AMENDMENTS, ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL COMMUNICATION
electoral process Venezuelans live Sunday February 15 have a set of meanings that alone explain the nature of political communication is handled through the options Yes and No.
In 1st place, the amendment itself involves a debate about two different ways of seeing the constitutional right. Of those who based elitist perspective consider that participation in the political debate be restricted to the mere election of officers and for whom the constitutional bodies should not be reformed, since the reform of the rule leads to lawlessness and conditions instability. Moreover, in the opposite are those within the New Latin American Constitutionalism (NCL) argue that popular sovereignty construction is a condition of citizenship and therefore should be extended to the maximum, at the same time feel that the Constitutions are imperfect structure and incomplete, subject to change. From one to another position, the distance is abysmal, both in their ideological underpinnings and political practice.
In 2nd place, the amendment reflects a discussion about the true meaning of popular sovereignty, understood as a space for expression of political will and its relationship to the theory of good government, which paradoxically is part of a theory arising from liberal thinking, particularly linked to the idea of \u200b\u200brepresentative government and effective management of the mandate.
In 3rd place, which was discussed in Venezuela on Sunday, is being proposed in Latin America and shows the impact of institutional change on the continent. This is a legal and political debate about the relevance of constitutional legal norms adjust to the accelerated process of change that is experienced in our societies. In the background is the question of how the right can think and incorporate the process of change in the rule of law.
In 4th place, obviously in these parameters previously established in the amendment results in a revision of the conditions of domination and subordination that characterize any system capitalist, and certainly the Venezuelan system typically maintains even exploitative and thus, the amendment becomes a risk to existing relations between capital and labor.
In 5th place, the amendment to support and promote the theory of good government, puts many sectors of the opposition to decide on whether to compete with a charismatic leadership and certainly has a high social impact, through a policy of revival of the rule of law. This is a huge disadvantage, even more so when one considers that the options Chavez lack a political program as an alternative to Simon Bolivar Project presents a vision for the country for the period 2001-2013.
These 5 elements combine through the field of political communication, understood as the close relationship between governor and governed as expressed through the intermediation of the mass media. Political communication in the election campaign has clearly identified two vectors: 1) the vector of the expansion of democracy and the exercise of good governance and 2) the vector of the illegitimacy of the amendment. On 1 of them has resulted in a propaganda insists that the benefits of management during 10 years of the Chavez government and the possibilities of broadening and deepening the Bolivarian project through the elimination of the restriction at times you can run an official exercise. The 2nd says that the illegitimacy of the amendment is part of a series of irregularities conducted by the Chavez government. Accompanying addition to the management of fear as a factor of restraint in political volunteerism triggered by public policies carried out by using the huge oil resources.
Political propaganda has stressed these two vectors ideas: good governance and illegitimacy-hazard of the amendment. The ads have moved through the use of images and audiovisual resources that seek to reinforce that perspective or representation frameworks of interpretation. It raised one side of continuity cultural con el desarrollo de una política de reforzamiento de la ciudadanía, pero por el otro lado se trata de plantear un choque cultural con las “aparentes” identidades ´políticas del venezolano. Esas estrategías tienen el mismo objetivo: lograr la mayor movilización de los electores. Los dos sectores en pugan, están conscientes de la proporcionalidad de sus fuerzas y buscan movilizarlas alcanzado la supremacía sobre el otro. Cualquiera que resulte ganador, lo será en un escenario con una abstención que rondará el 35% a 40%, esperemos el domingo a ver los resultados.
Dr. Juan E. Romero
Historiador
Juane1208@gmail.com
10/02/2009
0 comments:
Post a Comment