By: Alberto Adrianzén
healthy After the meeting, which had left a few weeks ago, we must say that if it wants to rebuild, as many wish, there are two necessary conditions. The first, which takes its crisis and recognize that it is the deepest in Latin America. The second, accept the need for renewal of his thought, his action and his paintings dirigenciales.
Actually the Peruvian left was the Berlin Wall fell, but also, after their break in the late eighties when he was one of the largest left the region, he built another wall that isolated the popular world. From that time until today, the left has failed to break through this wall.
is true that the Shining Path was and remains a key factor in this crisis. His speech, his practice of terrorism, was, perhaps, what contributed most to the prestige and decline of leftist thought. To this was added, no doubt, the very leaders (I mean IU) did not understand that entered a new era and that this required, as Bolivians say today, a new political instrument that was not the sum of the parties but rather very different, in keeping with a society that was leaving its class structure for a mass society. The "churches" could not contain a "membership" that had increased but also wanted to hear new voices.
The other factor is the existence of a right (the Fujimori is part of it) believe that the best political system is one in which there is no left. Since the early thirty dominant groups find it hard to accept that other voices, other than your own, there. This explains why not many liberals in this country but rather consistent pseudoliberales (as evidenced by the case of Catholic U.). A few days ago (26/04/1910) Oliver Stark in Peru 21 newspaper wrote an article, without blushing, praise and open defense of fascism (also with regard to the UC). I think Stark represents the average of what you think right now in the country.
However, I believe, which mostly affected the left was corporate structure and composition. Each group represented a sector social. When these groups (I mean the working class, peasantry, villagers, teachers and students) were in crisis or simply mutated as a result of social, economic and cultural leftist groups began a process of open decline that lasts until today. Corporatism was, as the persistence in their positions of leadership and an old address, the materials that built this wall that now separates the left of a popular world fighting for its integration into a new national community. The left, beyond the speech, not the public demand institutionalized (and democratic).
So I find it strange which has been nationalism which finally revealed the depth of this crisis. Get 1.5% in 2006 when nationalist candidate achieved a little over 30% in the first round, was further evidence that the left, beyond their efforts and even heroism, gave no more.
This is also why I think the left, if you want to put back (as some want) must accept that if we can at least discuss the possibility of rebirth or form political parties (such as Land and Freedom) is partly due to the nationalism (and Ollanta Humala) who managed to recapture the popular vote (hopefully happen again in 2011) and build a program close to the ideas leftists. Think that nationalism has nothing to do with socialism or participatory democracy (beyond being told that is popular in the field), as has been said, is a mistake that could lead back to the left to your privacy. And that is not only a tragedy for the left but also for democracy and for the country.
Published 01/05/2010 Republic
0 comments:
Post a Comment