I do not think anyone has caused surprise election results last week. La campaña constante y omnipresente del Gobierno, el descontento de la gran mayoría con los políticos de la “oposición”, la polarización utilizada y promovida, algunas obras, algunas dádivas, alguna gente valiosa entre sus cuadros, la utilización y simplificación de iconos como Eloy Alfaro o el Ché y el chantaje de “si votan no o nulo les quitamos el bono y subimos el gas” finalmente dieron resultado y el SÍ obtuvo una cómoda victoria. Al menos por un par de semanas estaremos libres de campaña.
Yo creo que la victoria del SÍ tendrá, entre otras consecuencias, el darle más poder a gente que, quizás obnubilada its good intentions, is exercised improperly. People who had failed to respect the limits imposed by laws that allowed them to come to power, or they themselves defined in the laws that created once there. In the first case, excused themselves with the wonderful phrase "is not legal, but legitimate", which left almost in the subjectivity of who rules at that time to decide what can be done and what not. Why do we need laws then? In the second, it created a law for anyone to finance his own campaign and avoid those who have more money than the winners (which, lest we forget, they had in the first round), but contradicted blatant misuse by government propaganda (with money that belonged to everyone) that obviously benefited his party's candidates. Then again disrespecting their own rules by autoadjudicación Assembly powers and functions for which it was chosen, in an act of abuse of power beyond the installation of "pichicorte." Incidentally, it took away time at the assembly to draft the constitution, we were assured, was an essential step towards building a more just society. And it was not "right", but Alberto Acosta, the first to recognize that the quality of the text suffer the lack of time. He said to retire from the presidency of the Assembly.
And the story of recent years is full of politicians who would not respect the limits to his power. There are some who now call themselves opposition and shamelessly pretended to be champions of the law, trying to forget that they did the same in turn. The terrible thing is that as a result many people seem to believe that past abuses of power justify the current (classic example: the argument of "ah, but X did the same and nobody said anything , so now do not protest) , or calling attention to any irregularity is a sign unequivocally agree with the dishonesty of the previous rulers. Not, at all. But polarization, sponsored by the President since the first round, makes us believe that recognizing the mistakes and abuses of a regime makes us advocates of "above." For people who are now in power, it seems that it is possible for example to agree with the ideals of 'left' without accepting under the table meetings with investors and representatives of Congress cheats, or support government initiatives but require that respects the law. The "all or nothing" when they play them to earn more power, yes, but it is negative for society as a whole leaves us with one hand, the custom of "taking sides" and justify everything you do on behalf of an ideal (the "revolution" for example), and another with the impossibility of establishing dialogue between different banks of ideology.
Rafael Correa has said that the "'party" is afraid of elections. But it is not very clear what you mean by this. When your Minister Fernando Bustamante said the only condition that other parties have to be included is to win elections, it sounds very logical. However, this overlooks that, although we regret, many of the representatives of these parties had already won elections while the current and future President. Only at the time they are suspended regardless of the details if any livestock. On the other hand, when it comes to defending other governments with whom he apparently shared ideology, Rafael Correa has no qualms in saying that in democracy is not necessary to have elections every four years . Strange coming from someone who seeks to legitimize his power held every two.
And more immediately, is the party that has never ventured to nominate candidates for deputy, their assembly first took on this role without any right (and I stress this: leaving aside his primary responsibility was drafting the new constitution, which was adopted about 50% in two weeks and about 100 articles in one day.) And then they were unable to deliver the new constitution, which had been developed considering the common good, only the satisfaction of having met and become: put a condition that, if approved, would settle a temporary conference with Assembly in where the government has a majority. This has given the "miracle" that a President has a majority in Congress for a considerable period of time without having to go through the cumbersome process of nominating candidates. Who is afraid of elections?
The concern is that these acts (which not unique to this government) are causing more and more people are willing to accept that any skill is valid candidates struggle for power . So it is very possible that the next ruler used similar excuses to grab power over what is put forward. We'll see what they say then who justify these tricks today.
But that will have to wait between four and eight years, so you might already have forgotten.
0 comments:
Post a Comment