With the beginning of the lockdown, positive messages and stories on television news have multiplied in recent days. They've wanted to show us the most positive and humane part of our society. However, I believe that in this crisis we have seen each of us as it is, more than it is. On the one hand, yes, we've seen the health community working as heroes to save lives, endangering their lives. We have also observed that in our villages and neighbourhoods a volunteer network has been organised to help the people who need it most, making purchases of the elderly, bringing food to the families who have nothing, talking on the phone with those who are alone, or making and handing out masks. On the other hand, we have seen those who, during Holy Week or on weekends, have taken good time and wanted to go on holiday, to the police excesses, to those who bought through Amazon during the closure of the shops of our town and neighborhood, to the balcony guards, to those who have been speculating with medical supplies and, in addition, sent defective material contaminating the health staff.

Something similar happens even if we look at the consequences of the latest global crises. Thus, in 1918, following the influenza epidemic, public health systems were created in many European countries. The defeat of 1929 and the Second World War laid the foundations of the present welfare state. However, the effect of the 2008 financial crisis has been increased precariousness and inequality in most countries, leaving most of the world ' s wealth in the hands of a few.

So now that we're anticipating what society looks like after the pandemic, I want to share these thoughts with you.

The first thing we have to change is the goal. We can't have more life. Every year to earn more and pay less. In addition, rapid growth in business performance cannot be allowed and lower taxes paid. The alternative may be to live better. Sometimes that means living longer. It has to be borne in mind that in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa life expectancy is 50 years, 30 years less than ours. But in other cases, in ours, it means living differently. More sustainably, respecting nature and not just thinking about us. And that's not going to necessarily lead to less consumption or less travel. For this new objective, GDP cannot be an indicator. As an alternative, I come up with a global happiness report that looks at different areas like freedom, health, corruption -- or at least the Human Development Index, which takes into account, at least, life expectancy, the level of education and GDP.

Living better means not leaving anyone behind. As the motto of the Sustainable Development Goals says. And that means not parking our elders in nursing homes, our little ones in childcare facilities and our young people in schools and ikastolas in order to be able to go and produce the adults. This means that we have to regain the priority of care to be the basis of our new society. Not leaving anyone behind means that we have to change the model so that 50 million people in the world do not have to leave their homes for violence and persecution. But it also means that we cannot allow more than 800 million people in the world to be hungry and that hunger kills more than 2 million people every year.

The basis of the new society must be human rights. Rights forgotten for fear in these crises. The priority must therefore be to restore the supremacy of rights, so that in the next crisis these rights will not be reduced without respecting the minimum legal guarantees.

Women must be the protagonist of the new society that we are going to build. It has become clear that the authorities in the countries that have managed the health crisis better are women. Why, then, are so few women at the top of the country's leadership? Why so little in charge of companies and cooperatives? It is the task of all to promote this change for the benefit of society itself.

This new life should be shaped according to the model that scientists used to share progress and research during the pandemic. And not using the model of politicians. And I don't just mean Bolsonaro or Trump. Closer together, we've seen confrontations to decide who should take power, with the model of dealing with the pandemic and organizing decontainment. In other words, impotence has been evident when it comes to deciding together and, as a result, each people has established a different model.

We must not imagine the business model of the times ahead. In contrast to the model mandated by the one who has the most, the cooperative offers a direct distribution model of wealth. Where each person has a vote in which solidarity, equity, equality, democracy, self-responsibility and self-accompaniment are the main values. And where community engagement has been a foundation since the beginning of Rochdale. As Arizmendiarrieta said, the challenge now is to achieve a system of cooperative solidarity at global level.

In Mundukide we will act.

*Josu Urrutia is the director of Beristain Mundukide