We are four days of the expected low-27M. Schools have come to label some. I do not catalogaría as such even if it is true that historically the party which wins most votes in the municipal government in the state.
should not fall into the trap of trying to sell us presidential Rajoy and Zapatero with sightseeing tour of the peninsula. The people must not forget that you are voting for their local representative. We must not get carried away by the state promises we hear at meetings.
It is at this point at which a bill must pass four years of government or bad government and bad opposition or opposition. We think if you really have fulfilled the promises we made in 2003 and if instead we only have filled lips honey in the last months.
Do not forget that in municipal elections tend to be ideologies even further than in government. Here are often politicians, their personalities and characters that make the road map of each municipality. There macrocampañas shunned publicity and marketing of big games and get into the projects of the minority parties which are not given the opportunity to demonstrate. And you better value for our towns, cities and autonomous regions.
My choice, as always, active abstention. Abstain because I think it's time to shout NO to the system, corruption, theft NO Law Electoral and popular pry out of institutions. And do not stop working because of politics or fighting over the past four years the previous four, the next four, etc..
When democracy goes to war, what is the rule of law? Active Abstention
The question has a double sense. If the so-called "western democracies" go to war, ie, attack, mean that there is no rule of law. If the law states attacked by foreign entities and the situation is such hostility that should go to war to defend the whole of citizens living in that state then we analyze what are the weaknesses in the legislative foundation which may or may not collapse. Assumption
first. A self-proclaimed democratic country, - not to get into semantic vicissitudes of what is and is not a Democracy - decide to attack another country without first being attacked. What reasons can wield political representatives to attack and continue to uphold the rule of law? Today the answer is very simple: safety. It's easy, have not been attacked but we can not attack attack. The population understands the message clearly and concisely. If the message is disguised half-truths in the press, we have a complete truth for most people who do not stop to analyze the situation. "This situation is compatible with democracy? And with the rule of law? Is it feasible that these indirect and representative democracies in the West are what moves the people's representatives in Parliament who choose - or sometimes not even that, merely reporting on them the rest of Representatives - if you attack or invade a country ? Is concurrent - if it were the case - that the people were in clear majority demonstrating against military attack and their representatives, using the legal mechanisms that are available to them - because them, they have them - obvious attacked? For me the answer is clear and concise: no. Assumption
second and last. A self-proclaimed democratic country is attacked by another. What should you do? First I want to make it clear to me that this assumption is valid if and only if, it is abundantly aware of what the country self-proclaimed champion of democracy and rule of law alleged attacked, but we are in the first course, but we playing on the sale of insecurity. Well, if the country is attacked it must first inform the public, second, make a direct and democratic consultation on what to do, and third and last act binding the outcome of the referendum. That's the only way in which the foundations of the rule of law, freedoms, justice, equality, security, etc. No wobble. Any military attack without the consent and popular force would risk increased levels of security of the entire population of the country attacked the same self-defense. What direct and participatory democracy is slower than indirect? Sure. What in this second scenario might be viable? I think not. But surely sustains and strengthens any action taken by the State address this situation of confrontation with another state.
Imagine that tomorrow Spain is attacked by Morocco - a situation not insignificant, moreover taking into account what has been happening for 30 years in Western Sahara and thinking what would happen when Spain meets, if ever meet, with agreements Madrid ... - around the Mediterranean coast. Imagine so ipso facta Spain gives notice to NATO and attack with the help of American and French troops to Morocco - a situation not negligible considering what happened on the island of Parsley -. Imagine that the English population has no reliable reports of this in 48 hours, all rumors, which contradict the information and other means, etc.. - A situation that we all have this in the context of 11M and 14M -. And finally imagine that people were thrown into the street. That some say NO to attacks that may seem unfair because the situation described above. Others say that yes, that must be attacked to preserve public safety. Others take advantage of the chaos to commit a crime and that are totally outdated FFSS. Is not this situation more unsafe for the general public that no self-defense and control of the situation by the state?
Thus, Democracies and the rule of law appears to be inconsistent in all aspects with military attack. No military strike can or should be moral or ideological justification. No attack will have the support of Human Rights or the Geneva Conventions. Only if there is support of the people in front of a crystal clear situation of necessity defense could be no justification for the attack long before diplomatic avenues are exhausted dialog. I, personally, I see it unnecessary to reach any situation of this nature Should we call things by their name. If we clear that Democracy does not vote your representatives every four years not a rule of law is that which separates the three branches or behind it some laws, if these laws are not fit to democratic principles and human rights, how is it possible to call this state, rule of law? And when the people in the West is clear about where you are and be clear that decision-making power in this democracy has sold you will not need us to press questions like When democracy goes to war, what is the rule of law ? instead we must start asking questions like: what I can do to build in this place in vivo which rule of law, a democracy? What I can do to build this democracy in other places where other people live? And once people have the ability to ask these questions begin to answer them. And will then begin to act to change, to change the isms governing the world today and build a fairer, nobler, healthier, more democratic, more humane, more just, more independent and to ensure our freedoms . When constructing this force need not be popular even talk of war. I hope.
