Turns out I did not die. Last week I had one of the worst strep throat to remember. Several times I thought that since I was 13 and had chickenpox I've never felt so bad, with a general pain scary, intense and did not leave. You know: fever, cough, body aches, vomiting, dizziness, etc. It was ugly, but I'm coming out through the entire course of antibiotics, anti-inflammatory and do not know what else anti-things that I prescribed. Moral: you go to the doctor the first sign of fever.
Finally, think a moment in politics. Yes, Mexican policy.
turns out that the "oh, yes," president of employment, Don Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa , whose government is going to stumble on stumble, saw fit to send a political reform proposal last December. Within it are some claims that have been so for politicians, journalists and organizations of civil society for years, such as reducing the number of legislators , the possibility of immediate reelection of these, the candidates and citizen initiative, the runoff, etc..
With festive mood, profound speeches and a look of senior statesmen, legislators of all parties said, words, words less: "Oh, yes, we will review, analyze, and discuss the political reform that has sent the president, Moreover, we held that had them because it opens the parliamentary debate and gives us the chance to think about which way we go and Mexico blah, blah , blah. "
exercise made by the secretary of the Interior to go to "discuss" the proposal in several social and academic areas I found interesting, and the first I could make clear is that nobody agrees with anybody. Then came the forums in the Senate, with important guests, renowned scholars and wise minds, oh, yes. And again the same, there is not even a proposal that makes a clear consensus for or against.
first thought that the "immediate reelection legislators and mayors" would be well received by the comentocracia as political activists that have filled her mouth again and again talking about the need for accountability mechanisms accounts, including the aforementioned re-election. However, it was not. Here and there I heard and read comments of all kinds, "the re-election would strengthen local chiefdoms," "re-election would not help in profecionalización of parliamentary life, the hamper," we can not be re-elected without transparency. " The arguments, all take their point, are fairly reasonable, but leave us more or less the same point of uncertainty .
The applications concerning the independent is another big issue which is that nobody can agree. Some believe that democracy will only become Mexican sense to approve the nominations independent (Read all Citizens National Assembly) and there are those who see them as direct input (and without the filter of the parties) of narco and other powers that the political arena (an example of this approach is the very José Woldenberg ). Ohquéla . What then?
Other points of Calderon's proposal is much more input conflicting and obviously never reach clear consensus. Yes to the second round for the winning candidate has greater legitimacy? Or not, because it promotes bipartisanship ? Yes because it promotes the generation of parliamentary majorities? Or not, because we would have insurmountable technical problems (as we do not have enough time to print ballots with the name of the leading candidates, Lorenzo Cordova dixit)?
How about this proposal that talks about reducing legislators? According to Calderon's initiative, the House of Representatives would then have 400 legislators, and the Senate, 98. Years is common to hear people saying "why do we need 500 members, if only three or four are the decision makers?", "Just go to sleep", "do nothing", "many" . Well, the counter-argument not long in coming, "because in France there are fewer people and more legislators," we need more space parliamentarians "," more interests represented , better democracy, "" inclusion, not exclusion. " 'Ta well, then?
"The citizens' initiative? "Yes, but must be accompanied by the possibility of revocation of mandate, referendum and who knows what else." [Just the issues that the PAN government would never dare to argue, it would be like shooting yourself in the foot].
"Raising the minimum percentage of the vote from 2% to 4% to achieve Registration of political parties? "Oh, no, how such a thing happens, would they disappeared many small parties, especially those who have worked so hard for the good of Mexico."
could go on, but I think the point is visible. There are no clear arrangements. But do not be naive, and is everywhere: the overwhelming consensus is impossible.
What I left thinking and it bothers me are the contradictions : those who yesterday demanded such a thing (from the pulpit of the academic or the political swamp) today demonize. Some will say is that the proposal is flawed. " And I say: "Of course it is, by this is discussed, analyzed, improves. "And indeed the whole debate about political reform made me really enriching. Perhaps, as my estimate Andrés Lajous ," to achieve consensus, you must first generate information, a lot, and from there, join points and making decisions. "
terrible thing is that now it turns out" better then discuss the initiative, or at least so says the PRI . Worse still, if we allow the discussion of the reform (which is a State matter) falls into the inertia election this year (vile politics of the day to day) we will be closing a new opportunity to change our political system. I remember a phrase Diego flight Valadés , "the reformist viable only when appropriate." And I think increasingly stretched over the league, we let time pass and the precarious political will remains stagnant.
In politics, unanimity is not only unthinkable, but it is not desirable. However, sometimes it seems that the Mexican are genetically incapable of achieving minimum consensus, process and make them real. And so, as we administer inertia, opening endless discussion forums and postponing policy decisions the country is going to hell, and we with it. ----
"Not with words"
Finally, think a moment in politics. Yes, Mexican policy.
turns out that the "oh, yes," president of employment, Don Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa , whose government is going to stumble on stumble, saw fit to send a political reform proposal last December. Within it are some claims that have been so for politicians, journalists and organizations of civil society for years, such as reducing the number of legislators , the possibility of immediate reelection of these, the candidates and citizen initiative, the runoff, etc..
With festive mood, profound speeches and a look of senior statesmen, legislators of all parties said, words, words less: "Oh, yes, we will review, analyze, and discuss the political reform that has sent the president, Moreover, we held that had them because it opens the parliamentary debate and gives us the chance to think about which way we go and Mexico blah, blah , blah. "
exercise made by the secretary of the Interior to go to "discuss" the proposal in several social and academic areas I found interesting, and the first I could make clear is that nobody agrees with anybody. Then came the forums in the Senate, with important guests, renowned scholars and wise minds, oh, yes. And again the same, there is not even a proposal that makes a clear consensus for or against.
first thought that the "immediate reelection legislators and mayors" would be well received by the comentocracia as political activists that have filled her mouth again and again talking about the need for accountability mechanisms accounts, including the aforementioned re-election. However, it was not. Here and there I heard and read comments of all kinds, "the re-election would strengthen local chiefdoms," "re-election would not help in profecionalización of parliamentary life, the hamper," we can not be re-elected without transparency. " The arguments, all take their point, are fairly reasonable, but leave us more or less the same point of uncertainty .
The applications concerning the independent is another big issue which is that nobody can agree. Some believe that democracy will only become Mexican sense to approve the nominations independent (Read all Citizens National Assembly) and there are those who see them as direct input (and without the filter of the parties) of narco and other powers that the political arena (an example of this approach is the very José Woldenberg ). Ohquéla . What then?
Other points of Calderon's proposal is much more input conflicting and obviously never reach clear consensus. Yes to the second round for the winning candidate has greater legitimacy? Or not, because it promotes bipartisanship ? Yes because it promotes the generation of parliamentary majorities? Or not, because we would have insurmountable technical problems (as we do not have enough time to print ballots with the name of the leading candidates, Lorenzo Cordova dixit)?
How about this proposal that talks about reducing legislators? According to Calderon's initiative, the House of Representatives would then have 400 legislators, and the Senate, 98. Years is common to hear people saying "why do we need 500 members, if only three or four are the decision makers?", "Just go to sleep", "do nothing", "many" . Well, the counter-argument not long in coming, "because in France there are fewer people and more legislators," we need more space parliamentarians "," more interests represented , better democracy, "" inclusion, not exclusion. " 'Ta well, then?
"The citizens' initiative? "Yes, but must be accompanied by the possibility of revocation of mandate, referendum and who knows what else." [Just the issues that the PAN government would never dare to argue, it would be like shooting yourself in the foot].
"Raising the minimum percentage of the vote from 2% to 4% to achieve Registration of political parties? "Oh, no, how such a thing happens, would they disappeared many small parties, especially those who have worked so hard for the good of Mexico."
could go on, but I think the point is visible. There are no clear arrangements. But do not be naive, and is everywhere: the overwhelming consensus is impossible.
What I left thinking and it bothers me are the contradictions : those who yesterday demanded such a thing (from the pulpit of the academic or the political swamp) today demonize. Some will say is that the proposal is flawed. " And I say: "Of course it is, by this is discussed, analyzed, improves. "And indeed the whole debate about political reform made me really enriching. Perhaps, as my estimate Andrés Lajous ," to achieve consensus, you must first generate information, a lot, and from there, join points and making decisions. "
terrible thing is that now it turns out" better then discuss the initiative, or at least so says the PRI . Worse still, if we allow the discussion of the reform (which is a State matter) falls into the inertia election this year (vile politics of the day to day) we will be closing a new opportunity to change our political system. I remember a phrase Diego flight Valadés , "the reformist viable only when appropriate." And I think increasingly stretched over the league, we let time pass and the precarious political will remains stagnant.
In politics, unanimity is not only unthinkable, but it is not desirable. However, sometimes it seems that the Mexican are genetically incapable of achieving minimum consensus, process and make them real. And so, as we administer inertia, opening endless discussion forums and postponing policy decisions the country is going to hell, and we with it. ----
"Not with words"
0 comments:
Post a Comment