TEÓDULO LÓPEZ MELÉNDEZ, Writer and Journalist - Caracas, Venezuela
The Venezuelan democracy froze on a panela of having constituted. The COPRE was hardly a pike-ice unable to penetrate the thick one and the strength of the hardening. The democracy was made an inadequacy allowing this aggression against the dignity embodied by a Lieutenant Colonel that governs to the best way in the XIX century.
The society instituted by those years of democracy search-dictatorship became hard burying the will of the society. This current régime is the typical case mentioned for Regis Debray of a revolution that changes the name to everything Govern and makes a party in each occasion, but, further on, it is an interference that prostitutes and it frustrates the participation, becoming this way an appendix of that instituted prior to itself.
It is this way, for example, exact to the pattern everything “for the State” in vogue until the surroundings or beginnings of the years 80, until Carlos Andrés Pérez began to develop the thesis of “everything for the market”. The citizenship that stopped to destroy the democratic period has been object of a voracious low consumisión this régime. That that seemingly was a consolidated democracy it showed their feet of mud with this return to an exacerbated statism that you go “ideological terrorists” in everything who is opposed.
He died this way-and it continues dead and to weigh of the farces - the spirit instituyente of a society that languishes. That instituted-of that which Chávez is a tenacious representative - makes theoretically impossible the rupture of a logic and the consequent maintenance of an empty shell that another thing is not the perspectives of a real democratic possibility.
A society instituyente is that whose true end is herself, being the State, the democracy and all the institutions simple means. Now then, inside this instituted society that it reproduces to the institutions the only possibility it is to think about to transcend them and goes by one taking of decision. To such an extent it should be been on that instituted that the same society should be reverted in a process instituyente.
The State of Right is this way a simple traffic and the Social State of Right - still in its more advanced conception - a simple distance in it offers of what the science juridical-politics begins to call advanced democratic State or postsocial. A time in that the politics stopped to be redemption space to become a frustrating impossibility live. I have repeated hundred of times that the thought and the politics got divorced, becoming the second a lamentable turn on that instituted. In the Venezuelan case I have mentioned the call “ideological platform” of A New Time like the most pathetic example in the common place. The politics became the administration of that instituted being robbed of all load, even of that old conception that defined it as “the art of the possible thing”. Of there to that the idiots look with mocking smiles to everybody who he thinks on the democracy considering it a “crazy” that is inventing abstract formulas.
We find that who announce practical of “representative democracy” they transform it truly in a situation deliberative intrascendente unable to impact with modifications on that instituted. The representative thing has stopped practically to exist when being constituted in a conservative mechanism of the existent thing and when not embodying a will expressed from the source instituyente and that called “participativo” it has been transformed into a farce that he obtains results exactly contrary to the necessary ones. The current government, for example, is particularly corrupt because it embodies to the perfection the politics's mercantilización that criticized to the democratic called period and that it has taken to the paroxysm.
It is necessary the modifier tension that produces a society in desire instituyente. We have thought about institutional changes and not structural changes that are the favorable ones for the achievement of the social justness. Of there that before the revolution verborreica of the current Venezuelan régime the call opposition appears like an advanced restituyente of what this régime already destroyed, amen of prostituting the new concepts that will be put in a washing machine with detergent.
It is necessary to build a citizenship and we don't have time like to be proclaiming that 20 or 30 years of a deep educational process they would be required. We already have in the country factors able to become social actors to invest the terms. It is what I have denominated those “intelligent elites” that for the most part move inside the country and not in their capital. However, those elites move between the cynicism and the nihilism, like I have analyzed in another text, and that here can call himself passivity consumista or strict administration of the particular interests. To make them wake up toward a civic self-determination would constitute the gist of the matter and it doesn't release it wait of massive populational formation.
He goes to make them to interpellate and to create this way a tension. It implies it innovation originated in a deep discernment. This is, what I call “intelligent elites” they should can to be transformed into activists in it offers of the inclusion and of the recognition of rights even not grateful. I have pointed out the concrete case of two good-for-nothings that say they will meet to decide the unit of the opposition around the regional elections. It is the rupture of an instituted logic and tax that it maintains in validity an absolutely inapt basic social agreement to assist to the immediate political necessities of superación of an authoritarian régime and it impedes the rolling power of a society instituyente. It implies it a new political ethics that will make possible the eruption of a new political culture that will facilitate-then yes - the long period of massive education in the formation of citizens. Something very contrary to the asistencialismo of the state, a perverse mechanism that doesn't make civic but aciudadanos.
When fragments, the history is changed, they are tried to eliminate facts and names and becomes trained that the collective mobilization is innocuous, corrodes the power instituyente of the social body. The current Venezuelan society is in negative phase. The protest is a simple loss of patience and the reading of columnists that insult the government a simple catharsis exercise.
It is what we try to make: to offer us some citizens, already owners of this condition, to begin to generate an essentially new political culture. He goes to make understand that Chávez when seeking a liberation that makes it is to impose a dominance.
When Chávez comes out June 24 to defend those “institutions” it is trafficking from revolutionary to conservative. Those “institutions” that Chávez left to defend they lack logical liberadora; they are hardly dominance instruments. Neither they respect the State of Right neither they advance toward a transformation process. They only maintain the status abusive quo. That is to say, they are in an extreme conservative situation.
What I seek when speaking of citizenship instituyente doesn't refer to a myth fuses you. I refer to an agent (to the agent) that impels an inclusive democratization permanently where it cannot be legalized, for example, the abuse of the Contralor Russian. So that this opposition that the country rejects-among other reasons because the only thing that it looks for it is the restitution of institutions of the past - it is to years light of the current necessity of the republic, this is, anything of considering to the institucionalidad like reason of being but of the implementation of the politics's new logic. The politics of resolution of conflicts and of harmonization of interests it was based on the strict respect to the effective legal order as only political possibility of democratic maintenance.
After the revolcón that we have suffered politics's context it is withered, for the simple reason that there are not institutions (Chávez invents them to justify the disqualifications). now then, without institutions one cannot live in democracy. The paradox is easily soluble, since when being contained (like we are) in the “without exit” (I repeat that I have already spoken sufficiently of nihilism and cynicism of the XXI century) will meet inevitably with a reaction in front of the subjection, one that also in an unavoidable way it will be marked by the politics's conception absolutely different from this that you/they practice among us as much government as opposition. There is, because, it thrills, because of the new ethics rationality will come out in the new construction.
It will come it from the taking of conscience of a necessary recovery (not of the past, in any case), but of the sense. The country that those “intelligent elites” they will lead it is one in fight against the distortions, one based on an alternative logic. It happens because the citizens take as new behavior norm the non delegation, that that in turn implies the assumption of the paper redefinidor what makes it responsible in first grade.
