articles Metapolítica the blog post I return and do it with a text from a colleague and friend and realistic Chilean political scientist to be exact Schmittian
By Luis R. Gold Tapia
E-Mail: luis_oro29@hotmail.com
www.caip.cl
Today we find it hard to imagine public affairs without the presence of political parties gravitating. But neither their existence nor their role has always been accepted and considered even less obvious. Only in the last two years has strengthened the idea of \u200b\u200ba political party, however, from time to time declared their practices are harmful to the order and its existence raises political antipathy and even hostility. Such rejection is beyond the left-right axis. For example, Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) and Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), despite occupying diametrically opposed positions on the ideological spectrum agree criticize the idea of \u200b\u200ba political party, in fact, both are hostile to parties, although for different reasons. But this reluctance is not new. In fact, the idea has been accepted late match both political theory and public law.
systematic reflection on political parties, dates only from mid-nineteenth century. But this does not imply in any way with century prior to that has not been written and discussed on the subject. In fact, in the eighteenth century there were philosophers and professional politicians who addressed the issue tangentially and, except for Edmund Burke, not always so benevolent.
The party idea was in principle incompatible with the idea of \u200b\u200bharmony and the concept of Common Good's more, the party was conceived as the negation of two concepts. To overcome the aforementioned antagonism was necessary to distinguish between the notions of faction and party. Difficult task, since both words denote the same thing. For example, an English politician of the age of enlightenment said "Parties are a bad political factions are the worst of all political evils." However, in the aforementioned century when faction and party begin gradually to emerge as distinct entities. One of the forerunners of such a distinction was Bolingbroke. The English politician, in 1733, established the following distinction: the parties divided the people according to certain principles, on the other hand, factions are formed from a purely personal interests. Put another way: the axis around which parties articulate the ideas and values \u200b\u200bas we say in contemporary language. They contribute to give a tinge of "idealism", ie of selflessness and, by extension, of "altruism." This distinction helped to partially evacuate the word match the negative connotations that the tradition had attributed. Conversely, moving up to the factions are purely personal interests, as they refer to selfish ends, which of course, in this logical reasoning-are in opposition to community purposes pursued by the parties.
But the distinction between both entities failed to dispel fears of the parties, since it continued to persist the belief that the parties arose when the political community was divided, because he had lost the harmony and unity was eroded or collapsed. From this perspective the parties arise when society is split and its existence is an unequivocal sign that it prevails discord.
The concept of game will be configured with some clarity by Edmund Burke in 1770. Burke defines it as "a body of men united to promote, through joint efforts, the national interest based on some particular principle on which everyone agrees." In this conception, in my view, to stress two ideas. First, the term "national interest." This indicates that the party seeks the common good in the sense that you want the benefit the whole and not one of its parts. But if there are different ways of thinking about the national interest is plausible to assume that there are as many conceptions of it as there are parties. If this is so in practice, accurate Burke, is that men "who think freely in certain circumstances will think differently." Second idea: the term "particular principle" denotes that the party must be built around the views and ideals which are designed to promote the interests of the community. Moreover, as regards the factions are conceived as entities that are characterized by the incessant struggle petty, whose main purpose is to "get jobs and salaries." Consequently, "the pursuit of patronage is the objective characteristic of the insurgents." However
the radical contrast between party and faction, it is imperative to emphasize two ideas. First, the factions are conceived as entities that aim to corrupt profiteers state institutions. Second, selfish and petty motives of the rebels have undermined the public interest.
As far as regards practical politics is relevant to recall that both factions and parties were not accepted during the eighteenth century, even during the turmoil of the French Revolution. Illustrative in this regard is the trial of Robespierre, one of the founding fathers most conspicuous of the Revolution, noting that if "warned ambition, intrigue, cunning and Machiavellian, he recognized one faction, and was consistent with the nature of all factions to sacrifice the general interest." Another hero of the Revolution, Saint-Just, said that "every party is criminal, so any faction is criminal, all factions trying to undermine the sovereignty of the people." Further, it held that "to divide the people, factions freedom replaced by the fury of partisanship." Note that the French revolutionaries, on the one hand, did not accept the idea of \u200b\u200bparty and, second, still make the distinction between faction and party as the "conservative" Burke had outlined twenty years earlier in England.
parties began to be accepted both in theory and in practice in the mid-nineteenth century. Its acceptance in no small part is associated with the rise of the liberal worldview. The liberal doctrine promotes tolerance and pluralism, which therefore constitutes acceptance of others as different. Indeed, parties were allowed to understand that diversity and dissent is not necessarily generated discord in the political community. In other words, it was realized that the existence of parties did not raise its own political turmoil.
The diversity of parties, which is expression of the plurality of opinions and interests, not in any way imply the negation of the unit. Because diversity is the existence of a pool that includes and transcends the specificity of the parties. The diversity would be something like the species and gender unit. This argument was key, because it helped allay fears of discord, fragmentation and chaos.
Consequently, pluralism and sponsors accept dissent, but only to the extent that represents a consensus on the substance. Consensus in the field, political necessarily unanimous compliance with the rules of the game. Illustrative in this regard are the words of Lord Balfour's view that "the political machine English presupposes a people so united in essence that can afford to quarrel with no problems. "
The coexistence of consensus and dissent is possible when there is agreement on the rules governing the political fray. The acceptance of the rules of the game's behavior raises antagonists of certain self-limitations that allow the conflict between them is revealed as scheduled and not conflict as a struggle virulent or violent confrontation. If no such consensus, as indicated by FG \u200b\u200bBailey, "the policy would cease to be competitive and would become struggle.
In short, for a political partnership is required to survive a minimum normative consensus. By the way, it is essential that there is a unanimously accepted core values, so that they constitute a reference point that operates as a pivot, as a guiding light in the relentless rise vagaries of electoral competition, especially when parties are pursuing aims divergent and conflicting.
But the functioning of political parties in reality far from the policy arguments set out above. From a factual standpoint parties are primarily interested groups whose recruitment is formally free, as no one is compelled to join them, and have as their main purpose for accessing the State sponsor or protect from it their interests.
Indeed, it is the interest that leads individuals to form political parties or join them with the practical purpose of carrying out their objectives as being the kind they are. The primary purpose of such groups is to conquer the supreme political power, ie, the positions of political leadership of the State. And just in case you do not win elections they expect to influence him.
This means that political parties regardless of their success in the elections held unchanged its immediate practical purpose, it is to install their leaders in public decision-producing areas, so that from them manage interest of its partners. Thus, the aim of these groups is to provide power to party leaders so that they can give certain active members likely to succeed in achieving their individual goals. This practice is ancient. In fact, Thucydides of Athens in the fifth century BC, noted that "the heads of the matches in different cities, using the lure of beautiful words, earned profits for themselves on the pretext that be serving the public interest. "
parties to succeed in the pursuit of votes, they promise to satisfy certain needs of the electorate. But in practice, when political parties come to power, come to benefit mainly to their respective clientele, giving, for example, positions in the public system. But this must be done with decorum so that politics does not lose its charm, for this reason the game never should submit their interest so naked, that is, as interest proper. By contrast, these must be covered by the rhetoric of the common good with slogans and phrases that are morally beyond reproach and, of course, invoking sublime values. At election time these strategies are designed to win supporters, adherents and attract votes for electors to contribute their vote for the party to achieve one of its primary objectives: access temporarily to the ownership of political power.
interests that really matter to the party are those of the most influential leaders and activists. The interests of voters only have a place where the party's political marketing has not been successful and that puts you at risk of losing the election. Clearer, the parties do not serve the interests of the electorate because they have a special courtesy and consideration for citizens, but because they control half (the vote) that is indispensable for the party to achieve its purpose is to gain access to political power supreme.
From this point of view we can say that matches displayed to voters as a means to an end. And to achieve this end the parties are in the need to flatter voters selfishly in order to obtain from them the vote they will win the election and thus gain political power or at least influence him. In sum, between voters and parties a relationship of means and ends. Voters to realize it takes away from parties and is raised and apathy, disillusionment and loss of prestige rather than politics, but party.
If politics is a struggle for power within what is taking place this contest? The political-party is for scenarios two different planes: one horizontal and one vertical. The first concerns the struggle between parties and their own space is left-right axis. The second, or vertical, is staged inside each of the parties, therefore, it is a struggle between comrades. They compete for access to the party leadership. How power is distributed within a game? Each match consists of an elite that is holding the roles. She sets the direction of the community and selected candidates will be standing for election. Revolve around her party notables who have a less leading role, but influential. Finally, there are militants are those who make operational policies designed the partisan leadership.
Thus, it would be quite safe to say that at times prone to partisan politics ideological discourse is essentially a conflict of interests masquerading as a principled struggle and other management usually involves undercover public interest benefit private.
0 comments:
Post a Comment