Zulia, DECENTRALIZATION AND THE CASE ROSALES
I need to generate a debate about decentralization, especially given the circumstances that produced the change of the Decentralization Law and the decision to reverse the exclusive jurisdiction in ports, airports and roads that had been allocated to States and Municipalities initially. In a first step - especially for unfamiliar the historical process - the reversal is a "blow" to democracy. However it is necessary to explain certain things.
Historically, with the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth century, began a process of strengthening and centralization of state functions, explained by the excessive atomism Venezuela that characterized those years. The federal system implemented by Antonio Guzmán Blanco, who was the result and consequence of the Federal War was the reproduction of micro-centers of power in the regions, which established a precarious balance of power with the National Executive and in many cases, became part of a armed intervention in certain regions - Zulia including attempts to break the autonomy that threatened national unity.
Centralization of power was key to the modernization of the Venezuelan society. The establishment of a military government service and protection of the safety and defense of the Nation, the currency system made since the creation of the Central Bank of Venezuela in 1940, are just some examples of the effects of centralization. Finally, it should not ignored the role of political parties facilitated the centralization of power. All this enhanced by the use of oil revenues as the basis for financing the modernization process that allowed including raising the conditions of life of Venezuelans, the reduction of mortality rates and increasing life expectancy. This does not mean that centralism has not had problems, what we mean is that not everything was bad centralism.
Decentralization is the process whereby political power was transferred from the central government, state bodies near the town, endowed with administrative independence. The explanation of this process should be within the orbit of 1st generation reforms proposed by the liberal model, which suggested the mandatory reduction of central state and the gradual transfer of responsibilities to the authorities regional and local. The approach was simple: the Central State under the signs of the Washington Consensus had to take only the administration of the ownership, border security and protection of trade. Everything else was under the influence of the market, which had its own dynamics.
Decentralization resulted in a process of labor flexibility, through the privatization of the government, through the formation of employee organizations and workers who were responsible for the execution of maintenance works and limited the liability of the State Regional payment of benefits social. On the other hand the excesses of decentralization and the momentum generated in some locations to produce the emergence of local commanders in the purest sense nineteenth century-as happened in Carabobo (Salas Romer), Barinas, Sucre (Ramon Martinez), Aragua ( Tablante) came to high to afford the establishment of international agreements between the regional states and organizations or foreign countries. However, there were certainly advantages in the process, it allowed the emergence of a political debate in the Zulia was embodied by figures such as Luis Homez, which emerged as a champion of democracy against the abuses generated by decentralized regionalism.
The situation today is different. The dismantling of the state formula demonstrated against it and to live this process restrengthening National State has had its benefits: a social policy of the new center and engine of state action, recovery of international oil prices and thus increase funding. In the process, there has been a clash between the National Project developed and the actions of local and regional governments, although it has a democratic basis are obliged to fulfill the mandate of the social contract poured into the Constitution. In the case of Zulia, Manuel Rosales, have seen a dynamic handling of Zulia and an accelerated wastage of resources from the airport and the port that never appear reflected in the revenues and expenditures of the state, we do not doubt that these resources have been built works but with some of them have been generated that are necessary to remedy deviations . Finally, the decision to amend the Act is the product of the contradictions arising from Articles 156 and 164, which established the powers of the national and state groups. No doubt we need a debate, but not in terms of handling proposed by Manuel Rosales and Un Nuevo Tiempo. Dr. John E.
Historian
Romero
Juane1208@gmail.com
30/03/2009
0 comments:
Post a Comment