Peace, synonyms and antonyms
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 08/10/2024
Share:
In Nicolas Tenzer’s book Political Philosophy we read that for “democratic practice the best government is that whose object is the common good.” But it is also added that the form of the regime has ceased to be a subject of inquiry, since “democracy is now indisputable.” This is how Professor Nicoletta De Nicola begins her classes on constitutional law and political science at the University of Pisa, founded in 1343 and in principle the oldest in Italy. She is the niece of Enrico de Nicola, first president of the Italian Republic in 1948, who is recognized, as a liberal politician, as having played a decisive role in the leap to “freedom” in substitution of fascism, led by the dictator Benito Mussolini, founder of the “National Fascist Party.”
Hector Perez, who graduated with honors from the Universidad Central Venezuela, is a PhD student under the direction of the Italian academic. He holds a bachelor's and doctorate degree with high marks. And since he wants to return to his homeland as soon as possible, he is immersed in the elaboration of his thesis "La Paz, synonyms and antonyms", a title that does not fail to attract the attention of Nicoletta De Nicola, as well as other teachers.
The Venezuelan takes advantage of the pause in the academic's class to ask in perfect Italian "to what extent can we speak of an "irreplaceable democracy" when we have humanity "overwhelmed" by permanent conflicts, both internal and in relation to acute confrontations of a warlike, political and economic nature. And all the hypotheses have lamentable and even insurmountable social consequences. It is a world, dear professor, without harmony, conciliation, or agreement. It is rather one of combat, struggle and fighting. But, without a doubt, a source of contradictory tendencies, anguish and neurotic disorders. We live in a "collective neurosis." The professor, demanding that Pérez allow her to continue, expresses that "peace supposes calm, tranquility, quietness, virtues that are nourished in "the prosperity of the people," so that the opposite would happen, among other manifestations, by "misery, violence and wars." He does so with the Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy, of course, the Italian version.
An excited Pérez, interrupting again, asks the teacher what her opinion is regarding “individual domination.” I am referring to the domination of some over others. But also, regarding constitutions, treaties and laws aimed at living in peace. And on the contrary, what we are confronted with is the exploitation of the poor by the rich, antagonistic to the conviction of the latter who think about the legitimacy that they should have in a decent life. They end up, dear teacher, the Venezuelan notes with anger, in “a supposed divine will” that depends on a God who would come to “judge the living and the dead.” Are you, Pérez, perhaps against religions? asks “Professor De Nicola,” to which the Caracas native appeals to the National Geographic that he takes out of a heavy briefcase that he always carries, stating that “religion is the result of the effort to know what the world is, but also, as it should be, a request that we entrust to God according to the guidelines of a so-called spiritual world, which surrounds us.” The Supreme Being, admired professor, wishes to provide us with progress and peace. And the question that should concern us is how he would sanction us for the one we have built, whose flaws are, as cannot be denied, numerous and harmful. The tendency to deterioration demands serious, efficient and honest governments. And we cannot fail to manifest that we are wandering around the antithesis. We do not fear, not even, the presumption, which I understand you raise, that humanity is the work of a superior being. And that we will be held accountable. And a great truth is that constitutions, laws, or any other regulations have not served to straighten out such a chaotic course, so we have the quality to ask ourselves: What to do? The classroom applauds the Venezuelan. The teacher, we do not know if in good faith or bad, calls Hector Perez to a meeting with the jury at 6 in the evening, so that he can make an initial presentation regarding the dissertation to opt for the PHD. The meeting with a single topic "Peace, synonyms and antonyms", concerned not only with what is related to the title. Also and much more, with what the graduate would write in the development of such a questionable topic. The teacher seems "disdainful".
At the appointed time, Hector Perez, in a blue suit, white shirt, and yellow, blue, and red tie, appears before the jury, which is made up of Nicoletta De Nicola, who presides, and professors Leonardo Guarino and Tomasso De Cesare, the latter being the one who questions the title the most, calling it generic, but at the same time simple and meaningless. Guarino states that the development of the topic will lead nowhere, other than to reiterate the criteria of those imbued with pessimism who conclude that the world will end. Professor De Nicola suggests that it is best for the graduate to present his considerations. Forward! the two academics are heard saying almost in unison. You have the floor, Mr. Perez, and you have two hours to explain. Keep in mind that you may be interrupted by any of us. “Grazie, grazie, grazie” is heard three times from the Venezuelan.
This is how Hector Perez, with the pose of a refined “researcher”, states that we continue in a system structured under the assumption that the people, being sovereign, govern themselves, but that given the plurality that makes them up, they cede this legitimacy to authorities chosen in free elections. Without wishing to be redundant, the final assessment is, therefore, that popular power (excuse the redundancy) “corresponds to the people”, but that they must grant its exercise under the mechanism of a aforementioned “representation”. We will agree, the graduate asks, but without answers.
The problem I have set out to investigate, respected members of the jury, is to what extent we could arbitrate a more suitable formula that would help resolve the dilemma that “the people do not feel represented by those elected and this encourages “messianic governments”, with respect to which we read: “This attitude is typical of a messianic and authoritarian government, which believes itself invested with a divine mission and does not tolerate dissent or plurality.” With your forgiveness, Pérez clarifies, we reserve the source.
Let me ask you, distinguished academics, if you would deny that such governments end up as “disgraceful dictatorships,” because the rulers, realizing that the people voted, but it no longer counts, cling to power through the most varied skirmishes, including manipulating electoral results or acting like dictators, without admitting what they are.
The Venezuelan, after a brief pause, turns to Professor Nicoletta de Nicola, telling her that in the work you recommend, if you analyze it well, you will notice that in a few countries, I don't know if more or less, numerically speaking, we would be close to "peoples with their owners." But the most worrying thing is that in most cases "the modality of representation" has been applied. But, additionally, they do not defend "the common interest." Allow me the favor of giving you a page in which I explain more clearly our assessment. May God guide you along the right path, in favor of formulas that contribute to a truly democratic exercise of popular sovereignty. I will be very pleased!, says Professor Tomasso De Cesare, member of the jury. The expression is not without irony.
The graduate, prepared and well-read, is not daunted. Rather, he reaffirms that Nicolas Tenzer, an academic, as I have noted, preferred by Professor De Nicola, seems to corroborate our concerns, as he states “that if the people simply and plainly limit themselves to obeying, the “ratio of dictatorships”, they would lose their status as such, since they would pass into the power of an owner. I would wish that this jury would deny us that this is not the reality of more than half the world. Not to say, of everything. “Please continue,” is the reaction of Tomasso De Cesare. “No other,” the Venezuelan is heard saying, going back to his briefcase from which he extracts some of the considerations that in his judgment are favorable to the reality he is investigating. One is from the Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Paul Krugman, who has put the pen to paper on inequality in the United States, the Giant of the North, telling us that “the conservative era (Reagan – Bush) was marked by an enormous expansion of income distribution, but one in which the rich became much richer, the poor much poorer and the middle class did not get anywhere in particular.” And the other is from Professor Luis Fleischman, who refers to “violent rebellions,” regarding which the political scientist Barbara Walter in her most recent book “How Civil Wars Start,” as she tells us, states that “after all non-violent means fail to achieve the objective, the most extreme elements take control and resort to violence. This is the humanity, dear professors, in which we dwell.
Don't you think, Perez, that Fleischman is referring to your country? The Venezuelan does not respond. The three academics have decided to demand from the graduate alternatives in relation to the crisis in Venezuela and other Latin American countries. This approach, when formulated by Nicoletta De Nicola, produces satisfaction in Hector Perez, who implores God to allow him to be right. This is how he expresses that in Caracas the scenario allows us to identify, in principle, three political activities: “the government, an opposition (the new one – from the most recent decades), which obtained a determining number of votes in the presidential elections in July, legitimizing it to exercise the Presidency and “for now” a third faction, according to our friend Carlos Sánchez Berazain (Director of the Interamerican Institute for Democracy) “a functional opposition”, whose members describe themselves as not affected by what is happening, but which tries to come to an understanding with the latter, under the appreciation that it has no place in the one that will be benefited by the vote in July. In politics it seems that one must act realistically and less chimerically, idealistically and utopically. But closeness to those who exercise power has historically been attractive. A variety of privileges justify it. This is how the most identified with “the functional opposition” reasons. Please forgive us for being so sparing with regard to Venezuela. This is how the graduate thanks the jury for allowing him to talk about his “beloved homeland”, albeit with some fear.
People, Professor De Cesare points out, resort to war, as is currently happening in the most conflict-ridden land of humanity, despite the fact that pages of history reveal that Jesus Christ, the son of God, left them messages directed to live in peace, carrying that heavy, ordinary and ancient cross with every step he took. A war impregnated with aggression seems to be on its way to becoming a global confrontation. To which the Venezuelan answers: Is the redefinition of humanity, which has gotten out of hand, the task we should be addressing? Let's get to work, please. The task is to set out, but with frankness and in a definitive manner, to materialize the common good. This is how Nicolas Tenzer, respected professor Nicoletta De Nicola, puts it in her work “Political Philosophy, without a doubt, “her bedside.”
Professors Nicoletta de Nicola, Leonardo and Tomasso De Cesare applaud in unison, approaching to embrace the Venezuelan, calling him a genius. But so do those who managed to enter the auditorium of the University of Pisa, despite the restrictions applicable in such cases. They all approach, although in a disorganized manner, to congratulate Hector Perez, who with the cordiality that characterizes him, thanks the gesture with frankness, joy and satisfaction.
Professor Nicoletta De Nicola reiterates to the Venezuelan that she is already fully committed to tutoring his thesis. I am sure that it will be excellent.
Hector unbuttons his suit so that his tie with yellow, blue and red stripes can be seen more fully.
Comments welcome
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».