2023-07-24 03:13:32
At the beginning of the return of democracy in our country, the then deputy of the Radical Civic Union Raúl Baglini formulated a proposition that we know today as “Baglini’s theorem”. It maintains that the degree of responsibility of the proposals of a party or political leader is directly proportional to its possibilities of accessing power. That is to say, the further away one is from power, the more irresponsible are the political statements; the closer, the more sensible and reasonable they become.
In times of electoral campaigns, citizens are exposed to a number of proposals masterfully formulated by the candidates: stop uncontrolled inflation; end corruption; reform educational plans; fight once morest drug trafficking; ensure greater security; eradicate homelessness and poverty; recover the republican institutions; Finish the child malnourishment; guarantee decent housing for all, and other fantastic promises.
Faced with them, the common citizen is disconcerted and warns – not to say confirms – that politicians are liars who try to capture their emotional support and take them for an idiot.
Indeed, the central question might be synthesized in a reaction on the part of some voters: “Let them sort themselves out; I’m not going to vote.” In this way, the uselessness of such promises is certified, which become vain expressions, devoid of meaning. In my opinion, it is appropriate that we filter these celestial proposals –as Baglini points out– with a reality check. To do this, faced with each of these propositions, the candidate who formulates them should be able to answer a series of questions.
As citizens, we are demanding precise definitions that make sense of what they offer us. Faced with political campaign promises, we want to know which, what, who, where, how much, when.
“I am going to defeat inflation”: When? As? With what resources? Who will you appoint to the Ministry of Economy?
“I will regularize the situation with our creditors”: Where will you get the capital from? In how much time? What preference does it register in the face of poverty and education?
“I will prioritize the generation of genuine employment to combat homelessness and poverty”: With what resources? In how much time? Will new taxes be necessary to achieve this?
“I will transform Aerolíneas Argentinas into a profitable company”: How? In how much time? How will you deal with the current deficit?
When will the postponed Federal Coparticipation Law, which automatically guarantees the remittance of funds to the provinces, be sanctioned? Will the excessive and reprehensible use of decrees of necessity and urgency be continued as a way of governing?
During campaign times, it is notable how all the candidates hope for popular support directing their propaganda to the emotional vector of the citizen and, among other reasons, they use the self-fulfilling prophecy to add a large number of unawares.
In the last government elections in Córdoba, the news spread that there would be no penalty for those who did not cast their vote. If we add to this the great loss of prestige of the political class that only seeks to perpetuate itself in power, it is expected that many voters do not vote or vote blank.
Conclusion
As can be seen, the answers to the great questions that afflict the country are not found in the proposals of the aspirants to direct the destinies of our country. Those who focus their efforts every day on reviewing their position in the polls and what are the projects that the people expect to hear, in order to then direct the proselytism in that deceitful direction, are none other than the candidates who increasingly push away a large majority from the desire to vote.
It is even opportune to recognize that, surely, those who live on the state budget are going to vote and that not voting harms the total population and republican institutions. We understand that it should not be mandatory, but that we must all definitely comply with the civic duty of casting the ballot.
No less suffocating, due to non-compliance with legal controls, is a degrading state of affairs that we Argentines suffer, which is modeled by the bureaucratization of all political apparatuses that do not adjust to technological updates and that were monopolized, for life, not by those most apt to govern on the basis of the common good, but by those most apt to be selected (read, in particular, union corruption).
Regarding the closure, we once once more cite the theorem of political opportunity: “If the organization of public institutions is deficient, naive or unfair, and the people do not participate, (then) the leaders have paved the way towards the exercise of hegemonic power, its perpetuation and impunity for corrupt behavior.”
From there, we turn to Cornelio Castoriadis and his book breakthrough of insignificance, to offer a final reflection that warns regarding the dangers we face “when, once once more, society loses interest in politics, that is, in its destiny as a society.”
* Doctor of Law
1690168762
#promises #politicians
