It is heard that languages are language mechanisms that help us to know ourselves as biological and symbolic beings, which means that it is a methodology fueled by dynamism and inventiveness. In the permanent struggle between one and the other, imagery feeds the “vocabulary”, with commendable ease and speed.
In “politicking”, defined as a “source to obtain or maintain power through licenses, false promises and gifts”, we find, perhaps, one of the most generating sources of language, being able to affirm that the suffix “cracia” is one to which are visited more frequently. Its meaning, technically, is that of “authority, domain or government”. Evidence, “democracy, aristocracy, thalassocracy, plutocracy.” And let’s add in “the festichola” the word “fasistocracia”.
The latter could be considered a manifestation of “democratic fascism”, in which it is stated that “generally occurs when a government, given popular support or that of a foreigner, becomes “almighty” and in search of legitimacy holds elections, in principle, with an apparent legality”. In the midst of the so-called “world axes” and a variable terminology, including “The Cold War” and, in principle, why not say it with some disgust, even the “hot and lukewarm”. Today, in effect, if there is a new one, a deep confusion, diversity and anarchy shake it, keeping it a typology of questionable characterization.
One of the most recent methodologies that are usually linked to what some describe, not with great certainty, as “the new South American left”, has emerged, literally speaking, from the process advanced in certain countries of delegating functions and tasks of the ordinary administration to the Armed Forces. The compensation, the military support for governments of not entirely democratic origin, as well as its consequences. For these reasons, they could be described as “military democracies”, fed by a considerable part of the GDP, but with the peculiarity that a minimum amount is allocated to strictly military expenses. The largest to provide social assistance, food, housing and health care. The device ends up qualifying with the “missions” trailer, in linguistic terms “commission that a person has to fulfill”. It is usually baptized with bombastic names and preceded or followed by the name of historical figures. It cannot be denied that: 1. They calm the traditional effervescence in the countries, once described as developing and today with imprecise names, of the military to command and 2. They are used and for some this constitutes their essence, for the capture of votes for the benefit of the rulers of the day.
It is read that in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador and Venezuela, the growing political importance of defense and the military has undoubtedly generated a space for the convergence of interests that has favored the stability of the democratic regime, but, concomitantly, the interests of the armed forces. In principle, not entirely consistent with the maxim that “the dimensions of civil control and military missions are areas of decision that fall within the orbit of the Executive.
Analysts do not stop expressing the change in the elucidation of conflicts between socialist governments and the military, which ended with “coups.” Today, it would seem that “the left is different. Just like the armed forces.”
The prevailing confusion, permeated by all kinds of doubts, does not stop sincerely applying the adjectives to the suffix “cracy”, in the attempt to define these typologies of regimes as “fascistocracies”. Let us take advantage of the flexibility that is usually attributed to language.
In the book “The Just Society. The labyrinth of Ifigenia Fernández” (Penguin Random House, 2020), which we presented at the prestigious Interamerican Institute for Democracy and that Cesar Vidal considered a simile of “El mundo de Sofia, by Jostein Gaarder, and ratified by the Chilean internationalist Ricardo Israel , the disquisitions revolve, precisely, in what concerns the methodology of the peoples to achieve their development, the subject of old struggles that unfortunately continue and, in the face of it, reactions that are strictly out of place. Among them, reference should be made to the English monarchy, following the death of the Queen and the popular farewell she received. Is it perhaps, it is worth wondering if the monarchical regime is the ideal one and that we should go not only to the observance of the provisions of the “social contract”, but,
It will be, perhaps, that in “The just society” it will have been written with rationality by stating that “bees surpass humans”, since “the queen” rules and the subjects pay attention, building a perfect world, as revealed by Maurice Maeterlinck in his masterful work “The life of bees”. The question, then, would be:
Why them and not us?
And the second:
military democracies, do they exist or not?
Answers welcome.
@LuisBGuerra
“The opinions published here are the sole responsibility of their author.”
