Politicians and their “deadlines.”

The “expiry dates” shown on the packages of the foods we eat tell us when it is appropriate to eat them. Unfortunately, politicians don’t have their expiration dates etched on their foreheads. That is, the date that tells us when they became harmful. Regardless, there are many ways to know when a political figure is no longer easily digestible, or, in other words, when the consumption of his words and actions is detrimental to the health of sociopolitical institutions. For example, age and physical and mental health are good indicators of when a politician must retire, as can be seen in the pitiful and dangerous cases of Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and several U.S. senators and congressmen .

In Nicaragua we have become accustomed to consuming “expired” political products, which explains why Creole politics resembles a permanent case of viral gastroenteritis or intestinal flu (better known as diarrhea). Today, for example, we are addicted to the rancid and increasingly absurd rhetoric of the “El Carmen” diode, we are addicted to the tirades of opposition leaders who for some time have been “stupid”, which is the expression I think Way. In the 1980s, Chichi Fernández talked about characters who were no longer edible or drinkable due to age or disability.

Félix Maradiaga is a classic example of a politician who is past his sell-by date but still sells like fresh curds. Even in the famous audio where we hear him promoting himself as Nicaragua’s bargain and making “Monte Verde” look like a dry mountain, he continues to speak and act as if the money he has invested in the Nicaraguan political scene is not his..

Juan Sebastián Chamorro also began to sack bugs (to use a word that should never stop being used). To be honest, Chamorro was never a fresh and desirable political creation because his words and actions could never inspire the confidence and enthusiasm a leader must generate. Ask him any question and he will answer with platitudes such as “the unity of the opposition is important” and “Nicaragua must move toward democracy.”

To criticize or not to criticize?

Criticism of the failed leadership of Maradiaga and Chamorro is necessary to prevent the perpetuation of these two characters from continuing to hinder the potential emergence and development of new leadership. This “blockade” was evident in the first press conference held by Juan Sebastian Chamorro and Carmen Chamorro, representing the uncertain and uncertain Monteverde.

In a video of Carmen Chamorro talking about the reality of Nicaragua, before taking on the role of co-spokesperson for Monteverde, Carmen appears wise, sincere and convincing. However, at the press conference on August 29, she appeared mechanical and aloof as she limited herself to speeches in support of her seniors, who took up most of the meeting. Furthermore, Carmen seems to be following a prefabricated script for both men, so that she and her Monteverde co-religionists maintain a discursive balance on the verge of repeating the same thing: “Nicaragua lives under a dictatorship,” Solidarity with the Opposition is necessary” and “we are having conversations with other platforms. “

change or become irrelevant

Repression has become routine, and the resigned pragmatism that has been one of the cultural hallmarks and defense mechanisms of our society is beginning to be rebuilt after being temporarily replaced by the heroic voluntarist forces that make social protest possible. The massacre of 2018. So today’s political prisoners don’t attract the attention of those who were deported in February of this year, and government abuses become less and less shocking as our bodies/minds adjust to the country’s new reality.

To change this, the opposition must build a dam and block the development of new, youthful leadership in the hope that it will have new, youthful ideas. first:

  • It must move from inciting – so-called international political events – to pursuing a reflexive policy – thoughtful and thoughtful – oriented toward Nicaraguans rather than primarily toward Americans and Europeans.
  • It must articulate a vision that can be communicated to the Nicaraguan people through an emotional discourse that encompasses the needs and aspirations of all sectors of the country’s society. In this sense, it must give up the fight for a Nicaragua that fits half the country, a Nicaragua that excludes Sandinistas and the Sandinista National Liberation Front.
  • He must abandon his middle-class vision because the vision that dominates his discourse captures only those things that matter to those who have never known poverty, such as those who gratefully accept Ormu’s “populist welfare” poverty suffered by people.
  • He must stop thinking only about Ormu’s failure and start thinking about how to organize and govern post-authoritarian Nicaragua. Because the quality and legitimacy of the political transition after the collapse of the current regime will depend on how Nicaragua emerges from the crises that engulf it today.

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting new results.” Unless those who want to change Nicaragua change their vision and actions, nothing will change. It starts with looking back at who and what “went wrong” to open the way for other faces, other voices and, most importantly, other visions and strategies out of the crisis.

The author is a retired professor in the Department of Political Science at Western University in Canada.

Source link

Leave a Comment