few decades ago social and political sciences meant by a huge body mass and deadpan report anonymous individuals unconnected to each other (see Sartre's seriality) coherence or circumstantial and ephemeral. Essa notion of mass ill-concealed its synonymy with pejorative terms such as: mob, mob, mob etc.
mass division into social classes, or was arbitrary and knowingly ignored, or their struggles were idealized as being "the engine of history", or its validity was questioned by a great difficulty to define "scientifically." Differentiate all the names of the fuzzy set called "people", remains a challenge for knowledge. Lately
neo-revolutionary thinkers have coined (Or dug up?) The concept of mass crowd to mean a pluripotent anarchic, unpredictable but not indefinite. Whatever
that group is characterized and defined, the truth is that, in constitutional democracies, the vast majority of its members choose their government representatives by indirect vote, free and secret. This procedure, which has been, if any doubt, a fundamental achievement in world history, however, is full of flaws and shortcomings.
Starting with the suggestive fact that in countries where voting is not compulsory, the percentage of voters, not too rarely, less than fifty percent. These proportions absent, whatever the reasons for this omission is a serious indicator of the weaknesses of the regime. This is said taking into consideration that civil society (a marked degree of private capital) is the government that takes the complex and vital state power relations.
Among other cases, voting is compulsory or not, are known worldwide maneuvers vote buying, clientelism,
of dictatorship, authoritarian imposition of myth and megalomania and general handling of campaign advertising, strongly favored by ignorance, illiteracy and the strong tendency to corruption of candidates and voters.
Some of the services more sad and grotesque in this state of affairs, is partisan political alliances or other clear chances, or the choice of one candidate or another based on a non-priority aspect of your profile and agenda to the detriment of others of their proposals, much most important for sustaining the life of a whole society.
Given this scenario, who aspires to a civilization more just, equal and fraternal, saying he fears he could hasty diagnoses such as "Every people has the government it deserves", or "The essential function of government is to convince people that it is necessary and justified. "
A version of that ethic widespread electoral is assumed and public acceptance of widespread cynicism that excludes the reasons for a vote to anyone contemplating the interests and wishes of the entire electorate. You vote who supposedly provides exclusive sectoral needs even if they do not provide or conspire against what someone called Basic Homogeneous National Happiness (FIHB).
The aforementioned cynicism has taken a dubious virtue, and does not hide the undeniable truth that the governments of representative democracy does not "govern for all, but for the sector and the social segments that led to power. Gregory
Baremblitt
0 comments:
Post a Comment