AFTER THE PRIMARY: POLICY CHALLENGES
already complete the cycle: the Bureau of Democratic Unity (MUD?) And the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) proceeded to elect their candidates. Although talk of elections would match the queries, and undoubtedly there are important differences.
In 1st place, there is a gap on the issue of concurrency. While the choice of the MUD was partial, not only in numbers but in the spaces, the PSUV was total in each of the 87 circuits that make up the constituencies.
In 2nd place, there is a difference in the way of understanding democracy that has been shown in forms of competition and resolution election. MUD for leading democratic logic, is associated with so-called elitist theory of participation. At this interpretation is democratic participation but only among the few who meet a set of conditions, the most remarkable virtue knowledge is assumed as equals. That said, it is democratic "election" of the MUD as he equals: members of parties that made up the table. In response to the contrary, the PSUV created a query that took shape in a figure: more than 3500 pre-candidates submitted to the popular will. These candidates were penetrated, scrutinized and analyzed by the perceptions that militants were on them to allow or not the representation.
In 3rd and last term, there is a marked difference on the issue of electoral transparency. The PSUV made public the total attendance and the minutes and any figures, but instead the MUD will reserve that information. Underlying this behavior another strong showing from the fear of majority without a doubt. But after the conclusion of the primaries and beyond these differences are a number of challenges that must be assumed.
For the PSUV, it is to weigh the actions of those candidates as Calixto Ortega, Maria de Queipo, Rafik Souki, to name only Members Zulia, had higher levels of commitment and accountability very important in the period 1998-2010. I think that can not be called into question the commitment made, the demonstrated political skill demonstrated, but despite this, the foundation sent a clear message: they want to maintain more direct contact with their representatives and this is intended to deepen the construction of the idea of \u200b\u200bdemocracy and its shadow always true: participation. The PSUV and policy makers should evaluate the message that was sent in the form of the general will of its members. It is a message about the very future of the revolutionary process and opportunities for deepening the popular role in the remainder of the century.
MUD For its part, has the challenge to see how to construct a speech to talk about democracy when over 80% of the candidates presented were not the result of a truly democratic election. The challenge to criticize Chávez, on the basis of an assumption - or real-authoritarianism is seriously committed to the dynamics through which "elected" to their leaders. This is more troubling, it is considered the findings that both Luis Vicente Leon - Datanalisis, as Alfredo Keller made about the expectations of voters who define themselves as anti-Chavez. Both agree that this sector is crying out for an alternative and that is precisely what most lacking at the moment. Yes, the MUD can not articulate an alternative to Chavez, beyond the simple assignment of blame, we would be seeing a situation where the new PSUV ensure the majority.
This we say not to produce excessive confidence in the leadership of the PSUV, they are challenged to generate a debate about the kind of socialism behind these candidates. I think that must be passed within the party, Manichaeism in the use of red to demonstrate the revolutionary character, a true debate of ideas on how to improve and understand the XXI century socialism, which does not yet exist and must be built if you want keep the spaces have conquered. We talk about is a dynamic that ultimately leads to thinking about democratic life in areas that have been discussed less, in the inner spaces of the party organizations. We do see the processes of the two (2) last Sunday, we noticed the same expression: anti-Chavez and Chavez agreed that space is important to view the internal structures of participation. That is, both agree - over their ideological differences of opinion that the consultation between the militants is the best vehicle to elucidate the way of conducting politics in today.
Building democracy from these processes, will have its impact on social life of Venezuelans. Both forces are discussed in the realm of purposeful: the PSUV to suggest a socialist model and the MUD, to suggest an alternative to the exhaustion of representative democracy. Anyway, these attitudes is a benefit and a breakthrough for the political and democratic representation.
Dr. Juan Eduardo Romero
Historian
Juane1208@gmail.com
05/05/2010
0 comments:
Post a Comment