It was left out when I wrote my previous note (see Privileged interlocutor, in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/p/privileged-interlocutor.html) that in addition to missing the veracity and seriousness that the owners and editors of the major newspapers used to imprint on the news, as well as the presence of the great figures who wrote in those media, there was also something extraordinarily fundamental and that is becoming more and more necessary: the press was the citizen comptroller of politicians, especially of those who held power. This function of the press was so important that it came to be considered and commonly referred to as the 4th Power.
And why was this so? Because historically it was the only way to channel public opinion in a single direction and give homogeneous consistency to the position of those who in some way reflected the opinion of the people on issues that concern us all. This gave a balance to those in power who saw in the press a counter-power that could not be manipulated, a situation that prevented excesses and mismanagement by those who misused the mandate conferred by the citizens in a democracy.
Of course, all governments have always tried to manipulate public opinion through their own media and to destroy the free press that is not submissive to their will. All constitutions in free countries have a section or amendment that protects freedom of expression and specifically the free press. In principle, the root of the problem is that citizens who freely express themselves serve as a restraint to the abuses of power. That is why historically the free press has been assigned this very high responsibility, which over time has been dangerously diluted with the advent of new technologies and the decrease in the influence of the mainstream press on the decisions of those in power.
James Madison (1751-1836), considered the Father of the American Constitution, conceives a constitutional text to SET LIMITS to the authorities, because his concern is the abuse of power. According to José Piñera, Cochairman of the Cato Institute, "Madison realizes very early on that the essence of government is power and that every man has within himself, as well as many positive qualities, a temptation, a predisposition to abuse power..." (see José Piñera, Inaugural Lecture 2010 at the Francisco Marroquín University, Guatemala, January 25, 2010, video at https://newmedia.ufm.edu/video/leccion-inaugural-2010-los-padres-fundadores-de-los-estados-unidos-de-america-y-lecciones-para-america-latina/ and transcription in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/2014/09/los-padres-fundadores-de-los-estados.html).
Madison developed a theory of balances of power, explained in The Federalist (see work at http://goo.gl/LsgP8x), essays written jointly with Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804) and John Jay (1745-1829), both equally considered as American Founding Fathers, with the intention of defending the federal approach of the proposed Constitution to the 13 Provinces and convincing them of its ratification. These essays were published between October 1787 and May 1788 in different newspapers in the United States.
In Hamilton's view, these balances of power must involve a strong civil society, independent universities, trade groups, as well as a free press and that "everyone checks each other so that power is mitigated, so that the abuse of power is contained," as Piñera indicates in his lecture. This is a fundamental principle that I will develop in this note.
In 1971 the New York Times and the Washington Post published a confidential study officially titled "U.S.-Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense," directed by then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (1967) and known to the public as The Pentagon Papers, "which credited that for more than two decades, and under the tenures of four presidents, from Truman to Johnson to Eisenhower to Kennedy, the American government had systematically lied about its involvement in the Vietnamese hornet's nest..." (see in Spanish, El hombre que hizo perder los papeles al Pentágono, en https://www.revistavanityfair.es/poder/articulos/daniel-ellsberg-papeles-pentagono/28553). This caused a scandal of such magnitude that the government of Richard Nixon ordered through the legal machinery of the federal government to stop the publication of the documents. However, the U.S. Supreme Court finally decided in favor of the press in the following terms:
“The Court ruled 6-3 in New York Times v. United States that the prior restraint was unconstitutional. Though the majority justices disagreed on some important issues, they agreed that “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government…In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam War, the newspapers nobly did that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.” Dismissing the claimed threat to national security, the Court continued, “The word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.”New York Times v. United States remains one of the most important freedom of the press case in American history.…” (ver Bill of Rights Institute, New York Times v. United States (1971), in https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/new-york-times-v-united-states-1971) (highlighted by us). Recently (2017) there was a movie directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep, entitled The Post, the dark secrets of the Pentagon, recounting this historic case where the free press was victorious. It is my conviction that if this information had not come to the public's attention through the press in the early 1970s, American soldiers would still be dying in Vietnam.
Why do we make all this reference? Because civil society, as a whole, has been, since the beginning of constitutional times, starting with the American Constitution, the greatest counterweight that any power should have to avoid the abuses that the rulers carry out, deliberately or not. This explanation leads us from now on to the role of the new media and the social networks in the social control that should be done to the rulers and that moved mainly from the big media, to the civil society that is now in control of the world information networks. And here I land in Venezuela.
The new proposal of the President in Charge Juan Guaidó to form "a new unitary platform to fulfill the mandate of the Popular Consultation". (see news in ND, at https://www.noticierodigital.com/2021/02/guaido-planteo-nueva-plataforma-unitaria-para-cumplir-el-mandato-de-la-consulta-popular/) How can civil society, in any of its expressions, "join" the Government in Charge or any other government to make common cause in favor of any objective, without losing its essence as a counterweight to the arbitrary acts committed by the government? Juan Guaidó is calling for a new "coalition" between parties and civil society to make the mandate of the Popular Consultation effective. I find it extraordinary that the Government-in-Charge begins to recognize that 6.4 million Venezuelans expressed ourselves to expel Nicolás Maduro Moros and his regime from power. But first things first.
In that Popular Consultation, the people demanded the Cessation of the Usurpation of the regime before proceeding to free elections. This irreducible framework prevents the holding of any elections before Maduro leaves power in Venezuela and orders to do whatever is necessary before the International Community so that the usurpation ceases as soon as possible. We have not seen even the first step of the caretaker government in that direction. After this call to civil society, we expect to see it, starting by officially informing the representatives of all the countries of the world of the decision of the Venezuelan people made in the Popular Consultation.
Likewise, and as an immediate consequence of that mandate, no dialogue with the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros is possible through any negotiator that does not imply that Maduro and his regime previously leave power before any conversation. Who can guarantee that the Government in Charge complies with that mandate of the people of December 2020? The Civil Society in its role of comptroller of the actions of the Government, in this case the Government in Charge, and its main officials! Precisely for that reason we cannot "join" with the Government in Charge nor be part of that structure, but act in coordination with all the participating entities of the International Community in order to carry out a process that will lead the country to a transition where justice is not painted on the wall, because this regime has a lot to account for to the nation. Otherwise, the civil society could become an accomplice of any hidden negotiation with the regime to avoid paying for the crimes they have committed.
No, my dear friends. The time is over for a civil society that only serves as a bar for politicians in their quest for power. It is time for a civil society that exercises its role as a counterweight to power as it should, in accordance with the internationally established tradition. This is called exercising citizenship, and it does not mean that we do not support the efforts made with the International Community with a view to the exit of the regime in a civilized manner, but avoiding the deceptions of which we have been victims by those who lead the official opposition and the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros. It is one thing for us to unite with those who exercise the Government in Charge to enforce the Popular Consultation and it is quite another to coordinate efforts with anyone who wishes to enforce it independently. Only in the latter way we will be able to demand its compliance, in the former we will be their accomplices if they do not comply with it. It is time for citizen recognition...
Caracas, February 3, 2021
Blog: http://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario