country of what is, after all, a common victory for justice, for peace, for human dignity.

We trust that you will continue to stand by us as we tackle the challenges of building peace, prosperity, non-sexism, non-racialism and democracy.

We deeply appreciate the role that the masses of our people and their political mass democratic, religious, women, youth, business, traditional and other leaders have played to bring about this conclusion. Not least among them is my Second Deputy President, the Honorable F.W. de Klerk.

We would also like to pay tribute to our security forces, in all their ranks, for the distinguished role they have played in securing our first democratic elections and the transition to democracy, from blood-thirsty forces which still refuse to see the light.

The time for the healing of the wounds has come.

The moment to bridge the chasms that divide us has come.

The time to build is upon us.

We have, at last, achieved our political emancipation. We pledge ourselves to liberate all our people from the continuing bondage of poverty, deprivation, suffering, gender and other discrimination.

We succeeded to take our last steps to freedom in conditions of relative peace. We commit ourselves to the construction of a complete, just and lasting peace.

We have triumphed in the effort to implant hope in the breasts of the millions of our people. We enter into a covenant that we shall build the society in which all South Africans, both black and white, will be able to walk tall, without any fear in their hearts, assured of their inalienable right to human dignity–a rainbow nation at peace with itself and the world.

As a token of its commitment to the renewal of our country, the new Interim Government of National Unity will, as a matter of urgency, address the issue of amnesty for various categories of our people who are currently serving terms of imprisonment.

We dedicate this day to all the heroes and heroines in this country and the rest of the world who sacrificed in many ways and surrendered their lives so that we could be free.

Their dreams have become reality. Freedom is their reward.

We are both humbled and elevated by the honor and privilege that you, the people of South Africa, have bestowed on us, as the first President of a united, democratic, non-racial and non-sexist South Africa, to lead our country out of the valley of darkness.

We understand it still that there is no easy road to freedom.

We know it well that none of us acting alone can achieve success.

We must therefore act together as a united people, for national reconciliation, for nation building, for the birth of a new world.

Let there be justice for all.

Let there be peace for all.

Let there be work, bread, water and salt for all.

Let each know that for each the body, the mind and the soul have been freed to fulfill themselves.

Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another and suffer the indignity of being the skunk of the world.

Let freedom reign.

The sun shall never set on so glorious a human achievement!

God bless Africa!

Thank you.

“Hay momentos en la vida de todo hombre en los que se asume un especial sentido de la responsabilidad.

Yo creo haberla sabido asumir dignamente durante los casi cinco años que he sido presidente del Gobierno. Hoy, sin embargo, la responsabilidad que siento me parece infinitamente mayor.

Hoy tengo la responsabilidad de explicarles, desde la confianza y la legitimidad con la que me invistieron como presidente constitucional, las razones por las que presento, irrevocablemente, mi dimisión como presidente del Gobierno y mi decisión de dejar la presidencia de la Unión de Centro Democrático.

No es una decisión fácil. Pero hay encrucijadas tanto en nuestra propia vida personal como en la historia de los pueblos en las que uno debe preguntarse, serena y objetivamente, si presta un mejor servicio a la colectividad permaneciendo en su puesto o renunciando a él.

He llegado al convencimiento de que hoy, y, en las actuales cirscunstancias, mi marcha es más beneficiosa para España que mi permanencia en la Presidencia.

Me voy, pues, sin que nadie me lo haya pedido, desoyendo la petición y las presiones con las que se me ha instado a permanecer en mi puesto, con el convencimiento de que este comportamiento, por poco comprensible que pueda parecer a primera vista, es el que creo que mi patria me exige en este momento.

No me voy por cansancio. No me voy porque haya sufrido un revés superior a mi capacidad de encaje. No me voy por temor al futuro. Me voy porque ya las palabras parecen no ser suficientes y es preciso demostrar con hechos lo que somos y lo que queremos.

Nada más lejos de la realidad que la imagen que se ha querido dar de mí con la de una persona aferrada al cargo. Todo político ha de tener vocación de poder, voluntad de continuidad y de permanencia en el marco de unos principios. Pero un político que además pretenda servir al Estado debe saber en qué momento el precio que el pueblo ha de pagar por su permanencia y su continuidad es superior al precio que siempre implica el cambio de la persona que encarna las mayores responsabilidades ejecutivas de la vida política de la nación.

Yo creo saberlo, tengo el convencimiento, de que esta es la situación en la que nos hallamos y, por eso, mi decisión es tan firme como meditada.

He sufrido un importante desgaste durante mis casi cinco años de presidente. Ninguna otra persona, a lo largo de los últimos 150 años, ha permanecido tanto tiempo gobernando democráticamente en España. Mi desgaste personal ha permitido articular un sistema de libertades, un nuevo modelo de convivencia social y un nuevo modelo de Estado. Creo, por tanto, que ha merecido la pena. Pero, como frecuentemente ocurre en la historia, la continuidad de una obra exige un cambio de personas y yo no quiero que el sistema democrático de convivencia sea, una vez más, un paréntesis en la historia de España.

Trato de que mi decisión sea un acto de estricta lealtad. De lealtad hacia España, cuya vida libre ha de ser el fundamento irrenunciable para superar una historia repleta de traumas y de frustaciones; de lealtad hacia la idea de un centro político que se estructure en forma de partido interclasista, reformista y progresista, y que tiene comprometido su esfuerzo en una tarea de erradicación de tantas injusticias como todavía perviven en nuestro país; de lealtad a la Corona, a cuya causa he dedicado todos mis esfuerzos, por entender que sólo en torno a ella es posible la reconciliación de los españoles y una patria de todos, y de lealtad, si me lo permiten, hacia mi propia obra.

Pero este profundo sentimiento de lealtad exige hoy también que se produzcan hechos que, como el que asumo, actúen de revulsivo moral que ayude a restablecer la credibilidad en las personas y en las instituciones.

Quizás los modos y maneras que a menudo se utilizan para juzgar a las personas no sean los más adecuados para una convivencia serena. No me he quejado en ningún momento de la crítica. Siempre la he aceptado serenamente. Pero creo que tengo fuerza moral para pedir que, en el futuro, no se recurra a la inútil descalificación global, a la visceralidad o al ataque personal porque creo que se perjudica el normal y estable funcionamiento de las instituciones democráticas. La crítica pública y profunda de los actos de Gobierno es una necesidad, por no decir una obligación, en un sistema democrático de Gobierno basado en la opinión pública. Pero el ataque irracionalmente sistemático, la permanente descalificación de las personas y de cualquier solución con que se trata de enfocar los problemas del país, no son un arma legítima porque, precisamente pueden desorientar a la opinión pública en que se apoya el propio sistema democrático de convivencia.

Querría transmitirles mi sentimiento de que sigue habiendo muchas razones para conservar la fe, para mantenerse firmes y confiar en nosotros los españoles. Lo digo con el ansia de quien quiere conservar la fuerza necesaria para fortalecer en todos sus corazones la idea de la unidad de España, la voluntad de fortalecer las instituciones democráticas y la necesidad de prestar un mayor respeto a las personas y la legitimidad de los poderes públicos.

Yo por mi parte, les prometo que como diputado y como militante de mi partido seguiré entregado en cuerpo y alma a la defensa y divulgación del compromiso ético y del rearme moral que necesita la sociedad española.

Todos podemos servir a este objetivo desde nuestro trabajo y desde la confianza de que, si todos queremos, nadie podrá apartarnos de las metas que, como nación libre y desarrollada nos hemos trazado.

Se puede prescindir de una persona en concreto. Pero no podemos prescindir del esfuerzo que todos juntos hemos de hacer para construir una España de todos y para todos.

Por eso no me puedo permitir ninguna queja ni ningún gesto de amargura. Tenemos que mantenernos en la esperanza, convencidos de que las circunstancias seguirán siendo difíciles durante algún tiempo, pero con la seguridad de que si no desfallecemos vamos a seguir adelante.

Algo muy importante tiene que cambiar en nuestras actitudes y comportamientos. Y yo quiero contribuir, con mi renuncia, a que este cambio sea realmente posible e inmediato.

Debemos hacer todo lo necesario para que se recobre la confianza, para que se disipen los descontentos y los desencantos. Y para ello es preciso convocar al país a un gran esfuerzo. Es necesario que el pueblo español se agrupe en torno a las ideas básicas, a las instituciones y las personas promovidas democráticamente a la dirección de los asuntos públicos.

Los principales problemas de España tienen hoy el tratamiento adecuado para darles solución. En UCD hay hombres capaces de continuar la labor de Gobierno con eficacia, profesionalidad y sentido del Estado y para afrontar este cambio con toda normalidad. Les pido que les apoyen y que renueven en ellos su confianza para que cuenten con el necesario margen de tiempo para poder culminar la labor emprendida.

Deseo para España, y para todos y cada uno de ustedes y de sus familias, un futuro de paz y bienestar. Esta ha sido la única justificación de mi gestión política y va a seguir siendo la razón fundamental de mi vida. Les doy las gracias por su sacrificio, por su colaboración y por las reiteradas pruebas de confianza que me han otorgado. Quise corresponder a ellas con entrega absoluta a mi trabajo y con dedicación, abnegación y generosidad. Les prometo que donde quiera que esté me mantendré identificado con sus aspiraciones. Que estaré siempre a su lado y que trataré, en la medida de mis fuerzas, de mantenerme en la misma línea y con el mismo espíritu de trabajo.

Muchas gracias a todos y por todo.

Finalment, el llibre que volia aquest Nadal no va arribar. No és un best-seller. Ni l’ha escrit Dan Brown, Larsson o Ana Rosa Quintana. “Los discursos del poder” és una selecció dels millors discursos mai pronunciats que està prologat pel ja difunt ex Cap de la Casa Reial, Sabino Fernández Campo. Més de 600 pàgines de paraules que van moure consciències i can canviar el rumb de la història. Des de Hernán Cortés a Charles de Gaulle.

El llibre en qüestió no va arribar ni en el trineu de Santa Claus, ni el va cagar el tió de Nadal ni formava part de la comitiva dels mags d’Orient. La meva germana no el va trobar a cap llibreria. No hi ha dubte, no era quelcom massa vendible (encara que crec que l’edició està esgotada i sense projecte de tornar-lo a les impremtes). Però en el fons, crec que hi domina aquest desinterès general del públic cap als discursos.

De fet, si algú demana que facis un discurs en el casament del teu germà, en el sopar de l’empresa o en l’homenatge a uns amics, intentaràs fer-te el longuis. O buscaràs a internet. Fins i tot, podràs arribar a comprar un discurs, per exemple, per al casament. Estem poc acostumats a parlar en públic (de fet, és una dels deu grans pors dels humans), pel que evitem tot el que estigui relacionat amb això.

Potser en això hagi jugat un paper molt important la pròpia història del país. El maleït retard del Franquisme. El règim feixista va donar a llum a autèntiques generacions d’espanyols que no havien d’aprendre cap habilitat per parlar en públic: era reservat als que ja estaven elegits per a això. Tampoc tenien, els espanyols, l’oportunitat d’aprendre a base d’escoltar: en un règim dictatorial, gris i mediocre com va ser el de Franco, poques habilitats comunicatives podien esperar.

Després de més de 30 anys de democràcia, hem vist un salt en la manera de comunicar les idees, convèncer i articular els arguments a través dels discursos. I recordem alguns d’ells com a part del nostre ADN. El “Puedo prometer y prometo” d’Adolfo Suárez o el “ja sóc aquí de Tarradellas”. Hem tingut grans oradors en l’etapa democràtica, des del president González al president Pujol, passant per Miquel Roca. Però molts segueixen vivint d’esquena als discursos.

Per exemple, és força difícil trobar els discursos dels nostres polítics. Hi ha pocs llibres o webs que donin compte d’ells i que permetin conèixer els seus recursos i enriquir el nostre coneixement. Trobar les paraules que han forjat la història recent d’Espanya, d’Aznar o González, és molt difícil. Al web de Moncloa hi ha els de Rodríguez Zapatero però, què passarà el dia que entri un nou president o presidenta? La poca tradició en el culte a l’oratòria i a l’art discursiu potser els dugui a l’oblit. Com ha dut els dels seus predecessors. Però tampoc hi són a la web de la Generalitat els de Pujol o Maragall.

Potser si els speechwriter sortissin de l’armari o aquests donessin més poesia a les paraules dels nostres líders, avui ja tindríem diversos llibres al mercat. Però també si tots valoraréssim més la tasca d’escriure i interpretar un discurs, seríem els primers en voler llegir-los, comprar-los i aprendre’n. Llarga vida al discurs.

Mariah Carey va ser víctima d’unes copes de més en el lliurament dels premis del Festival de Cinema de Palm Springs. Tant, que l’actriu i cantant nord-americana va protagonitzar aquest moment que passarà a la història quan agraïa el guardó.

Fa unes setmanes us parlava dels brindis amb aigua del president Obama i d’alguns problemes de líders polítics amb l’alcohol. Valgui el vídeo i un record d’aquell post per tornar a incidir en una qüestió prioritària quan ens posem davant les càmeres: compte amb passar-se de la ratlla.

Demà, seguim parlant de discursos …

Difícilment podem imaginar el que William Safire va sentir el 9 d’agost de 1974. No va ser l’encarregat d’escriure el discurs de dimissió del president Nixon, però va ser un dels speechwriters més cèlebres de la presidència del republicà, que va comptar amb diversos professionals com Ray Price -l’escriptor de facto del discurs-. William Safire, personatge molt conegut als Estats Units, que va comptar amb una columna al New Tork Times va morir aquest diumenge.

Al conèixer aquesta notícia, i tot i no tenir la celebritat de Sorensen -la ploma de JFK-, les reaccions de dol en la societat americana no s’han fet esperar. Però, passaria una cosa similar aquí? En un país on parlar en públic és una pràctica injuriada i que atemoreix a gairebé tots, els escriptors de discursos no assoliran la glòria…

La pregunta de fons és, qui escriu els discursos als nostres polítics? Generalment, els membres dels seus gabinets. Zapatero no té, segons sembla, a un escriptor assignat per a això -tot i que segons aquest article sempre apunti a través del mòbil el sentit de les seves intervencions. La ploma de Felipe González té veu pròpia ara al Parlament Europeu, encara que durant molts anys va restar a l’ombra mentre donava forma i paraules a les idees del president.

Potser els speechwriters mai es guanyin la glòria a Espanya. Potser encara no hem conegut del pas “a la vida civil” de cap d’ells a l’estil de Safir, amb una columna en un prestigiós diari durant més de 30 anys. I segurament aquest no hagi de ser el motiu que impulsi a una nova generació d’escriptors a fer que el que diuen els nostres polítics sigui menys tosc per ser més musical.

Sí, necessitem speechwriters per a no escoltar en boca d’un presidenciable que el més greu de la pujada d’impostos del Govern és que “pujarà el preu de les xuxes”. Que surtin de l’armari. En definitiva, necessitem escriptors que puguin inspirar una generació sencera com arriben a l’ànima les paraules que Favreau posa en boca d’Obama. M’ofereixo voluntari.

Tal dia com avui, fa un any, Obama omplia l’estadi INVESCO de Denver amb milers de seguidors que volien escoltar el seu discurs d’acceptació de la candidatura demòcrata. Això va ser durant la Convenció Demòcrata.

Obama, com en tants discursos, fa gala d’una bona oratòria. Us proposo fer una ullada al vídeo i identificareu alguns dels recursos típics (tríades, repeticions …) però a part de gaudir de la seva oratòria, la seva interpretació i el gust per l’espectacle dels americans; us proposo que poseu atenció al fons, a les idees, al que diu.

Espero les vostres opinions …

Ho hem dit moltes vegades en aquest bloc. Ho hem comparat massa vegades. Però avui us vull recomanar un article de El País de Pablo Ximénez de Sandoval titulat “Yo quiero un Obama para mi telediario” on parla de retòrica, comunicació i actuació davant de qualsevol tipus de públics. De com ho fan els polítics a banda i banda de l’oceà. Molt recomanable.

I per il·lustrar-lo, que els americans donen molta importància a l’oratòria és ben evident. I si no, que li diguin a Michelle Obama…