The paper is patient and democracy is a word that is on everyone's lips. Since the last century, all countries established in their constitutions the word democracy. Proof of this is that the Constitution of the Franco regime in the light of all fascist was called "organic democracy." Moreover the current communist (China, North Korea, Cuba) claim that their country is a democracy is popular because it is written in its Constitution, as Marx himself, who inspired such regimes, spoke of dictatorship "transitory."
This leads us to reflect on what democracy is. By reducing
only to vote, universal, direct and secret, then any system that does not respect freedom of expression, to exercise restraint on its citizens, who have a game where there is only one candidate can be considered democratic, no problem. If instead, we define democracy as a system of ethical values, where the State must respect laws that are universal to all countries by international conventions and agreements (Declaration of Human Rights), then things change. Then the dictatorship still exists in certain countries, even to respect the sacred democratic vote. 
do believe then that the state must be limited and moderate (John Locke) and it should be tied to morality (Aristotle) \u200b\u200bin which the opposition is a political opponent whom you respect their opinions and not a strategic enemy military to be removed, then we can speak of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a "popular democracy", is contradictory and absurd, is ultimately Communist demagoguery. True communist, ie lie. Question of dialectics.
The issue of democracy is very clear today. We can not stay with the concept of democracy in ancient Greece which both Plato criticized for producing "oligarchs and tyrants." Which was right. Democracy is understood today by the mixture of the ideals of the Republic (read Plato) with the ideals of liberalism (read John Locke, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocequeville, etc.). That's why today a truly democratic system is a "liberal democratic republic."
Venezuela Fortunately, we have understood through a long process which means a democracy and a shock! Nothing academic classes, but through dictatorships. When in 1936 dies "The tyrant liberal" begins a process of democratization irreversible, with governments increasingly democratic.
General Lopez Contreras burst into a storm between gomecistas, democratic, militaristic and lopecistas own, and takes control of the situation and its peaceful "calm and sane" and was slowly sailing through these murky waters, recognizing the country's democratic freedoms are rightfully theirs, but carefully so that the military did not rise up. In sympathetic
General Medina Angarita, continued these processes of democratization in the right line of thinking, were completed to legalize all political parties, was established a constitutional republic. But this was not enough, something was missing. The General problem was his lack of consensus on enabling universal suffrage, secret, direct and essential foundation for democracy, for being "too left for the country."
Here is a historical problem,
Diogenes for the next election was the candidate of Medina, Lopez did not, there was a break. This split between Lopez and Medina served to divide the military, who went to conspire. The Democratic leadership had been terminated in accordance with Diogenes Escalante, future president of Venezuela and unifying civilians (Democratic Front). All had won, except of course the military coup and undemocratic. When you are found disabled Diogenes mental insanity is forged by the blow to Medina because there was no unity candidate representing Diogenes. The military plot was cooked, the military is preparing for the return of the dictatorship of positivist and although they succeeded, and the country was ready for democracy. What all Venezuelans thought is that the coup was made by López Contreras, who had broken with Medina, but to the surprise of all, who got on the power was
Romulo Betancourt, a man advanced, along with AD match with the intention of establishing a democracy left center. This error came out expensive, since democracy established by Betancourt only lasted three years.
After its revolution, immediately called for elections and AD occupied most of the charges. The reason is obvious, awarded the people who had given them democracy. That way the teacher
Rómulo Gallegos was the first president elected by means of universal, direct and secret. Apparently the model of the democratic project went from strength to strength.
Six months after Gallegos won the presidency by popular vote, the military institutional tired of this democracy's center-left AD, then Llovera Páez Pérez Jiménez and exploit the situation to give a blow to Gallegos. In the meantime beat Delgado Chalboud virtually compel a leading areas coupled with the threat of sending him to jail. Chalboud have a tragic fate. Kill him at 50 ... re-instituted the dictatorship.
is important to emphasize that the actual period of Pérez Jiménez was '50 to '58. Taking account are 8 years of dictatorship. Pérez Jiménez's dictatorship has been shorter than we had in our history! What does this tell us? What conclusion can we draw? Well, since the Venezuelan learned that the last thing he wants is an authoritarian.
Although it was not all bad. There progress. These improvements were due to the dictatorship of Perez Jimenez was autocratic and not totalitarian. In totalitarianism is to destroy everything old, everything old to start building the new that it is good and therefore everyone should think like the leader. The authoritarian leader is not interested in America to think like him, is only interested in do not say anything bad about their government (and tortured or imprisoned if they catch you.) So in an authoritarian government that already is not necessarily bad and is built around the country that already exists, no new men millennial or attitudes. It built the Caracas-La Guaira highway, the Hotel Humboldt, roads, bridges, school buildings, irrigation systems, two lifts, among other things.
Even with all the evil of that dictatorship, the country has made great progress. Perhaps that is why Venezuela has the mistaken idea that military rule is equal to progress, although they are aware that the dictatorship per se is bad. In 1958 the country took to the streets to demand their rights and overthrow the dictator. Who happens to govern during this period went to Wolfgang Larrazabal and Edgar Sanabria for the preparation of the democratic transition.
and is interesting to note a constant and is repeated each time a dictatorial military regime falls, goes a military institutional transition.
Now we arrive at the expected time: DEMOCRACY What about this? Did you progress? Is it true that the civil government was SO bad? Do these last 11 years in office have been better than previous ones? Do not miss the next post ... A Contract for Venezuelan
0 comments:
Post a Comment