Reflections about the Consultation-Referendum Process, questions and revolution
Mideros Andrés Mora
addition to the debate on the form and substance of the proposed referendum questions for consultation, submitted by the President of the Republic, which was cause for reflection before ( http://andresmiderosmora.blogspot.com/2011/01/referendum query-and-popular-among-el.html ), it is necessary to define scope and consequences in the political process and institutions.
is my opinion that questions 1 and 2 of the Referendum proposal in addition to not solving the problem of the justice system in Ecuador, raised back in rights (liberty, presumption of innocence, justice agile and timely). Questions 4 and 5 violate the separation of powers, change the structure of the judiciary (State) and violates the principle of separation between regulated and regulators in public. Thus these questions to restrict rights, breaking principles and alter the structure of the state raise the violation (no amendment) of the Constitution. For its part, the Referendum Question 3 questioned the need for independence of both financial institutions and media, as well implemented is beneficial for these entities to fulfill their social function.
Regarding the Consultation Question 1 makes it a crime enrichment private non-justified, leaving open a door of subjectivities. Question 2, it is not clear causal relationship between gambling and social problems. These two questions could be addressed in the National Assembly through legislative proposals (from the presidency) for proper regulation and eliminate subjectivity. While questions 3, 4 and 5 of the consultation, seek to define basic principles (in: animal rights, regulation of media and social security) that will be mandatory for a legislative process.
To understand the proposed questions, it is necessary to see the weakness and slowness of the Participation Council And Social Control after failing to promptly comply with the duties of the appointment of the / as members of the National Judicial Council and other bodies still in transition. For his part, for the members of the Constitutional Court have not been appointed as the Constitution. This weakness, lack of speed and institutionalization not based on the Constitution of Montecristi and the rising levels of crime and lack of security, provides the context for revolution as part of the citizen is sought to reform the justice system. Then the revolution calls to speed up the process and trust in the political project embodied in the President, change to the / as judges. From there you can understand the question 4 of the draft Referendum (but not 1, 2 and 5).
In the process of revolution, and to walk a "mile a minute" is required to strengthen the Transparency and Social Control, and other entities. The President has the support and confidence / os Ecuadorian / I (at least the majority), but it requires trust in the same way in other institutions and in each of the five powers, and citizenship should be required each, in fulfillment of their duties, respect and implement the people's mandate established in the political project we support the majority of Ecuadorians. In particular the judicial system, it requires comprehensive policies, social inclusion, respect for the Constitution, institutionalization, evaluation, promotion and punishment of officials / os and changes in judicial procedures (efficiency). It is in these policies where coordination (no interference) between functions is not only necessary but essential.
should be clear that the President of the Republic has the authority to convene a referendum, and that is what he has done. After the Constitutional Court is an independent agency, and law, must rule on the constitutionality of the questions, and finally, each and all of us who decided to vote. So much concern is the lack of confidence that the Constitutional Court made an independent opinion and law, without resorting to political pressures (either in favor or against), and distrust of authorities and citizens / os, a for and against, to respect that opinion.
Another concern is that by approving Referendum Check-tracks (positions) are not based on direct and deliberative democracy, but by the President's popularity. In my opinion, this point is of concern because I believe passionately in the wisdom popular, and I am convinced that the more direct democracy is better. For its part, the political environment there is nothing to expect from the opposition rather than shouting and screaming with no arguments, but with much editorial space in (or free, or objectives) media.
particular thing is that this process brought to light the debate within Country Agreement (elected dignitaries, officials / public you, members and supporters of the movement). The unfortunate thing is that they noticed a complete lack of dialogue within the movement. On the one hand, questions the proposal was not discussed widely, and the other who does not agree Instead of debating from the inside prefer to waive Country Agreement. Can not understand a political project and the formation of a political movement without internal debate. Can not understand a political project that is unable to see beyond a proposal for consultation, referendum, a period of government, a President. You can not leave a political project when it is being consolidated. Quitting the internal dialogue and debate is to give a long-term.
La Consulta-referendum will pass, as they have made eight referendums in the past eleven years. What remains after the popular vote is to implement provisions in the Constitution of Montecristi, or open the door to future amendments, alterations, breaches and assemblies, and transcend to a draft state and society, or stay in processes tied to power (government) in power. And what remains is to build a project around and movement (party) long-term political and internal debate, or return to disrupt the left.
0 comments:
Post a Comment