Reflections on the popular consultation and the bullfights in Quito.
Mideros Andrés Mora
Last September (2010), submitted an application the Metropolitan District of Quito, to call a referendum to decide (the request is to prohibit, but do not know the proposal of question) about bullfighting. As history have so-called "anti-bullfighting movement, which includes individuals, groups and social movements, which for several years have protested against this practice. The strength of this movement and the feel of a significant proportion of the population is evidenced not only by the actions of protest, which increasingly call for a greater number of people, but also from the information in a Cedatos-Gallup poll of November 2008 to Quito where the results indicate that 74% of the population does not like bullfights, 86% did not go to the bullfights, and 61% want them banned. Importantly, this study was released in 2008, but there is not an official version that allows to go into detail on the content of the survey. Another antecedent of importance is the ban on bullfighting approved by Parliament of Catalonia (Spain), which shall enter into force in January 2012.
Meanwhile, in November 2009 the Ombudsman's Office issued a resolution prohibiting the entry of persons under 12 years of bullfighting. Unfortunately, this resolution has not been fulfilled by the institutions organizing these events, or controlled by the Municipality and the National Police. Important to see what happens this year. It is worth remembering that this resolution is given in defense of the rights of children and adolescents under the principle of "best interests" (Constitution, Article 44). Since August of this year, protests against bullfights have intensified and have achieved a meeting of "anti-bullfighting movement" in the referendum request. Response those who love bullfighting, mostly linked to the organization of these events has been calling for respect for the right to maintain a "cultural tradition", where "those who do not like, they can not attend." Demonstrations for the bullfights have been given a lesser amount, and include statements in favor of some learners council of the Metropolitan District of Quito (eg, Marco Ponce and Macarena Valarezo). It should be understood that behind the bullfight and a cultural perspective, there are significant economic interests.
A third sector of the population is indifferent to the question, saying phrases like "until I bother to do whatever they want." Thus, there are three major groups: one that feels a benefit for the bullfights, another who is indifferent, and one that feels injury. Besides the difficulty of aggregating preferences and set the net social benefit, it is clear limitation to raise awareness and understand that another living being is also part of this practice, and can hardly be said to have a benefit. Clarify that the death of the bull in the ring seems to "benefit" some people "culturally," but can not be said to satisfy some basic need. In addition, it asked if as a society can accept that torture and death of an animal can be considered as a "cultural benefits", in my opinion the answer is no, and the answer is not only legal but also by values, given the nature rights enshrined in the Constitution.
responses from the Municipality of Quito has been made in two ways. The first is the remarkable openness of the Mayor (Augusto Barrera) to receive the request for consultation, discussion and bring it to the Metropolitan Council (which require the affirmative vote of ¾ to be approved). The second, left the News Agency of MDMQ Public, enabling an online forum to discuss the issue. This initiative was welcomed at first, but the lack of participation of the Municipality and moderating the debate generated a space that in the end it was useless. It is noteworthy that the spaces of deliberation must be built, but should ensure the presence of institutions and arrangements highlight the dialogue, otherwise you lose confidence and participation in institutions.
Outstanding debt of the Municipality, in terms of generation of deliberative democracy. Meanwhile demonstrations for and against will placing extreme positions, lack of dialogue, seeking to discredit those who think differently and to impose a criterion. The request for consultations was submitted to the Municipality of Quito (instead of searching the collection of signatures, as a first option) showing signs of confidence from the citizenry that the City Council can make decisions against this order. The Mayor has complied with its offer and the request will be discussed at the Metropolitan Council, and has space for representatives of the people involved in the debate, although it is known that the staff position (not representative) of some council members and some council members will hardly be voting for 75% of the Council (12 16 members, 15 councilors and the Mayor).
The decision is not easy for the Metropolitan Council, and should not be, as it is put into debate different topics: culture, freedom, life, rights of nature and culture of peace . In addition, it is unclear whether the Metropolitan Council has the capacity and legitimacy to rule on the issue. Recall that the councilors and council members are representatives of the general interest. But social values \u200b\u200brepresent?. If the decision is to deny the request for consultation, it would be imposing the criterion of a group (probably minority) in Quito and Quito, which is attenting the Like a ban bullfighting from the Council, in favor of the approach of another group (the majority view.) Complicated, but no answers.
Vale analyze because a private show, where access is restricted to those who buy a ticket (inclusive), and where a limited number of tickets (rival), becomes a public issue. This four considerations: i) several people have expressed their disagreement for several years, ii) based on the above, the completion of the event affects social values \u200b\u200band thus reduces the welfare, thus necessitating government intervention to regulate; iii) bullfights, in his defense as critical links in their rights and the state must protect and media; and iv) determine the general welfare (add preferences) requires deliberation process and social choice.
As is clear rights to the security culture and its expressions, how it is also clear that this (the culture) can not be justification to affect other rights. Bullfighting present violence, which is reflected in the injury and death of a living, this led to the decision of the Ombudsman's Office to ensure the right of children not to be exposed / as to such acts . Violence, as part of a cultural event, against a living violates the rights of nature, culture of peace and life. Importantly, this is set in the Constitution, and therefore state entities have an obligation to act.
what to do with tradition?. Traditions and cultural expressions, as part of tangible and intangible, must respect and promote human rights and harmony with nature. It is not discussing whether the bullfights or not part of the traditions of Quito and Quito, and that at least some and some it is. Then you can think of "bullfighting" without violating rights (without violence, without torture, and respect for life), is it possible?, if it is, there's a way to reform. If not possible then we have the story to save it. It should be understood that in a State Constitutional Rights are the rights that take precedence, and culture can not go against them. Culture must adapt to social values, which change over time, and they change the traditions, cultural expressions, and culture itself.
The theme is public domain, and debated in different spaces. Curious, but understandable, that the position of those who defend bullfighting is to "let sleeping dogs lie" (hold the status quo), which is very easy politically, but it is authoritative (as mentioned). While the position of those who are against bullfighting is to go to a democratic process (not requested a ban on authoritarian). The referendum is the only way to add social preferences in a democracy, as the opinion of every person is "worth" the same (a vote), ie meet the criterion of all and everyone. In my opinion, there can be consultation without a prior process of discussion for understanding the arguments and information for each person to make a decision. In addition, important to establish clearly the proposals.
great responsibility has Metropolitan Council of Quito on this issue. Some people have tried to minimize the request, saying that "there are other more important issues." No doubt there are many issues, but who gets priority? or do not do anything until we solve it?. We'll see how far the councilors and councilors of the Metropolitan Council are consistent with the rights of nature, the right to citizen participation and the deepening of democracy, and if they are sensitive to the level of legitimacy they have to decide on certain issues and give way to other people's sovereignty.
0 comments:
Post a Comment