The dictionary of the Royal English Language Academy provides five definitions of the concept of fairness: (Del lat. Aequitas,-atis).
1. f. Equanimity.
2. f. Temperance usual kind. Propensity to be guided, or fail, the sense of duty or conscience, rather than by the strict requirements of justice or by the final text of the law.
3. f. Natural justice, as opposed to the letter of the positive law.
4. f. Moderation in the price of things, or conditions of contracts.
5. f. Disposition of the spirit that moves to give everyone his due.
The concept, as you can see, it is not necessary. Its use in the Constitution and electoral law can be understood only the last meaning. But a double question immediately arises: what is it that everyone deserves?, And who determines it?
The answer is simple: legislators-that is, the parties, which established that 30 percent of state resources (budget and time on electronic media) is distributed equally and 70 percent in proportion to the vote of each party. Why
30-70 and not 50-50 or 70-30? Because yes, they decided to legislators. In fact, this proportion does not contribute to the contenders match, or improve the conditions of competition for the kids. It is evident that gives more who else has and these resources are used to preserve inequality.
Is it inappropriate for the legislation provides that proportion? No, but you can not say that a law is fair or perfect. Is one option among many that has advantages and disadvantages. Nothing more.
So far things are relatively simple. The state's relations with the parties to govern by that principle, for better or worse, it works. The other option would be to treat everyone equally and give them the same resources.
Would the end of the world? No. But such a scheme would never be approved by a majority of legislators belonging to parties more strong, since it would hurt their interests. That's the bottom line.
The great confusion in regard to equity is elsewhere. Lawmakers asked the following question in 1996: how to ensure that a third person or entity, do not purchase time on radio and TV and use it to serve some political forces?
estatólatras The response was very simple: ban the purchase of those particular spaces.
And to drive home the point, the ban was constitutional rank in 2007.
The problem is that equality is a vague concept and can not become a touchstone democracy. Can and should function as a criterion for regular party-state relations, but not as a value to restrict and limit the actions of citizens.
The law establishes a clear division between authorities and citizens. The authority can do exclusively what the law entitles him. Citizens, however, can do everything that is not prohibited or punished by the law.
equity to a similar principle applies. One thing is that the state assume the equity as a guiding principle and another is to limit and abridging civil liberties to impose it. The dial-party state has its own logic and should not interfere in space-liberties-rights citizens.
Why? For two reasons. The core values \u200b\u200bof democracy (freedom, equality), which involve basic rights for all citizens, should not be equated with a principle that governs the electoral competition between citizens' organizations.
promote equity is a state obligation, but that responsibility does not confer the right to hurt the essential liberties to achieve this "ideal state", which is pretty relative. Exemplified. There can be no democracy without political parties and electoral competition-direct democracy, "but never could've without freedom of expression and equality.
In addition, the effect of the ban is real create first-class citizens, organized games with time on radio and television-and second-class citizens, whose only sin is not to join a party, without the right to be heard or seen in the electronic media.
There are, moreover, a basic consideration. Prohibit the purchase of time on electronic media in the era of the internet is stupid. The information now more than ever, it is horizontal and increasingly free.
estatólatras So if the legislature take the spirit of another law should be developed to regulate and control the contents of the network. The IFE acquire, then, the power to punish all those citizens who use Twitter or Facebook to influence other citizens at election time.
Finally, it is regrettable to note the intellectual poverty of our debate. Several of the advocates of electoral counter 2007 we announced the end of the campaign spotización. A profesorcillo went even further. Condemned the empty spots as a form of communication.
To our misfortune, spotización of politics has reached, thanks to the electoral-degree counter ideotización never seen before. But fortunately for us, young men from the "spoiled ballot" showed how ingenious, brilliant and rich, which may be a spot on the network.
I conclude by paraphrasing the Great Helmsman: at all times, including elections, a thousand flowers bloom. Jaime Sanchez Susarrey
1. f. Equanimity.
2. f. Temperance usual kind. Propensity to be guided, or fail, the sense of duty or conscience, rather than by the strict requirements of justice or by the final text of the law.
3. f. Natural justice, as opposed to the letter of the positive law.
4. f. Moderation in the price of things, or conditions of contracts.
5. f. Disposition of the spirit that moves to give everyone his due.
The concept, as you can see, it is not necessary. Its use in the Constitution and electoral law can be understood only the last meaning. But a double question immediately arises: what is it that everyone deserves?, And who determines it?
The answer is simple: legislators-that is, the parties, which established that 30 percent of state resources (budget and time on electronic media) is distributed equally and 70 percent in proportion to the vote of each party. Why
30-70 and not 50-50 or 70-30? Because yes, they decided to legislators. In fact, this proportion does not contribute to the contenders match, or improve the conditions of competition for the kids. It is evident that gives more who else has and these resources are used to preserve inequality.
Is it inappropriate for the legislation provides that proportion? No, but you can not say that a law is fair or perfect. Is one option among many that has advantages and disadvantages. Nothing more.
So far things are relatively simple. The state's relations with the parties to govern by that principle, for better or worse, it works. The other option would be to treat everyone equally and give them the same resources.
Would the end of the world? No. But such a scheme would never be approved by a majority of legislators belonging to parties more strong, since it would hurt their interests. That's the bottom line.
The great confusion in regard to equity is elsewhere. Lawmakers asked the following question in 1996: how to ensure that a third person or entity, do not purchase time on radio and TV and use it to serve some political forces?
estatólatras The response was very simple: ban the purchase of those particular spaces.
And to drive home the point, the ban was constitutional rank in 2007.
The problem is that equality is a vague concept and can not become a touchstone democracy. Can and should function as a criterion for regular party-state relations, but not as a value to restrict and limit the actions of citizens.
The law establishes a clear division between authorities and citizens. The authority can do exclusively what the law entitles him. Citizens, however, can do everything that is not prohibited or punished by the law.
equity to a similar principle applies. One thing is that the state assume the equity as a guiding principle and another is to limit and abridging civil liberties to impose it. The dial-party state has its own logic and should not interfere in space-liberties-rights citizens.
Why? For two reasons. The core values \u200b\u200bof democracy (freedom, equality), which involve basic rights for all citizens, should not be equated with a principle that governs the electoral competition between citizens' organizations.
promote equity is a state obligation, but that responsibility does not confer the right to hurt the essential liberties to achieve this "ideal state", which is pretty relative. Exemplified. There can be no democracy without political parties and electoral competition-direct democracy, "but never could've without freedom of expression and equality.
In addition, the effect of the ban is real create first-class citizens, organized games with time on radio and television-and second-class citizens, whose only sin is not to join a party, without the right to be heard or seen in the electronic media.
There are, moreover, a basic consideration. Prohibit the purchase of time on electronic media in the era of the internet is stupid. The information now more than ever, it is horizontal and increasingly free.
estatólatras So if the legislature take the spirit of another law should be developed to regulate and control the contents of the network. The IFE acquire, then, the power to punish all those citizens who use Twitter or Facebook to influence other citizens at election time.
Finally, it is regrettable to note the intellectual poverty of our debate. Several of the advocates of electoral counter 2007 we announced the end of the campaign spotización. A profesorcillo went even further. Condemned the empty spots as a form of communication.
To our misfortune, spotización of politics has reached, thanks to the electoral-degree counter ideotización never seen before. But fortunately for us, young men from the "spoiled ballot" showed how ingenious, brilliant and rich, which may be a spot on the network.
I conclude by paraphrasing the Great Helmsman: at all times, including elections, a thousand flowers bloom. Jaime Sanchez Susarrey
++++++++++++++++++++++++
URGE to move from the current party-a real democracy. For it is essential that there are independent candidates, re-bounded, 2nd row, easy creation of political parties but at the local level in districts and municipalities. And above all, reduced public funding for political parties. That are its members who support them with adequate control to prevent money from crime, but nothing more.
0 comments:
Post a Comment