Seinforma
The Latin-Canadian Organization of Human Rights and Freedom of Expression / Organización Latino-Canadiense de Derechos Humanos y Libertad de Expresión
Specialized Journalistic Sevices (SJS)
Servicios Especializados de Información
Servicios Especializados de Información
English
Español
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Godfather PLAN
This year we are supporting the caring of hundreds of Bolivian children who live in misery near La Paz.
More...
This year we are supporting the caring of hundreds of Bolivian children who live in misery near La Paz.
More...
All Rights Reserved © Specialized Journalistic Services Copyright 2008 Canada
Todos los Derechos Reservados © Seinforma Canada Copyright 2008
Todos los Derechos Reservados © Seinforma Canada Copyright 2008
Videos
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Contest
____________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
The history of domination in Latin America. MONROE: Let's reformulate!
Erosión y desabastecimiento,
los beneficios del biodiesel
los beneficios del biodiesel
__________________
. English
. Español
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________
__________________
______________
______________
______________
______________
(Photo resisters.ca /Seinforma)
LATIN AMERICA
11/02/2008
By Ronald Duarte/ Seinforma Canada Correspondent
Bogotá, Colombia.- The term constitutionalism, as a means of directing a Nation, implies the old legal debate about what is and what ought to be, or, in other words, the turning point is: What is the difference between the law and the mere exercise of force? More clearly, constitutionalism cannot justify the difference between the political actions and the actions of criminals.
The main reason for that is that one thing is the supreme law (the Constitution) or “higher law”, formally written, and another very different thing is the effective enforcement of their provisions, in the form established by the Constitution.
I could agree with authors better than me who affirm that there is no yet in the entire Latin America a real constitutionalism or accepted guarantor (Efficient) and forged by the general will; moreover, in Colombia the Constitution’s effectiveness has serious deficiencies both in its enactment and in its enforcement.
To enlarge the disaster, using words that are used by one of the persons that made me write this lines, the past presidential Events and the future intentions predict an increased inefficiency of the political Constitution as guarantor of the life and peaceful relations of the Colombians, because its force of law is blemished by the manipulation by unlawful forces and the President.
In the current case, headed by the Executive Power, the political Constitution of 1991 is interpreted in a completely exegetic dimension, together with an imperativist view of the Law by the supreme leader. Therefore, the Law is considered valid only if it is does not disagree with the Magna Charta, amended notwithstanding the criteria of justice, and what is worst: it is considered a Law due to the simple fact that it has been enacted by the Leader, in this case (although in violation of many centuries of legal debate about matters of democracy and division of powers) the President of the Republic. Colombia has run such risks, and it will intensify in the years to come.
The Colombian President must abide to the constitutional provisions. For that reason, the President decided to amend the Constitution in a discretionary and capricious way when the Magna Charta interfered with his governmental plans. Thus, he was not disrespectful to it in public, what is worst, he repealed it.
The chief if the executive, in an agreement that was more devious than constitutional, enacted, settled and approved a presidential reelection that benefited himself. Under the guise that some of his enraged supporters might affirm that such amendment definitely benefited the Colombians more than the President himself, to resolve the situation in Colombia with a "firm and strong hand", he stated that: although he could have settled and approved the amendment at another time, when he was a National Senator, the idea was only applicable when he became the President of the Republic. In the democratic history of Colombia there has never been such a despotic act, as far as I know; and as every other despotism, it threatens democracy.
What is really incredible is that this process endorsed illegal movements SUPPORTED BY LEGAL MEANS (law enforcement) that enabled to consolidate the reelection amendment. It would be sad for many jurists to see the illegal force camouflaged with tie and with representation in the Senate, sharing functions with the Head of State so that, without division of powers with the legislative power, it could hatch by force and illegally a dictatorial act.
The incursion of paramilitaries in the Senate of the Republic is merely that, a sad event. It knocks down the thin barrier that distinguishes between the legal force and the illegal force and, due to the high percentage of illegal representation in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, renders such President illegal, a scoundrel and anti-democratic person. "Unbelievable", the supporter of democracy burns the general will at the stake.
Again, under the guise that an enraged supporter of the honorable President, who is becoming a dark criminal with his words, might attribute the presidential election to the ballot on direct vote and no to discernment, in the Senate of the reelection law. Mi response is logical: Senators are representatives of the citizens and, as such, theoretically, their interests cannot differ from the will expressed in the ballots. If that is true, as the logic states, the same interests that approved the reelection as a democratic option in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, are the ones that elected the reelected President. That is, the interests responsible for more than 4 million of displaced persons and twenty thousand of disappeared.
My point is the following. How is it possible in a democracy for an electoral and constitutional amendment to be illegal due to the connection of illegal votes among their honorable members and for a presidential reelection to be legal?
I am not saying that more than 60% of the Colombian population is paramilitary. I am saying that, as well as they committed fraud to vote in favor of the reelection proposal, there is a high probability of fraud in the presidential elections. Such votes represent the citizens, since they belong to the legislative power.
The force of the argument increases when scrutinizing the democratic principles and the reality in Colombia: The main characteristic of this form of government is the agreement between the citizens supported by a voluntary obligation, assumed by recognizing institutions as guarantors of their fundamental right. The problem is that, in the case of the Colombian democracy the voluntary will is not completely supported by recognizing the democratic institutions; it is recognized by the threaten, by the bullets, by the illegal force. An armed group -an illegal armed group- obtained a representation of more than 35% in different areas of the legislative branch. As an armed group, their votes were not achieved by political debate, but by pillage. Their votes are illegal and the votes of their representatives in the Senate and in the House of Representatives are also illegal. The question is: Why can’t we think that this same principle has been important in the presidential election? Why can’t we think that the paramilitaries obtained votes in the presidential election in the same way as the obtained votes in the Senate and in the House of Representatives? I seem to hear the languid reply of a "U" supporter talking about figures and percentages, but I will not give my response since it is obvious.
The aforesaid, which constitute only part of the facts that incriminate the Colombian government in an illegal democracy, clearly show that the constitutionalism in that country is efficient in the enforcement of the law only when it is beneficial for the leader and, when it is not beneficial, the law is amended. Proof of that is the new proposal to amend the Constitution in relation to a subject that was amended only two years ago: the presidential reelection. I cannot disregard the role of the Supreme Court of Justice as guarantor of the Supreme Law, but I can argue that the dispute between the Supreme Court and the President of Colombia are evidence of my words and of the state authoritarianism against the control mechanisms.
The aforesaid shows us that for our governing Lawyer the legal system is reduced merely to the orders given by him and obeyed by his subjects, that is to say, and in the words of one of the toughest opponent to this concept (Hart): Colombians are not subject to the legal system, they are subject to the bullets.
The implications of that in a democracy are the following: The Constitution is a mere map under which the course of the nation will be ruled, course that is agreed upon democratically; and democracy is the success of the minimal difference of the individual will, revealed as general will. The problem is that in Colombia the only will imposed is the will of the government on duty and the course of the nation are modified by obscure shortcuts that envisage a fatal outcome.
In that sense, the democratic security praised by the President is a fallacy, because it is the democracy that ensures security and not the other way round. Democracy ensures that the supreme leader represents the general will. But the concept of will in Colombia, as I said before, is more related to bullets than to discernment. For that reason, democracy in Colombia is the will of the minorities and the vote of the majorities; that is to say, there are some that make decisions and some others that clock on.
On the other hand, but using the same logic, the gross political support that the President has in the legislative power (and I use the term ‘gross’ because some of the Senators have said publicly, without shame, that the next President will be the current one or the one appointed by him, striking sovereignty and reviving autocracy; impairing the Colombian democracy and spiting at the law of Colombia) threatens to turn the Colombian government into an oligarchic cycle, leaded by only one person and whose force is the illegality of the paramilitaries guns, far from abiding the law. The state means are not guarantors of democracy anymore and become their cruelest executioners, supported by the close relations between the militaries and the paramilitaries.
However, if we analyze closely the second reelection, we will notice that, beside the presidential aspirations is the strongest argument against it: the President was not able to defeat insurgency in the first period, nor on his second period, and maybe he will need two periods more to achieve that goal and leave the revolution in the hands of another generation that will continue to fight for the same cause at the expense of thousands of deaths. This need to extend his permanence in power shows the failure of his undertaking; the main electoral promises that helped him to become President were not fulfilled during the first term, his program failed and, however, he still has a high credibility.
The first leaders of the United States of Washington declared: "the perpetuation of power becomes a tyranny". This power, that intends to be perpetual, is tyrannical in nature and might become in something even worst than a tyranny: a catastrophe. The reasons are:
Taking into account this reference and for the future, in case the reelection proposal is passed, the Colombian STATE would lose its label of Nation-state and would be dangerously close to un Person-state, in which the President would also be the legislator and the judge. Many jurists would consider this warning illusive, but I am afraid that, with the extradition decisions, the President acted as a judge, disregarding the infringements of the paramilitaries and turning them into drug trafficking. Similarly, his incursion in legislative manipulations is evident in the palace’s breakfasts, in the legal proceeding against Yidis Medina, in the failure of the political reform, etc...
After the second reelection, Colombia should be prepared for a worsening of the conflict, the disappearance of the political adversaries, the increase of human rights violations, and a higher state repression, a decrease of press freedom; in summary, for the beginning of the first civil dictatorship, camouflaged as a democratic and sovereign government.
The reason is simple: when the high percentage of Colombians that elected the current President voluntarily, without a gun in their heads, eventually realize that their freedom is restricted more and more every day, that the social problems are increasing, that the economy collapses due to a public spending focused on the war which causes deaths, that the inequality increases, that poverty is not decreasing, that subemployment reaches almost 80%, then the perpetual President should increase the legitimating violence to maintain his power. And in that moment, Colombia, a nation that has seen blood flowing like a river, will see a sea of blood in the streets.
By Ronald Duarte/ Seinforma Canada Correspondent
Bogotá, Colombia.- The term constitutionalism, as a means of directing a Nation, implies the old legal debate about what is and what ought to be, or, in other words, the turning point is: What is the difference between the law and the mere exercise of force? More clearly, constitutionalism cannot justify the difference between the political actions and the actions of criminals.
The main reason for that is that one thing is the supreme law (the Constitution) or “higher law”, formally written, and another very different thing is the effective enforcement of their provisions, in the form established by the Constitution.
I could agree with authors better than me who affirm that there is no yet in the entire Latin America a real constitutionalism or accepted guarantor (Efficient) and forged by the general will; moreover, in Colombia the Constitution’s effectiveness has serious deficiencies both in its enactment and in its enforcement.
To enlarge the disaster, using words that are used by one of the persons that made me write this lines, the past presidential Events and the future intentions predict an increased inefficiency of the political Constitution as guarantor of the life and peaceful relations of the Colombians, because its force of law is blemished by the manipulation by unlawful forces and the President.
In the current case, headed by the Executive Power, the political Constitution of 1991 is interpreted in a completely exegetic dimension, together with an imperativist view of the Law by the supreme leader. Therefore, the Law is considered valid only if it is does not disagree with the Magna Charta, amended notwithstanding the criteria of justice, and what is worst: it is considered a Law due to the simple fact that it has been enacted by the Leader, in this case (although in violation of many centuries of legal debate about matters of democracy and division of powers) the President of the Republic. Colombia has run such risks, and it will intensify in the years to come.
The Colombian President must abide to the constitutional provisions. For that reason, the President decided to amend the Constitution in a discretionary and capricious way when the Magna Charta interfered with his governmental plans. Thus, he was not disrespectful to it in public, what is worst, he repealed it.
The chief if the executive, in an agreement that was more devious than constitutional, enacted, settled and approved a presidential reelection that benefited himself. Under the guise that some of his enraged supporters might affirm that such amendment definitely benefited the Colombians more than the President himself, to resolve the situation in Colombia with a "firm and strong hand", he stated that: although he could have settled and approved the amendment at another time, when he was a National Senator, the idea was only applicable when he became the President of the Republic. In the democratic history of Colombia there has never been such a despotic act, as far as I know; and as every other despotism, it threatens democracy.
What is really incredible is that this process endorsed illegal movements SUPPORTED BY LEGAL MEANS (law enforcement) that enabled to consolidate the reelection amendment. It would be sad for many jurists to see the illegal force camouflaged with tie and with representation in the Senate, sharing functions with the Head of State so that, without division of powers with the legislative power, it could hatch by force and illegally a dictatorial act.
The incursion of paramilitaries in the Senate of the Republic is merely that, a sad event. It knocks down the thin barrier that distinguishes between the legal force and the illegal force and, due to the high percentage of illegal representation in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, renders such President illegal, a scoundrel and anti-democratic person. "Unbelievable", the supporter of democracy burns the general will at the stake.
Again, under the guise that an enraged supporter of the honorable President, who is becoming a dark criminal with his words, might attribute the presidential election to the ballot on direct vote and no to discernment, in the Senate of the reelection law. Mi response is logical: Senators are representatives of the citizens and, as such, theoretically, their interests cannot differ from the will expressed in the ballots. If that is true, as the logic states, the same interests that approved the reelection as a democratic option in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, are the ones that elected the reelected President. That is, the interests responsible for more than 4 million of displaced persons and twenty thousand of disappeared.
My point is the following. How is it possible in a democracy for an electoral and constitutional amendment to be illegal due to the connection of illegal votes among their honorable members and for a presidential reelection to be legal?
I am not saying that more than 60% of the Colombian population is paramilitary. I am saying that, as well as they committed fraud to vote in favor of the reelection proposal, there is a high probability of fraud in the presidential elections. Such votes represent the citizens, since they belong to the legislative power.
The force of the argument increases when scrutinizing the democratic principles and the reality in Colombia: The main characteristic of this form of government is the agreement between the citizens supported by a voluntary obligation, assumed by recognizing institutions as guarantors of their fundamental right. The problem is that, in the case of the Colombian democracy the voluntary will is not completely supported by recognizing the democratic institutions; it is recognized by the threaten, by the bullets, by the illegal force. An armed group -an illegal armed group- obtained a representation of more than 35% in different areas of the legislative branch. As an armed group, their votes were not achieved by political debate, but by pillage. Their votes are illegal and the votes of their representatives in the Senate and in the House of Representatives are also illegal. The question is: Why can’t we think that this same principle has been important in the presidential election? Why can’t we think that the paramilitaries obtained votes in the presidential election in the same way as the obtained votes in the Senate and in the House of Representatives? I seem to hear the languid reply of a "U" supporter talking about figures and percentages, but I will not give my response since it is obvious.
The aforesaid, which constitute only part of the facts that incriminate the Colombian government in an illegal democracy, clearly show that the constitutionalism in that country is efficient in the enforcement of the law only when it is beneficial for the leader and, when it is not beneficial, the law is amended. Proof of that is the new proposal to amend the Constitution in relation to a subject that was amended only two years ago: the presidential reelection. I cannot disregard the role of the Supreme Court of Justice as guarantor of the Supreme Law, but I can argue that the dispute between the Supreme Court and the President of Colombia are evidence of my words and of the state authoritarianism against the control mechanisms.
The aforesaid shows us that for our governing Lawyer the legal system is reduced merely to the orders given by him and obeyed by his subjects, that is to say, and in the words of one of the toughest opponent to this concept (Hart): Colombians are not subject to the legal system, they are subject to the bullets.
The implications of that in a democracy are the following: The Constitution is a mere map under which the course of the nation will be ruled, course that is agreed upon democratically; and democracy is the success of the minimal difference of the individual will, revealed as general will. The problem is that in Colombia the only will imposed is the will of the government on duty and the course of the nation are modified by obscure shortcuts that envisage a fatal outcome.
In that sense, the democratic security praised by the President is a fallacy, because it is the democracy that ensures security and not the other way round. Democracy ensures that the supreme leader represents the general will. But the concept of will in Colombia, as I said before, is more related to bullets than to discernment. For that reason, democracy in Colombia is the will of the minorities and the vote of the majorities; that is to say, there are some that make decisions and some others that clock on.
On the other hand, but using the same logic, the gross political support that the President has in the legislative power (and I use the term ‘gross’ because some of the Senators have said publicly, without shame, that the next President will be the current one or the one appointed by him, striking sovereignty and reviving autocracy; impairing the Colombian democracy and spiting at the law of Colombia) threatens to turn the Colombian government into an oligarchic cycle, leaded by only one person and whose force is the illegality of the paramilitaries guns, far from abiding the law. The state means are not guarantors of democracy anymore and become their cruelest executioners, supported by the close relations between the militaries and the paramilitaries.
However, if we analyze closely the second reelection, we will notice that, beside the presidential aspirations is the strongest argument against it: the President was not able to defeat insurgency in the first period, nor on his second period, and maybe he will need two periods more to achieve that goal and leave the revolution in the hands of another generation that will continue to fight for the same cause at the expense of thousands of deaths. This need to extend his permanence in power shows the failure of his undertaking; the main electoral promises that helped him to become President were not fulfilled during the first term, his program failed and, however, he still has a high credibility.
The first leaders of the United States of Washington declared: "the perpetuation of power becomes a tyranny". This power, that intends to be perpetual, is tyrannical in nature and might become in something even worst than a tyranny: a catastrophe. The reasons are:
Taking into account this reference and for the future, in case the reelection proposal is passed, the Colombian STATE would lose its label of Nation-state and would be dangerously close to un Person-state, in which the President would also be the legislator and the judge. Many jurists would consider this warning illusive, but I am afraid that, with the extradition decisions, the President acted as a judge, disregarding the infringements of the paramilitaries and turning them into drug trafficking. Similarly, his incursion in legislative manipulations is evident in the palace’s breakfasts, in the legal proceeding against Yidis Medina, in the failure of the political reform, etc...
After the second reelection, Colombia should be prepared for a worsening of the conflict, the disappearance of the political adversaries, the increase of human rights violations, and a higher state repression, a decrease of press freedom; in summary, for the beginning of the first civil dictatorship, camouflaged as a democratic and sovereign government.
The reason is simple: when the high percentage of Colombians that elected the current President voluntarily, without a gun in their heads, eventually realize that their freedom is restricted more and more every day, that the social problems are increasing, that the economy collapses due to a public spending focused on the war which causes deaths, that the inequality increases, that poverty is not decreasing, that subemployment reaches almost 80%, then the perpetual President should increase the legitimating violence to maintain his power. And in that moment, Colombia, a nation that has seen blood flowing like a river, will see a sea of blood in the streets.
_________________________________________________________________________________
PARAMILITARY-DRUG DEALER PRESIDENT FOREVER?
***
The implications of the presidential re-election in Colombia
Special REPORTS
The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT) judged multinational corporations for human rights violation in Colombia
More...
The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT) judged multinational corporations for human rights violation in Colombia
More...
Poetry and Socialist Politics
Joe Rosenblattn discusses his past experiences as an industrial worker, relationship to socialist ideas
Joe Rosenblattn discusses his past experiences as an industrial worker, relationship to socialist ideas
Multimedia
Jorge SILVA:
“After going for the first time, you don't know if it is worth risking your life"
Exclusive Interview
More...
“After going for the first time, you don't know if it is worth risking your life"
Exclusive Interview
More...
War correspondents reporting feelings from the front line.
SPECIAL SERIES
Subscribe to our newsletter:
https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seinforma-l
https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seinforma-l
How is it possible in a democracy for an electoral and constitutional amendment to be illegal due to the connection of illegal votes among their honorable members and for a presidential reelection to be legal?
(Photo Pepitoriasblog.com /Seinforma)