Scene One: Libya
The outcome of the episode of popular rebellion in Libya does not support or allow overstepping conjecture considerations positive. There is much internal and external rumpus to recognize someone who is good. But there is one thing Obviously, the Libyan regime's oppression, enslavement and death. It is a regime that employs censorship, violence and torture against opponents and a regime that is held in a debased relationship between politics and religious fanaticism. At present the country is in a state of tremendous devastation and opponents are treated "like rats" in the words of the dictator Qaddafi. In the last week 69,000 people fled to refugee status Libya
Scene two: financial penalty for a private consulting firm that released its own data on inflation.
government blatantly lying about cost of living indexes and price evaluation fined 500,000 pesos to a private consultant issued a measuring their own work, of course, dispute the official figures. A strategy abusive, authoritarian, intimidating and cowardly run from a particular state for a reason directly connected to a public policy advocated by the Government. It is not fair trade or a reasonable state interference in terms of control but a violent attitude, judgmental and clumsy National Government represented by the Government.
Scene Three: Intellectual Kirchner Vargas Llosa does not want to open the Book Fair. The president seems much and intellectuals retract
Exciting free sample (?) Of ineffectiveness militant intellectual cowardice, this episode becomes apparent height of the participants. First, the arguments against Horacio González Vargas Llosa, well away from Florida but cryptic prose, showed a very strong authoritarian bent. Forster followed, of course, reaffirming the national character of the order of "runs" (up there democratic temperament) of Nobel writer. But what happened? A President It seemed a lot and told them to tone down and withdraw the request. And what did they do? Declined the request, leaving it very clear what their militant mood, and what degree of submissiveness and lack of personal discretion. The truth is that even with the barbarity that contains the original request, surely a response to an interpretation supported. The only decent thing was to stay in that position and banks to come, with the separation of the charge included in the case of Gonzalez. Imagine for a moment that one of the heroes of our intellectuals have acted like they almost do not exist in racing humanistic literature. Imagine the very Gramsci (probably admired to Open Letter), meekly obeying political orders of the Communist Party chief.
These three scenes, different in density, size and grandeur, are united on one point. In all three cases there was a rapid, specific and firm in any relevant political actor of the opposition. With the exception of Margarita Stolbizer, that days later asked the Government to break diplomatic relations with Libya, none of the candidates for president, for example, rejecting the situation said. The Government is a shy enough sampling of concern and parties (I mean their bodies institutional) did not like a topic that had something to say. No site has even resulted in favor of it. Nor has any portal of human rights organizations felt compelled to reference and take a stand. The same with the case of the consultant. No one seemed an excessive use of state power, no one seemed to be threatened the freedom to express opinions and the freedom of work. Not a single party, no single organization of citizens, not a single NGO that works similar themes say a word. About the farce between intellectuals and government made jokes. It is true that the pathos of the episode deserves mocking laughter, but serious thing that a group of outstanding teachers is shown as explicitly as state employees without their own criteria.
Nobody felt called to do a serious analysis, large, what they mean one of three scenes in terms of quality of our democracy. Surely this reflects a more widespread social temperament of what you wanted. It does not seem possible to think that this can happen if you do not have a social state and collective that fosters and to the line. Argentina democratic life loses power while the heat of populist promises to share voice, announces and welcomes crowds congratulations. Maybe it is time to think if you really do not have the unbridled Unsharp consequences of identity politics that allows any possibility of agreement is possible, that any "electoral assembly" can take place. You may need to consider for a moment at least, that actions have consequences and that the pursuit of immediate revenue pops hopes to have, once, with a democracy pleasant, quiet, restrained, but livable.
0 comments:
Post a Comment