Will we be in crisis?
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 14/07/2024
Share:
History is revealing that humanity has struggled to achieve the highest degree of development, a huge task that has cost it a lot. It could be affirmed, resorting to the imagery, that he has sailed and continues to do so on a ship with a captain plus crew and the immense sea. The deficiencies are many, for some the responsibility of the first, the second, steam or rough waves in a stormy ocean. There will even be those who believe that the methodology designed and put into practice cannot be left out. The “jocoso”, we have no doubt he would say, is not one, but several ocean liners and of different nationalities, competing with each other, in order to take over the world.
In order to find some answers to the title of this essay, let us turn to the book “State of Crisis (2016)”, authored by the prominent academics Zygmunt Bauman and Carlo Bordoni. The latter, specialized in the sociology of culture and professor at the universities of Pisa and Florence, alleges that “crisis” is a word that is frequently repeated in newspapers, on television and in everyday conversations, and that is used to justify, from time to time, financial difficulties, price increases, a decrease in demand, a lack of liquidity, the imposition of new taxes or the sum of all of the above. Economically, it is identified as “a brake on investments, a decrease in production and an increase in unemployment.” The author cites as “the most serious of modernity”, that of 1929, which caused the collapse of the stock markets, giving rise to a chain of suicides, skillfully resolved thanks to the lessons of the economist Keynes, in the opinion of this writer, for other known ones. This is a complex and contradictory situation derived from a combination of causes and effects, resulting in a mess of problems and conflicting interests. These considerations by Bordoni refer to “the crisis of the State”, which by the way begin with the statement “In the 21st century, what will replace the nation-state (assuming something replaces it) as a model of popular government? We do not know. An assertion that justifies the unrest that fuels these lines.
For some of us, concerns have led us to study the laws in a formal sense, but administering them with their usefulness for the sake of a society that is as egalitarian as possible. We assume that the norms that feed a constitution, code or rule of law must be mechanisms for the development of people. Therefore, the greater the objectivity of the rules of human life, whether codified or not, coupled with sincerity in their application, the people would emerge victorious. The justice that is discussed on the bench ends up being a minimum particle, logically, indispensable for the sake of human peace and progress. But concomitant with them, the determining importance of the reviews related to the most comprehensive human development possible must be highlighted. It is in this context where suitable policies must be generated to achieve a humanity, at least, not as unequal as the one we live in. Allow us to copy from the book “The Rise of the Democratic Prince” by Sergio Fabbrini: 1. The strength of the leader and his Executive must find its correlation in the public and social institutions that must control it”, 2. These should allow the Leaders and Executives fulfill their tasks, but at the same time they must be monitored so that they do not lose sight of the rights of the citizens, among themselves and particularly those who would not have paid for them, 3. If preventing the promotion of the Prince represents a fault of meaning, controlling its rise is an essential task, 4. Democracy needs leaders, men and women, who know how to “put their hand in the gears of history”, but it must also ensure that they do so to improve its functioning, and not to destroy them and 5. Each system of government must find the modality to allow Princes and their Executives to govern, and to guarantee that they do so as “democratic Princes and Executives”.
Accepting that the statements presented do not cease to cause distress, inviting the human being “to contact the "beyond", that is, with the spiritual world, it must be noted that a decisive majority in seeking to satisfy their concerns regarding the world , its creation, development and “alleged destruction” (which is why some of us pray that it does not happen), usually refers to “genesis”, that is, to “the chained series of events and causes that lead to a result” , inserting itself in this way, as if unintentionally, in the biblical texts, which, as is known, give an account of the creation of the universe and the first stages of its existence. Whoever investigates must necessarily locate himself in “The Old” and “The New Testament”, the first with 45 books and the other that covers another 27, more than half. The majority conviction is that God created a perfect universe and that we are determined to destroy it, even putting aside the popular maxim “The Lord will punish you.” And even forgetting tragedies such as Sodom and Gomorrah, regarding which it is read that both cities were devastated by divine fury, as a consequence of sinful decades. In light of the current situation, how do we observe a more benign God, since there are many behaviors aimed at harming humanity not sanctioned by “The Almighty.”
In Latin America, despite its modernization and the “democratic waves” that have benefited it, we are not exempt from crises; on the contrary, it seems that we have become accustomed to living with them. In relation to Venezuela, our country, it would be sinful to state that we do not live together in a critical scenario. In days, as we know, presidential elections will be held in the face of serious critical demonstrations regarding the way of governing. It is necessary to pray to Divine Providence, because biblical guidelines will always be better than “the scores of the Art of Strategy” by Ralph D. Sawyer. Preferable, too, than “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu. And also, healthier than the catalog “On War”, by the German general Von Clausewitz. The prestigious British sociologist, Colin Crouch, highlights this when he writes “We must ask ourselves if, in the absence of a massive escalation of destabilizing acts such as those advocated today, we will be able to: 1. Counteract the lucrative plans of globalized capital, 2. Stop job degradation, 3. Reduce pollution levels, 4. Avoid waste in the use of natural resources and 5. End the growing gap between rich and poor. The academic concludes by reaffirming that “all these issues constitute the greatest challenges for the health of contemporary democracy.
Entrusting ourselves to God is an obligation. For the Homeland and for those of us who make it up. Well, it is true that we are in crisis and have been for quite some time. And Caracas is exempt from the assertion. Fighting hand in hand with the Almighty is an unavoidable duty.
Comments welcome.
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».