... talk policy that ended in a denial of dialogue and exchange of ideas continued because I interposed, to the chagrin of my partner (a) that the scheme of government we have all day on TV and in newspapers is not alone, there are other, few, many, probably, maybe. It is not trivial word STATE. As clearly explained a psychologist I know: we are used to choose among the options presented to us, but only among those. Rarely refuse the options that we have to choose one that has not been offered, and so it is easier to make a child determined to play, choose swimming or doing homework when I propose that if we say simply, "bathe" or simply "do the job." I thought this trend would be maintained only in the first years of life, and that as you grow "learns" to "consider" other options, but my psychologist friend corrected me, for even-and perhaps even more-in adulthood, we still look at other options, those that are not mentioned ("will you pay for 6 months, or all at once?", to which one might respond: "I do not spend money" or, "I want 3 months pay no interest ", but almost one always goes for the 6 months or all at once!). And so you can spend the money to the flavors, sizes of dresses, pants, car colors, the shape of ornaments, the presidential candidate among several, and finally, to president of a nation among several parties. But what ever happened to us that perhaps the current form of government is one among other options, and even if they do not exist we can also explicitly generate other options? In fact, Article 39 of the constitution of Mexico (valid at least to April 1, 2008) states:
that sovereignty resides in the people, everything
power emanates from the people,
that every public authority is instituted for the benefit of the people and
that the people have the inalienable right to alter or modify their form of government.
Well, sure there are other schemes in which possibly have not thought, or maybe we have been raised but we have not considered. And one of these schemes is the one that was and has been continually raised by the Zapatistas in Chiapas. My partner (a) was ready to ask if that Another scheme was that of arms. Not really. Although it began as an armed uprising, one of the greatest qualities of it is that shortly after it began, the Zapatistas decided to lay down their arms because the civil society so requested them. Or as they say, "Now take the weapons to shoot them, but that they are not fired any more on us or on anyone else." The next question was why, if there is a movement in public for 14 years, has not yet formed a political party. And here comes the idea of \u200b\u200bgenerating options, other options:
"The other policy is not seeking to occupy the space of party politics, born of this crisis, and tends to occupy the space that is not covered by the task party. The other policy is to organize to `flip 'the logic of party politics, seeks to build a new relación de la Nación con sus partes: ciudadanos que tienen derecho a serlo de tiempo completo, diferenciados y específicos(...)"
"Nuestro objetivo no es hacernos del poder, tampoco obtener puestos gubernamentales NI CONVERTIRNOS EN UN PARTIDO POLITICO (mis mayúsculas). No nos alzamos por limosnas o créditos. No queremos el control de un territorio o la separación de México. No apostamos a la destrucción ni a ganar tiempo" (Ensayo del EZ, 1 de enero, 2000).
La tercera y última declaración de mi interlocutor(a) antes de terminar la conversación fue que los zapatistas "no están haciendo su trabajo", es decir, no están promoviendo su propuesta, no han venido to "convince" to join their struggle. A 14-year armed uprising in the early months and gave up violence and arms, the Zapatistas have continually established links with civil society through 6 declarations of the Lacandon jungle, where character is shaped flexible their ideas accessible. Not only that, also visited Mexico City on several occasions, have published thousands of releases and texts of great importance to inform the development of their struggle. And something extraordinary: they have practically run the whole country (not just once) and have entered into dialogue, and exchanged ideas with almost 70% of the population Mexican (through consultation for indigenous rights held on March 21, 1999). What past or present government has managed to engage with this amount of Mexican?
I think one of the reasons why it seems that they lacked notice, it is because they face the ignorance and indifference of the media, in addition to the dirty war orchestrated by politicians and intellectuals. That is, and there they'll take me a saying that says "sup": "(...) I watch TV as it should be, ie reading books, newspapers and magazines (although newspapers are also giving of themselves, some, many).
0 comments:
Post a Comment