Simón Bolívar himself already proclaimed it: “The best policy is honesty.”
Gustavo Luis Carrera I LETTERS IN THE MARGIN
Secular experience indicates that dialogue in the form of ideological debate is an effective way of opposing ideas and seeking perspectives for reflection and analysis. This is how we have exposed it on previous occasions; and convinced of this, we apply it, productively, again. Let us give the floor, then, to the habitual discussants, Another one y Egoleaving the conclusions to receptive readers.
Ego:-If one goes to the dictionary, one finds that politics is the subject that deals with the government of a State; but, which also refers to the set of activities aimed at exercising authority in a community. That is, it is a theory and a practice. / Another one: -And perhaps more of the latter, because how many politicians do not come to power without having to study political theory? / Ego: -Very sure. Let’s say that politics is an activity in fact, not in law. / Another one: (Laughing): -I know what you mean. To the politicians who jump from anonymity to the government summit, without studies or cultural requirements. There are many cases. / Ego: -But, the approach that I bring you is the relationship of politics with an archetype of human behavior, honesty. Which, by the way, the same dictionary defines as typical of the honest person, that is to say: the one who is honest, incapable of stealing, cheating or defrauding. / Another one: -And you intend to approximate both terms: politics and honesty? That seems to mix fire with gasoline. / Ego: -But, are you so pessimistic like that? You react as it is popularly said, like “scalded cat”./ Another one: -Exact. The full saying is: “Scalded cat, when he sees boiling water, he runs away”; and another version says that he “flees even from cold water”. (Laughing). Yes, on that subject I am a scalded cat. How many dishonest politicians do not form a long list in numerous countries! / Ego (Without containing laughter) -Of course. You are undoubtedly right. But, what I propose to you is that we examine whether politics and honesty are antithetical, irreconcilable terms. Let’s get to the root of the problem; and let us even allude to the closest thing, to that of this country. / Another one; -Of once I tell you that the politician has a very short memory and very little ethical level. I am not saying that he is a moron or a scoundrel. No. I mean that he is opportunistic; that is, he has no fixed principles. And because he is capable of looking the other way while his acolytes and his minions benefit from public money, as a way of ensuring his unrestricted support. / Ego: – I do not dispute that. But, look at her, let’s go to the practical, to the closest, to this country of ours. From 1958 to 1999, during a period of forty years, in Venezuela there were five Presidents, in seven presidential terms; and they were never accused of dishonesty, neither by themselves nor by their relatives. / Another one: -Well, there was an exception. A President was prosecuted and dismissed for diverting seventeen million dollars for a political purpose abroad: helping a Central American country in the process of democratic recovery. / Ego: Yes. But, we all know that in that case resentment and hatred acted fundamentally. How was the fact known, if it was a secret game? There the revenge of the Prosecutor and the revenge of his own party participated. In addition, in any case, a matter of embezzlement was raised, not embezzlement. / Another one: -Exactly. And I give you the reason. But, look, my lesson on the subject is reinforced with a highly topical fact. Now, suddenly, the government itself recognizes the disappearance, rather: theft, of three billion dollars, under the guise of the national oil company and other administrative departments. It is something that has no precedent or resemblance to anything! / Ego: -What’s more, some say that they stole, or to put it bluntly, they stole more than twenty billion. It’s unheard of! It is the enthronement of embezzlement! But back to our initial topic: do politicians have to be dishonest? / Another: -Mira, Ego, the case is so notorious that I remember that in Japan it became common for many people to express their pragmatic opinion, saying: “let them steal; but that they do something of public utility”. / Ego: -But, that is not consolation! Stealing is stealing; so be it with a mask of common interest! / Another: -My dear friend, what I want is to draw your attention to an event so repeated that it must be classified as an experience, a bitter experience, without a doubt. The matter is like this: these individuals reach the top executive positions of a country and see so much money pass through their hands that, as is popularly said, some of it sticks to their nails: and another part is left for their accomplices to steal and commit themselves to the defense of the regime, which is at the same time the defense of what has been stolen. Do you see where the embarrassing key is? / Ego: -Yes, I see her. And I don’t doubt that you are right. But, I refuse to accept the dishonesty-political union as a fatal fact. We were talking before about presidents who were never accused of proven dishonesty. Furthermore, not because there are illiterate politicians who reach the highest level, it must be said that politicians are illiterate. / Another: -Notice, EgoWhat is the salary of a president in Europe? That of France, about fifteen thousand euros per month, and that of Spain, about eight thousand; and that sum, since all expenses are covered, can be saved. It seems more than enough. How much does a Latin American president earn? It is not known. And that is where the “hands free” thing applies. Or am I wrong? What I mean is that everything conspires to promote dishonesty. / Ego: -But, one thing is the discouraging practice and another is the range of ethical principles and values. Simón Bolívar himself already proclaimed it: “The best policy is honesty.” He considered this essential. And it still is. / Another: -Nobody can deny your reasons. But, do not forget that among dishonest people, dishonesty is not perceived, nor is it condemned. Until the other’s dishonesty affects their own interests. That is the “morality”, like this in quotes, that they apply. / Ego: -But, look, my dear Another one, you can’t deny that there have to be honest politicians. / Another one: -Not only does there have to be, but there are, and there will be. But, they are aware of their duty to a people: and on their part the people in the exercise of their vigilance in defense of their rights and, in this case, of their money. Let’s say that the principle remains safe: honesty is not irreconcilable with politics. Let’s save the ideal, above the malpractice that is shown to the naked eye. / Ego: -You have said it very well, illustrious friend: honesty must prevail in the conscience of the politician, and the people are the safeguard and vindicator of honesty.
Honesty is not irreconcilable with politics. Let’s save the ideal, above the malpractice that is shown to the naked eye “
VALVE: “In fact, the dominant praxis tends to state that honesty and politics are antithetical, irreconcilable terms. There are so many, and so scandalous and close, the cases of illicit enrichment of high government officials, as well as their relatives and accomplices, that the common opinion seems to coincide in pointing out that there is no way to reconcile both categories. But, in the safeguarding of values, even with historical examples of honest compliance, it is necessary to vindicate the essential obligation of the politician to be honest and the decisive verdict of the people in their responsibility as vigilante and censor of respect for honesty”. [email protected]
https://www.larazon.net/category/carrera/