How To Build A Trebuchet Blueprints

AFTER THE PRIMARY: OVERVIEW OF THE POLICY FOR SEPTEMBER 2010 ELECTION

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

Royal Carribean Cruises Auditions

April 19 and the current Venezuelan process

APRIL 19 AND CURRENT PROCESS
VENEZUELAN
Bicentennial theme has unleashed demons for many years historiographical content . Since the inception of the National Academy of History in the final years of the nineteenth century, around 19 April 1810 wove a set of interpretations that currently, we are putting in doubt the historians who make up the middle generation, which were formed by great masters such as Manuel Caballero, Carrera Damas, Elías Pino Iturrieta, among other distinguished intellectual, but whose performances have taken a respectful distance.
All agreed to endorse the construction of the story on these events has emerged as dominant and that can broadly characterize: 1) the events of 1810 are not a revolutionary process because it does not change at all socio-political order; 2) the role of these processes lies substantially in the white Creoles and 3) there is no popular participation itself, and if there is a product of the influence of events in Europe.
All these features combine to structure a discourse of domination. Is the logic of semantics that has always been expressed in the history of world domination semantics versus semantics of resistance. When it says that on April 19 there was no village, says that people are not participating because it is not able to understand the meaning of the historical moment. Approach underlies the supporting base of domination and social exclusion. The people, in their ignorance, is not likely to adopt attitudes enlightening in regard to your destination historical, and as a logical continuation of this dialectic of domination, the people can only be driven by an illustrious leader. The end is always the same: to ensure obedience and submission. So when from the National History Center (NHC), the National Bicentennial Commission (CNB) and the Archivo General de la Nación (AGN) says that we must move in a history resemantization the response of the National Academy History (ANH) is categorical: there is danger for the future of Venezuela. We agree with ANH, no danger: the danger that socialize the historical sense of the people. The danger that the story takes beyond fechalización and emeritización the event, or what is the same, the danger that they do understand our students of history, it's not all heroes, battles and memorization. That history has a relationship with today, through the commitment of comprehension and understanding.
The story that drives it is a story that makes them visible to the subordinate subjects, missing persons, which are not present in the manuals and official statements of the ANH and even less bookish research university academics. So the process of analysis arises about the events of April 19, 1810 generated so much resistance from the sectors most conservative of Venezuelan historiography.
the reader is asked: What characterizes this interpretation on April 19 is generated in the CNH and the AGN? The answer is manifold. It is assumed on April 19 as a process of continuity from the category of resistance, which is understood as a dynamic of rebellion and insurrection, with expressions or actions more or less compelling in a particular historical moment, but retain their character as opposed to domination. In this key, the events of April 1810, are seen as a dynamic process due to a long life, resistance to domination generated europocéntrica Our America since the fifteenth century and continues today, with the anti-capitalist resistance expressed in the struggle of social movements around the defense of the Pacha Mama.
interpretation is built today, insisted the rescue of the reports by the historical and cultural values \u200b\u200binvolved. Talking about memory, identity talk is talk of a sense of belonging, is to speak of consciousness and is talking about sovereignty, beyond a political concept restricted to a limited space. Today, April 1810 events are connected with this experienced as both are manifestations of resistance to domination. Manifest both times the dialectical confrontation between the dialectic of oppressor versus the oppressed. And in that debate discourse, the oppressed demand to be made visible through the part taken and for this, the recovery of memories of resistance is vital. Therefore, the draw Files Francisco de Miranda and Simón Bolívar of ANH to be taken, care, digitized and shared through the work of the Friends of AGN is so important. There's a whole symbolic structure behind the recovery of those files. This is the same recovery and democratic collective nature of historical memory, which has been hijacked by the expert historians, who are the only ones knowledge, management and understand them.
is assumed that the April 19, 1810 has a dual nature in the meaning of struggle: it is anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist. These two (2) conditions are present in the actions of the subcontinent today, and therefore, we speak of a connection between that yesterday's heroes - deified them away from collective social interpretation, and the process of resistance and rebellion that is specified in the articulation of the aspirations of full sovereignty that underlie the discourse of Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, Lula, Hugo Chavez and social groups that make sense and sustainability to the proposed release. Again, we see any objective evidence of the struggle between the discourse of domination against the discourse of liberation, and according to the theologians of liberation, to free the oppressed must be liberated also the oppressor. Release means exalting the human condition. Yes there is an issue that should be globalized, it is humanity, only globalization of humanity, citizenship assures our survival throughout this century and beyond.
is assumed that the April 19, marks the manifestation of a struggle that has connection with yesterday and today, viewed from the perspective of a debt regarding the construction and definition in the being and doing. Be and do in the human condition at equilibrium our universe. Be and do in the integration of knowledge, solidarity. The Revolution now has a new meaning, which complements and expands the representations that were made in yesterday about the revolution. These revolutions today are no longer restricted to political and economic freedoms, such as logic liberal impulse in the nineteenth century. XXI century revolutions have a more profound, more human, as are woven over the desire to deepen the meeting of our humanity that is so alienated in this overwhelming world of consumption.
On April 19, 1810, makes sense in today through this commitment that goes through socialization and democratization history, how dangerous it is to the interests represented by the ANH. Dr. Juan Eduardo Romero

Historian
Juane1208@gmail.com
05/05/2010