is interesting to see how this system of choice of subsystems arise in a minority (and with its own voice) on the planet. The freedom to choose, rather than a ruler, a subsystem (liberalism, socialism) by a party or figure. Takes place the opposition? Yes, the opposition within market democracy. Nobody voted for the system of market democracy (constitutional), at least the opposition has no place in it.
But the constitutional basis guaranteeing democracy. Of course the market. Some countries outlaw says opposition political participation. But opposition to what? Being more specific: it prohibits participation in the anti systems (I mean not only the case of Cuba). Allowed to vote as something contrary to the foundations of a country which led to a system. As elsewhere, here you can not vote against market democracy, there will not be voting against their non-market democracy.
Choose how the market can mean hardship for some people (especially when most are not the sufferer). But if the constitutional basis for determining certain rights to be guaranteed (utilities such as human rights, housing, education and health one and the same for all, that is real progress, not the the little colored lights and only a few) participation is restricted to certain political actors (end up being banned?) that could participate in the previous market democracy must attend. How might take place in a revolutionary opposition if the opposition is opposed to the revolutionary interests (constitutional or structural or society) , which would be opposed to constitutional democracy (rather market) in our system, or here can perhaps be accommodated anti-system party contrary to the constitutional basis?. No.
With current games, if we reform the constitutional basis (ensuring rights), very few parties may occur. Then we can consider whether democracy is a good system or simply a form of organization in the West by proxy, for lack of consensus, or conversely, allow conflicting interests to agree on certain sectors affected.
But the constitutional basis guaranteeing democracy. Of course the market. Some countries outlaw says opposition political participation. But opposition to what? Being more specific: it prohibits participation in the anti systems (I mean not only the case of Cuba). Allowed to vote as something contrary to the foundations of a country which led to a system. As elsewhere, here you can not vote against market democracy, there will not be voting against their non-market democracy.
Choose how the market can mean hardship for some people (especially when most are not the sufferer). But if the constitutional basis for determining certain rights to be guaranteed (utilities such as human rights, housing, education and health one and the same for all, that is real progress, not the the little colored lights and only a few) participation is restricted to certain political actors (end up being banned?) that could participate in the previous market democracy must attend. How might take place in a revolutionary opposition if the opposition is opposed to the revolutionary interests (constitutional or structural or society) , which would be opposed to constitutional democracy (rather market) in our system, or here can perhaps be accommodated anti-system party contrary to the constitutional basis?. No.
With current games, if we reform the constitutional basis (ensuring rights), very few parties may occur. Then we can consider whether democracy is a good system or simply a form of organization in the West by proxy, for lack of consensus, or conversely, allow conflicting interests to agree on certain sectors affected.
Finally, we would not understand comments that request access to the opposition in a revolutionary country (of course if the people behind it, no more powerful government that is to be sustainable without support), if such liberal opposition, attentive to the interests not only of the humble but what helped some. Or perhaps we would no longer participate in our market democracy to someone who has to exercise de facto government?. Reform and constitutional change (as it would in our Southern Cone) helps the majority can not infringe upon the interests of the most disadvantaged in society. You have to understand, choose a capitalist government goes against many people (in their lives and their dignity as persons), this ban can not be claimed in a nation whose interests they seek to defend bases this cruel system come to destroy. If Socialism, say, is in constitutional terms, opposition to the system would not be outlawed, there would be to be an anti-system.
0 comments:
Post a Comment