Daily Archives: October 1, 2012

Tailored Laws and the need of Power

Carlos Valverde‘s interesting analysis, from El Deber:

Tailored Laws and the need of Power

Those who understand that discrimination and racism, as well as gender-based violence, must be eradicated from the country and, at the same time, sentence and punish those who incurred in it; we never think that laws on these subjects have been dictated to promote censorship of the media and the opinion of people from the street or parliamentary opposition in its daily political task who question the actions of the rulers.

Two facts demonstrate this. 1. When President Morales said: “only by lack of will can be so poor or not having food;” While in the Highlands it is different if there is frost, if there is no rain, if there is hail, there is food, is a truth that; “in the East, only for being lazy you can remain hungry”, hardly calculated the weight his words could have an effect in the East. Of course, instead of the corresponding apologize and give an explanation, he decided that Inquisitor of the Government team to crash against ANF, Pagina 7 and El Diario from La Paz, and they sue with the argument that their owners expressed “dissemination and incitement to racism or discrimination”. It is clear that officials understood that the ineffable (which cannot be explained with words) statement, could create political problems to the Government in the East, and of course, they decided to go and ‘attack’ the media, before damaging the troubled and deteriorated image in the East of the President on these sides.

2. The possession of Ms. Gabriela Montaño as acting President generated immediate reaction of parliamentarians of the opposition which considered that the Act broke with the institutional framework of the State and violated the CPE [Constitution], understanding these in article 169, noting that “by definitive failure, may first assume the Vice President then the President of Senators”. It is obvious that the reading of the text is not in accordance with what happened in the country, because there has been no final status in the absence of the President and the vice-president, given that they were to return at any time.

Probably if the governing party had not considered such a situation, and when it was the opposition who raised the issue, in the ruling party they recently took note of what could happen and they decided to “come out in support of Mrs. Montaño, by her woman condition”, and threatened the opposition with process to them because, officials say, their arguments hide sexist and discriminatory positions and so they will, once again, go after a law which, having very good intentions, will be remained as the spearhead to lessen, politically and legally, the weight of a Government which can be quite an irregular action (that it should be clarified by the Constitutional Court). The only thing missed to be listened, was that, had it been a man Gabriela Montaño, none of this would have happened.

Disservice is done to Ms. Montaño, who can be liked or not by people; but it is clear that any virtue and ability she must have for she has been elected President of the Senate; I not heard or read in furious statements a single argument that highlighted her intellectual status, political or professional, and not only she has merit for her female status.

I do not understand why, rather than to defend or argue about the legality of the decision (Arce Zaconeta tried, talking about an interpretation of the article in question) of succession through legal and political channels or stressing the virtues of the lady, the ad-hoc threateners refer only to her gender status and make the legal into judicial. There is a possibility that the lady has unlawfully exercised the [presidential] position and the fact that she is a woman does not give, the ‘de facto legality’ nor such gender condition may be a cause so that you do not criticize or question.

I say that sexism and violence against women will be banished when we will be able to value women for what they are and not simply by ‘gender’. I would argue that having testicles means nothing, nor is by having ovaries, but of course… the Government is not interested because it found a couple of laws, an argument more to silence the media, politicians, analysts or who ever write or say or whatever.

Each day closes over the path of democracy… with what other law will they come up to us tomorrow?