We the people
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 23/06/2024
Share:
To identify the Constitution of the United States, until now, one of the most prestigious in the world, it is enough to write or pronounce the title of this essay. And for those who are more restless, meditate on what the people proposed to establish as of September 17, 1787 and which they ratified on June 21, 1788. That is, a Union as perfect as possible, establishing Justice, ensuring the internal tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and ensure the benefits of Liberty.” In this struggle, one of the most solid democracies in the world has maintained itself for almost 2 and a half centuries. And the question that arises is: Will he have achieved it? The answer is obvious, and quite a bit!
During our stay at Harvard Law School we had the opportunity, as an applicant for a little more than a doctorate, to make friends with Richard Parker, professor of constitutional law and author of the book “Here, the People Rule”: A Constitutional Populist Manifesto. The other two teachers of a student well over forty were Roberto Unger of German and Brazilian descent and Stephen Marlign, from the economics department. The ancient, but always young Cambridge, the setting.
The analyzes that have been made of Parker's book point out with respect to "democracy, its aspirations, its dangers, aspects" to which the Magna Carta is fundamentally contracted. For some, “Parker's manifesto” leads to describing as orthodox “the idea that constitutionalism and populist democracy are opposites.” The academic maintains, rather, that “the mission of constitutional laws, including, of course, the Magna Carta, is to promote, not limit, the expression of “ordinary political energy.” Therefore, expanding, rather than limiting, majority rule must be the maxim. The ideas presented reveal that the Harvard professor does not refer to “popularism (Tendency or love for the popular in ways of life, art, literature, etc. Drae)” in his book. The sources reveal various assessments regarding populism and the one that most attracts us is the one according to which it is “a threat to democracy.” It is certainly not “popularism” to which the Harvard professor is referring. Rather, to “the participatory dimension in democracy” and both in the integration of public powers, and in a decisive participation of the people in the rights and duties that as a political system it supposes, but also demands. The constitutionalist's appreciation has no relationship with the debates between populism and democracy, for the Uruguayan researcher Pablo Castaño, which are increasingly frequent in literature.
Parker highlights “the political energy of ordinary people,” pointing out that it must be taken into account, both in the making and in the implementation of the Constitution. The constitutional proposal will be more serious to the extent of its breadth in relation to the participation of the people. And that is the guideline that will give more strength regarding the observation of its precepts. He is read to address this sensibility in a novel way, through a work of political fiction, Thomas Mann's Mario and the Wizard. And it evokes our deepest and most problematic attitudes about popular political energy in our own democracy. The analysis concludes that the book “Here the people rule” proposes the need for a reimagining of the populist potential of constitutional law. It will disorient – and then reorient – the thinking of all who care about democracy and the Constitution. It will sow an intellectual revolution based on the experience and sensitivity of citizens. Oligarchs, plutocrats, sophists and practitioners of nobility force us to be careful: their control processes are exposed by a deeply illuminating mind. This is how it is written and we copy it.
The reader, please allow us to remember one of our old essays, The Defender of Biden?, in which we noted that “Paul Krugman warns of “negative economic evaluations” regarding Biden, in the opinion of the academic result of the “extreme partisanship fueled by “the right-wing media.” He refers (Krugman) to the “elephant”, even capable of stating that the economy today is worse than that of 1980, with double unemployment and inflation at 14%. Also, there is a tendency aimed at “condemning every progressive Marxist idea.” We would ask Professor Parker if this mistake, in the sum of a few others, on the occasion of that kind of fratricidal war in which the electoral campaign has become in the most developed democracy in the world, reveals an abuse, if not to say, a lack of knowledge, to the maxim “Here the people rule”. And how should we interpret the assessment of the University of Hamburg professor, Peter Sloterdijk, for whom, as he states in “Political Epidemics” that “populism is the current phase of malaise in culture.” And consequently, it must be avoided that "the cynicism from above meets that from below."
As for the word populism, of course, not in the sense in which our Harvard professor uses it, as Venezuelans we would not feel good if we did not copy some of the considerations of the academic David da Silva Pereira in relation to Caracas: 1. The review of some elements of the contemporary historical itinerary to identify the features of populist movements in each reality, 2. Reveal the reasons that make them possible and 3. To what extent it is a local history in terms of logic and external interests. The idea is that these factors lead us to understand that only the context is capable of illuminating the phenomenon identified as populism. David da Silva Pereira's research, in his introduction, does not cease to worry: “Venezuela lives in the midst of what a priori we could call a socio-political and institutional crisis, with certain characteristics of its own. In the external scenario, there is much discussion about the need for mediation or even intervention by external forces. At the internal level, the succession of President H. Chávez by N. Maduro assumed new forms and roles. The economy, once again, weakens one of the most prosperous Latin American governments of the 20th century, in the midst of a sharp drop in the price of a barrel of oil. It is still important in the vicinity of a presidential electoral process to be held next July.
Convinced that Parker's book does not even remotely suggest that he is referring to populism. And that his appreciation must be understood rather as the imperative that one of the reasons for the existence of the Magna Carta is to promote, not limit, the expression of “ordinary political energy.” We consider it necessary to provide the reader with some considerations by Jorge Bergoglio, not entirely imprudent: “In Papa he laments "the advance of liberalism, which seeks to explain and guide all reality" but he also rejects readings of reality that "use as an interpretative guideline." that of the seventies", which "comes from Paris in '68 or from a certain extrapolated German theology". He says that "popular" is "who manages to interpret the feelings of a people" which "can be the basis for a transformative and lasting project," and that this is often called "populism" to disqualify it. Although it is true that there is "a negative meaning when it expresses someone's ability to instrumentalize" the people, lately the adjective has become "a 'workhorse' of ultraliberal projects at the service of large interests", to disqualify " "anyone who tries to defend the rights of the weakest".
A meeting between Professor Parker and Mario Bergoglio would clarify many things for us, enabling us in this turbulent world.
The suggestion could be to conclude by repeating the phrase “We the people”, in order to continue thinking about how we understand each other. And suddenly accompanied with the Old and New Testament.
Comments welcome
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».