Imprimir
Jaime Yovanovic Prieto (Professor J)
As we have shown in previous texts, the modernity cirisis have put democracy on evidence. Its inefficiency to guarantee the rights of all is already something unquestionable and for that reason different social sectors and localities are looking for other ways to restitute the principles and values of a new democracy.
Observing the experiences that we wrote down in the last text, we can extract some syntheses that can be of utillity for the reflection groups on a new democracy, that here we propose:
Popular participation: in the experiences we wrote down it is perceived that some sectors of population, specially the most needed, create groups and develop some activities of self production management, self government, search out for solutions, etc. In the same way state distance itself more and more, letting itself fail in its traditional tasks of attention to the population in areas as health, education, employement, house, earth to work and services in general.
‘Participation’ in the institutions as municipalities, in the modalities of participative budget or municipal advice areas, has resulted a real demagoguery that has frustrated the expectations created by those populists programs. There have been no progress. The mentioned democratic expasion from the institutions has only mean the instrumentation of population and new members designation in formal instituttions.
Social dialogue: the participants of these experiences practice the interchange of ideas and the proposal analysis for the search of solutions to the local problems and needs. It is developed the respect to diverse ideas and everyone is listened without trying to impose settled ideas. Discussions are face to face. People know each other better. Initiative and creativity grows. It is learned to coexist with the others. Suggestions flows with a real dynamic.
Affection and solidarity: the necessity to find solutions using the own self organized population resources and the reuse of the material and natural elements that exist in locality for the commun use, are taking people to a better identification one with each other. Comprehension, personal respect and affection nexus are stronger echa day. The distance is shorter and affective nexus grows. Feelings find a way to manifest and expand, escaping from the colse circle of the patriarchal family and passing on the community united by the commun concern of survivence and to reach plain and good ways of life.
We have to live with our differences: We all have taste and different appreciations about a lot of things and situations. The formal democratic systems, centralized and authoritarians follow the homogenization of the social behavior. In these experiences that we have noted, that doesn’t happen, but it has been possible to establish way of living where the individual characteristics encounter possibilities of realization and expansion. That is, inside of the common frame of identity, the encountered solutions and problems in process of resolution have opened ways of moral enrichment and personal growth, such as the cases of productive self-organization or the discussions itself and exchange.
End to the vanguards and leaderships: This has been a notable conquest of the experiences of a new democracy, where it’s not about a group or person that are placed to the ‘head’ of the self-organization of a locality, but a concert of everyone’s voices and the constant exchange that decide the road to follow. That has not been exempted of contradictions, as we know, the parties and ideologies insist in ‘penetrating’ these democratic activities in order to ‘direct’ them behind such or such strategy.
Substitution of the verticality for a horizontal one: The authoritarians’ forms of democracy, usually, have prioritized for the vertical way of working, through the structures of a pyramidal form they execute power from top to bottom. That’s a hierarchical democracy, where the ones on the bottom must respect and follow the orientations of those on top and the latter to follow those who are at the pinnacle of the pyramid. The new democracy has finished with it and it doesn’t count with those vertical structures of commando, instead, the decisions are taken in a horizontal assembly where every person has the same authority as others; that way it reflects that essence of the popular sovereignty.
Social Autonomy: This is a subject of strong discussions, but the real fact is that autonomy has been the only form of recovering the plenitude of the democratic exercise of the popular sovereignty, since the inherence of the political parties and institutions of the State are presented as inefficient and contradictories with the interest of the population. Especially with the making of decisions and propositions that are taken out of the social subject and from there they (cabinets, intellectual entities, etc.) pretend to direct the course of the localities by trying to ‘represent’ the real interest of the people without the consultation or, at times, consulting through deceiving and directed questions.
A new democracy obviously has to overcome these orientations that come from outside of the sovereignty’s subject and has to replace the capacity of decision on a sovereign people that is tired of injustices, inequality and lack of rights.
The end of the vote and the dictatorship of the majority: This has been another great contribution of the experiences of a new democracy, where the decisions tend to reach a consensus through the dialogue and the fraternal exchange, and this is not as in the prehistory of democracy in which we still are, where dialogue is replaced through the imposition of the vote, which does not permit the united construction of a common idea.
We will continue with the subject.
Jaime Yovanovic Prieto (Profesor J)