philosophy and Aristotle: the future of Latin America Dear, I would like to share the text of my presentation at the seminar " Political use of the memory and the future of democracy in Latin America" \u200b\u200b, held in Buenos Aires on Monday 27 and Tuesday September 28, in whom I shared the panel with the Argentine philosopher and senator-Samuel Cabanchik and the Ambassador of Chile in Argentina, Adolfo Zaldívar.
I invite you to read the text to have it out there, of course, always with respect, beyond the inevitable differences of opinion, ideological perspectives and "passions" that these issues arouse political -. I also believe that the part where I return to the analysis of the first presidential address Mujica currently recovers the reference to the State Reform and the current conflict between the government and the state unions, some pre-announced strong from that first moment by Mujica. The debate is open and I invite you to leave your comments on this blog space.
If you want to download the text in PDF format, for a more comfortable reading, they can do from this link: http://www.box.net/shared/beebc3x38x
Aristotle and Mujica: The Future of Latin America
As pointed out the poster for the dissemination of the seminar: "The democratic processes in South America are crossed by various narratives that combine a protest rote exercise often illusory past with an effort to think about the future." And as we embark on the task of analysis of the different narratives that are living together, we find an issue that seems to have become a commonplace of political analysis on all current democratic in recent years in the region: the existence of two markedly different blocks. On the one hand, governments that might characterize as social democrats, moderate profile, where they finally institutions become more important than political personalities, as we might say that is the case of Uruguay, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, to name a few, and a bloc of governments that have placed more towards left with some populist and nostalgic revolutionary processes for the 60 ', confrontational and nationalist embarked on the so-called "Bolivarian revolution", personalist leaders seem to be more important than institutions and where the constitution, for example, appear to be an area of \u200b\u200breform and adjustments in line with the political project of occasion, such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua.
And, if I make a cut more closely linked to the theme that unites us, I would say that these two blocks represent to some extent either of these two points of the timeline proposed for this seminar. I think, then, we are witnessing a double movement in relation to past and future in the two blocks above. And in this respect, I do not avoid responsibility for taking part in the matter and take a clear position on this circumstance, from which leave open the necessary forum for debate and dialogue. I understand that the future of democracy in the region has to think for channels where eventually shelved the brutal practice of substituting weight of institutions by the staff almost omnipotent. We must strengthen the rule of law and build consensus agreements and practices that are beyond the glittering and charismatic political figures and even beyond, the 'party, which is another of democratic deficits that afflict our country. Think of state policies for 20 or 30 years in key areas of our societies, which are not tied inevitably to political party leaders and eventually established in power. In turn, promote a policy of harmony that can go from a practice of obtaining revenues and lots of power on the basis of boosting constant social conflict theory and that only a strong hand and political patronage will be able to defeat the "dark power behind the scenes."
recently was the Argentine philosopher Enrique Dussel dictating a lecture at the Faculty of Humanities at Montevideo and said that he saw in the Bolivarian project of Latin American real emancipation, which ultimately will not count and this bicentennial, which really-understand-it was something totally wrong and counterproductive. And at one point an audience member asked about the "imposition from above and the desire for perpetuation in power," he saw in the project led by Venezuela and he raises the question of whether there is a risk that "ends up being a dictatorship in a few years." To which Dussel responds that yes, that may end in a dictatorship but is best from each situation in particular and in Venezuela there is a hard base and a clear disadvantage compared to companies such as Uruguay and Chile, where democracies, and respect for democracy, seem more consolidated, and then you have to understand that "When Alo Presidente Chavez Sunday passed 5 hours in a TV show people laugh and says it looks like an artist film, but the man is really there making the task of a school teacher, explaining to people what is happening. It is a school, but most primary school many times. " And I think that attitude is just part of the problem not the solution. infantilize This form of the institutions, social organizations, citizens, leaving them all under the wing of the parent image, the enlightened master of the ruler, is precisely a practice that should be banished from our political imagination . We have seen in our region how sometimes the teacher made effective in office for half a century and no way to make him understand that the village is not a small child to be guided and care because he can not walk alone, nor is aware of the dangers and moral hazards of the "evil world around him.
understand the future of democracy in Latin America can only assume majority and assume its responsibilities as an adult. And this does not mean in any focus point of view of mere formalities and ignore the central point, which is the welfare of our citizens. But is not that well off is achieved by cutting recipes populist, paternalistic and authoritarian, based on a policy of conflict, but the very long and arduous path of dialogue, consensus and political agreements, which prioritize and develop a competitive and open to the world but with a strong social sensitivity profile when indoors distributive justice, "continues the journey that finally seems to be more healthy for our Latin American democracies.
If we return to some point past and project recoverable healthy future, perhaps we should go say a few centuries ago to settle almost at the cradle of the birth of Western philosophy. Back to strengthen our culture work in the field of political philosophy, which I understand The Politics, Aristotle . The idea of \u200b\u200bprioritizing the consolidation of a republican democracy over other possible models of government policy and practice related to the development of certain ethical virtues, among which has always avoiding extremes and defend conditions alternating between ruler and ruled, it remains a radical political project . Some understand Aristotle's position is conservative and that his "middle" as a proposed ethics policy, ruled by seeking the common good from the cultivation of virtues such as moderation, prudence and reason in dialogue, can be finally good case so that nothing changes. I, on the contrary, I declare at this point Aristotle of its proposal and agree that we must avoid extremes and to radicalize positions is the most comfortable way of standing in the political arena and the best way to be a conservative. And at this point is I want to take any form of Mujica, president of my country as an example of someone who has fully understood this issue.
Mujica, who once scorned and fought, even by way of arms, a liberal democracy, representative democracy, which he considered a mere deception, makeup to further support the bourgeois economic elites, a figure now represents paradigmatic mental change definitely need to operate our region for the consideration of what democracy is, the importance of States law, state policies and long-term overcoming the logic of "the constant reinvention of the wheel "(each time a new government comes to power has been willing to reformat the hard drive and start all this almost zero to put into practice new and true genius at play). And by the way, taking into account the vital political career and Mujica (part of the guerrillas and was imprisoned thirteen years and then was the political representative of the sector more Uruguayan radical left to the end of dictatorship), it is no less subject to point to the urgent need to set aside the old theories of conflict and the slogans of "all or nothing."
His keynote inauguration as president of Uruguay on 1 March this year is a piece of anthology that largely recreates what Mujica has learned over time and political practice. One lesson that opens the door to understand desirable future for our Latin American democracies. When Mujica won national elections, one of the debates was installed what would be their attitude right in front of these two blocks that are coexisting in the region. The issue was whether he would pursue in future be defined by government facing its ideological past, to their old beliefs of the radical left and contemptuous of the procedures of liberal democracy or whether it would align with the block represented largely by a social democracy Lula style or following the Chilean model. Particularly right Uruguayan and moderate center-left (represented by the political line Vázquez and his successor Danilo Astori, who just lost the internal elections for president at the hands of Mujica) had become defensive if probably align with the axis represented by Chávez's own ideological path as he approached the block and not the other. For those who long ago we were attending to the ideological processes of Mujica not surprising that we ended finally assume the role as a leader than block social profile of our region. And, indeed, want to share some of what I wrote the day after taking Mujica and his historic first speech as president. I believe that speech is the tension between past and future of our democracies in Latin America settled positively by a man who paradigmatically embodies that past and this future. Said my article about that speech:
The first speech as president José Mujica made in Parliament, may have left something of a surprise to most, beyond or not there are explicit and public recognition in this regard: while the more radical left-from-left daily La Juventud to point marked indignation Mujica was "more of the same" and titled its editorial "A desalambrar to desalambrar! but, for international capital, further entangled in old and worn out slogans, we need more official media (the newspaper La República) declined to comment those aspects that could be ideologically somewhat uncomfortable for any militant (and perhaps many of their constituents) of the Frente Amplio, particularly those referring to the more pragmatic edge of liberal stamp and for a macro linked to a vortex as possible within of contemporary capitalism that stressed the new president. And to further contribute to a state of surprise, the press more closely linked to the right was almost effusively enthusiastic speeches by Mujica, highlighting precisely those aspects of the speech that bothered both the radical left and the left more "enthusiastically official "declined to comment.
For those who have been following the ideological avatars Mujica, however, nothing surprised us presidential address these issues more clearly linked to pragmatism and political liberalism, old bad words in the imaginary have always supported and promoted by the local left.
Similarly, we were surprised not more of the statements in this regard Mujica conduct in the controversial book Pepe Talks , so celebrated by the local right and so eagerly tried to conceal, correct, or ignore leaders and leftists (even for the same Mujica at the time, by the way). While, yes We must confess that I ended up closing their flirtations and petty intrigues of "bedroom" with some of the most militant, and less moderate-del Frente Amplio, more akin to give this second administration of FA strongly marked a turning point for the old slogans of the left "historic", sitting still in the discourse of class conflict and struggle. In particular, its relationship with the old "bar" of former fellow guerrilla adventures and the most Sixties of the MPP, but above all, with the minority Communist Party, which despite having little national vote is very strong in the obsolete elitist and unrepresentative scaffolding internal organization of the Frente Amplio.
But his public goodbye to the bar, its finally clear and decisive approach to the policy of Vázquez-Astori and representatives of a modern left in the center of the political spectrum, who can grow efficiently with all Recipes and economic rules of global capitalism and then dump the fruits harvested in social policy, accompanied by a better distributive justice, and his first speeches as president made clear some political strategies and alliances necessary Mujica learned to play brilliantly. Zorro old Mujica has already stated in the book Pepe Talks the need to have the favor of the Communist Party, knowing of their weight in the international Congress of the frontage, but especially knowing that handle much of the shop floor, that is, the more conservative and bureaucratic sector that has the Uruguayan State. And this is central, because Mujica and raised in that book that his plan was bolder in taking forward the mother of all reforms: the reform of the state. Nothing more and nothing less than the space where they end up failing president after president. And it was clear that this should take a different path of Vasquez, who did not have the necessary political waist to know how to deal successfully with militant bases-unionized and bolted to the apparatus state. Mujica movements were other, typical of a brilliant political chess. Although there are to do, of course, how to finally end the current game. (...) But this time will have to face the most established and skilled political chameleon who has our spectrum of political leaders: the new president of all Uruguayans, the man who time and again been reconfigured and adapted to circumstances the survivor to urban guerrilla times, the survivor to jail and torture of military dictatorship, the man who was able to adapt to the rules of liberal democracy and disdain that before he fought against, recycling emerge as a moderate radical social, with a look at the astonishing reality that to old comrades in arms (there walks Zabalza, his old comrade in arms, saying Mujica "has no roots"), a jaw-dropping that their arch rivals on the right , which are unable to carry out management, and sustain a credible discourse about it, which finally represents a political theory, and a concrete model of government, which synthesizes the best of liberalism and socialism, the old and erroneous dichotomy that many still believe the world. Perhaps time-point that in those historical instances of Congress in late 2008 FA view to selecting the candidate "official" - in the almost obsessive zeal of militant bases-particularly the communists, to close the road to Astori as FA candidate, by calling him a desire just to own pragmatic and liberal, too according to prevailing macroeconomics, did nothing but pave the way to more pragmatic and politically liberal of potential candidates.
Mujica is a liberal in the classical political sense (and in more than one occasion has defined precisely in these terms) and a man with a vision quite pragmatic about political life that has left both motives (the liberalism ideology and pragmatism) of seeing the world from the barren lands of the ideology of conflict and the all or nothing. Indeed, on the latter referred in his first speech as president, well worth quoting his words:
"(...) we believe that this idea of \u200b\u200bcomplementarity between the social parts, is the best fit reality. We believe that the diagnosis of consensus and convergence is more correct than conflict "
" A while ago we all learned that the battle for the all or nothing, are the best way so that nothing changes and everything pond. We want a life consensus-oriented policy and the sum, because we really want to change reality. "
Overcoming ongoing conflict theories (with the obvious common questions, meaning that for all at this point I guess it must be clear that life is conflict and there are competing interests at all levels and orders. But the issue is beyond that stage by way of dialogue and agreement, not accentuate it by way of disagreement based on non-permanent dialogue with the "ideological enemy" ), open spaces of debate and overcome the conservatism (Conservatives are certainly, as you said Mujica, who want "change" reality from the slogans "revolutionary" of the conflict and all or nothing).
This, of course, requires end to banish political practices imposed on the screams and the romance of the "heroes of classes." Is needed in any case, another form of "heroism" and "courage", much more difficult to implement. Well, what is needed is peaceful dialogue, respect for differences, prioritize the way of argument, persuasion based on good ideas, as essential space of democratic maturity. Above all, it takes more than class interest and conflict permanent, subject to think and act beyond, to think effectively in the community property. And as you said in that first speech Mujica:
"None of this is achieved by shouting. Just look at the countries that are ahead in these areas and you will see that most of them have a peaceful political life. With little epic, few heroes and few villains. (...) To do this we believe that it takes a civilized political coexistence
Courage is needed to carry out this great reform of state proposing Mujica and involves face their own political bases. And although so far there has been more than presidential defeat in that area, their intentions and challenges were also scored in that first speech:
"That honesty and courage will be needed to carry out state policies projected. To agree we have to lower our respective positions and averaged with the others. And that means trouble mandatory cuts in our political bases. That will be a test of courage. "
And there, also this will digest not only the" villains "are corrupt, that bureaucracy has no party, there to put aside the moral arrogance that usually appears when we assign a priori a label of "good" and the holders of ultimate truths, and learn those lessons that we impose the limits of reality, including the macroeconomic and the finite limits of monetary resources. And rang clear and strong words about Mujica:
"For its part the Frente Amplio, and now challenging transitional eternal champion, had to accept harsh lessons, not the voters but of reality. We found that rule was far more difficult than we thought, that fiscal resources are finite and infinite social demands.
That bureaucracy has its own life, that macroeconomics is unpleasant but mandatory rules.
And we even had to learn, with much pain and shame, that not all our people were immune to corruption. "
" A neat Macroeconomics is a prerequisite for everything else. We will be serious expenditure management, handling serious deficits, serious monetary policy and more serious, dogs, in monitoring the financial system. Let me put it in a provocative way: we shall be orthodox in the macroeconomy. (...) I once wanted to be Antarctic and produce everything within their borders. We were wrong, very wrong. No criminal would learn from those pains and return to a cage and closed economy to the world. "
(...)
The day after the primaries, I wrote an article entitled" Between Mujica and Lacalle, voting Vaz Ferreira "and the next day's victory in presidential elections Mujica one entitled" The day after the presidential election. " The first argued the importance of the political center and balances, the need to abandon the old dichotomies of ideology and pursue policies that exceed state the Uruguayan partidocracia fatal. In the second, celebrated Mujica gesture at the time of winning, just calling to find these balances with the opposition and declaring that it would immediately set to work committees aimed at generating further state policies of political parties (specific factual and weeks before his inauguration, with inter-party committees working on four core issues: education, environment, security and energy). Mujica also said that "could be the one to take a historic step in achieving break the old habit of governing Uruguayan politician without the other, not the loser in this dichotomy of left vs. right. Time will tell. And the political will, of course. "
Good to know that things are heading in this direction, which stated that it is vital Mujica rule "to generate changes to the long term," to "create conditions for rule 30 years with state policies, which more important than the government of a party is "a party system, so wise and so powerful, capable of generating tight tunnels that cross the various chairs of the different parties, and there, for those tunnels, are untouched the strategic lines of the big issues, but those living politics as a supporter fan from the stands of the stadium, find it almost intolerable restraint so democratic.
It's not only time " homeland for all" (and less than tragic, "or no") but also homeland with everyone. " Not least the elimination and addition, with its corresponding replacement and reversal commendable Mujica-tested at the time of his speech to the historic MLN formula that read "There will be a homeland for everyone or for nobody." I wish that "all" can crystallize. It is difficult but not impossible. At least worth a try.
And closed my article on the first presidential address Mujica. And I now close my presentation with some final words that summarize my perspective of the issue :
should be vaccinated against the discourses that encourage bigotry and simplification of dividing the world into good and bad. The reality is less comfortable. And the word consensus is a concept of a democratic radical who can not understand those who understand that the radical is to impose at all costs and by any means one's position. Seek consensus is not to ignore the conflicts of interest, or power games or naively assumed to be neutral, but have political maturity as a society. Which has naturalized neutrality is at the other end of which is only power and interests in all sides (and above all, "the perverse interests of the other") and has been paralyzed to think along with others. But they are two sides of the same coin. Thus, the citizen who is more necessary in building healthy democracies is not in these extremes, which is in the middle, which recognizes the presence of the interests and power games, but still therefore overcoming that barrier to find points of encounter and appreciate the best arguments in search of political practices collective resolutions to common problems that benefit all and not only respond to particular interests, whether individual or corporate.
is an urgent need to start educating argumentative practices appropriate to the demands for democracy and education that puts the difference over equality, to the extent that we are equal to the difference and just creating a culture of otherness we able to achieve the social arrangements that respect each other's ideas ensure proper equality. Stop and shelter for those models where the government is prevailing inequality by imposition of ideas of those who hold political power or most ideological shift.
A healthy democratic debate involves some conditions of "mental state." Is that democracy may be above all a future of sensitivity. And our main political-and cultural-are usually mainly in the head rather than the pocket. Projecting the future of Latin American democracies eventually mature and cooperating with each other, united in the inner and outward to overcome their problems of social inequality, the challenge is to put aside the political use of memory in terms of dichotomous sterile conflict, incorporating a strong social agenda that seeks to overcome problems in terms of cooperating and not in terms of friends / enemies.
José Enrique Rodo, the great Uruguayan Latin Americanist, author of Ariel and Patterns of Proteus, betting at the beginning of twentieth century Latin American integration from the ethical and aesthetic around a humanistic tradition that points to your own responsibility who lead the countries of our region, to the extent that the problem is primarily cultural and ours. And although rolled hard in his criticism of Anglo-Saxon culture and develops an argument notable anti-imperialist, not because of what ultimately happens here or not, understood as the first and fundamental obstacle is ourselves. The future remains as always in our own hands.
