May 16, 2022 3:11 pm

The dire need for some cracks

On another occasion we have written about this matter but now we want to express the thesis with other reasoning and different examples that we believe validate the point that we will point out. In conventional parla, the crack is referred to as a disagreement of a certain depth, in parallel with the original meaning that refers to the geological as an elongated cleft that forms in the earth. In the first interpretation of the term, there are those that are useless, that aim to provoke personal disputes of various kinds, but there are also those that are essential to preserve key values ​​and that, in general, constitute decisive steps to improve knowledge.

For example, on the one hand it is not advisable to close the crack with thieves, since in this way everything would become moral dirt; and on the other hand, there is no progress without refutations in open debates, since new demonstrations of previous errors are the consequence of disagreements on various fronts. In these senses, disagreements are welcome or, in more illustrative language, we should be grateful for the cracks, in order to reduce our ignorance.

An exemplification of what was said in our midst makes Justice as an irreplaceable condition to have a republican system and, consequently, of reciprocal respect and civilized coexistence. In this context, in no way can the invitation to marches against the Supreme Court of Justice be subscribed to intimidate it and try to replace it with a sinister network of injustices. A very serious proposal. This has clearly been an attempted coup d’état, a slap project that requires – that demands – a counter-coup to defend the basic institutions that sustain the Republic. It is the right to resist oppression, which must always be exercised with sufficient prudence so as not to harm other republican aspects, but with sufficient energy to avoid excesses and violations of the freedoms and rights of individuals.

The forerunners of law as milestones and points of reference outside the walls of the positive norm were first of all the jurists of classical Rome, then the Spanish Fueros in the 11th century, followed by the common law English, Late Scholasticism of the 16th century and Montesquieu in the 18th century, with its illustrious division of powers as a substantial element of free society and, if you will, partially correcting what John Locke stated with his “federative power” and summarizing his position when writing: “A thing is not fair because it is law, it must be law because it is fair.” In the previous century Algernon Sidney underlined the importance of independent Justice as a fundamental value of a free society, with staunch criticism of absolute monarchies in which “most are born with mounts on their backs, while others are born with crowns”. over their heads.” This must be reread in view of the repeated manifestations of impunity of corrupt rulers who allege inappropriate figures such as the lawfare, with the addition of the dangerous declarations about constitutional reforms and threats to the freedom of the press, together with pejorative references to the fact that our constitutional system was designed based on ideas “before the electric light”.

From the five characteristics that define the republican system, the division of powers and equality before the law are especially crucial, and this last condition is, in turn, indissolubly anchored to Justice, since it is not about being all equal before the law to be directed to a concentration camp , but rather a principle tied to the idea of ​​“giving each one his own”, according to the classic definition of Ulpiano, and “what is his” is inseparable from the right to property, an elementary institution that is also much battered and largely unknown. in our country, due to price controls, unbearable taxes, galloping inflation and colossal debts in a suffocating climate and persecution of those who work and produce, all contrary to the liberal policies that were applied in Argentine lands since the Constitution of 1853/ 60 until the fascist coup of 30; much worse the result from the military coup of 43, an imprint that remains among us with an alarming monotony, so we continue to stumble, which harms everyone but especially the most vulnerable.

Said attack on the Judiciary is tied to a degraded conception of democracy. As is known, the notion of the Giovanni Sartori of our time consists in showing that the core part of democracy lies in the guarantee and protection of individual rights and the secondary, mechanical and accessory part is the counting of votes. But it seems that the secondary has become the main thing and the main thing has been extremely weakened and left behind, with which there is a risk of transforming democracy into kleptocracy, that is, the government of thieves of property, freedoms and dreams. of life. The constitutionalist Juan González Calderón insisted that the Democrats do not understand numbers or numbers, since they start from two wrong equations: 50% + 1% = 100% and 50% – 1% = 0%.

It is to be desired that the two consecutive victories of the opposition, both in the primaries and in the general elections, allow us to reverse our unhealthy trend, and return, with due priority, to the state apparatus guaranteeing unrestricted respect for each person’s life projects. It is pertinent to remember that Cicero already wrote: “The rule of the multitude is no less tyrannical than that of a single man.” Benjamin Constant concludes that “citizens have individual rights independent of any social or political authority and any authority that violates these rights becomes illegitimate.” […] The will of an entire people cannot make just what is unjust.” And the Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek has noted: “I must unreservedly admit that if by democracy is meant giving free rein to the unlimited will of the majority, I am by no means disposed to call myself a democrat.”

In other terms, the crack is essential when it comes to antagonistic positions referring to basic principles of the irreplaceable genuine democracy, because in this instance of the process of cultural evolution the alternative is the always reprehensible dictatorship. In this context, closing the cracks inevitably leads to tragedy. When on this plane it is said that democracy presupposes agreement, that is another proof of ignorance of the meaning of this form of government, since the agreements are about nuances and policies, always preserving the rights of the people, whose destruction does not require an agreement but rather demands confrontation.

Lastly, regarding cracks as disagreements on substantive issues, as we have advanced, at the level of knowledge they are very useful, since the single thought and unanimity would not have allowed our ancestors to get out of the cave and the club; all progress means refuting previous positions, in a permanent pilgrimage to attenuate our ignorance. As Karl Popper has taught us, knowledge has the characteristic of provisionality open to possible refutations.

The author has completed two doctorates, is a teacher and a member of two National Academies

Comments (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.