by Teódulo López Meléndez

These institutions of the representative democracy are what we denominate bureaucracy. In front of this paralysis what we have given in calling to be able to instituyente runs off with. In the Venezuelan case the question is if the society can be constituted as such, in the first place in front of an authoritarian power with desires of being perpetuated and in front of an organization of opposition that begins to develop the same characteristics of the past and that they gave place to it second. This power instituyente should be in capacity of to pass above that instituted and to produce another social body with derived characteristics of the theoretical position that took it to rebel.In other words, they should can to pass about the power, not only the one that the government embodies, but the own forms that the instituted society has generated and that they maintain it defenseless. In other words, the society instituyente should be good to create new forms and don’t unite repetition of the existent thing. In the Venezuelan case we have an instituted society of characteristic flimsy, under the pressure of the institutions kidnapped by the régime “revolutionary” and whose resistance decisions are in hands of weak parties that reproduce in the traditional bad habits of the missing partisan organizations and that in the bottom they don’t make another thing that to indicate a turn to the past, to the institutions of the representative democracy with dialogue, consent and agreements, without altering for anything the essence of that instituted.

 

 

 

We should surely go until Cornelius Castoriadis to elucidate that an imaginary one is not behind all explicit power recognizable of an instituted power. This way, it is remembered that the Greeks, when they invented the tragic democracy, they delimited that nobody should say us as thinking and in the agora he left to discuss on the Polis in a reflexive process. Of there Castoriadis: “A fellow that one gives reflexively to itself, their laws of being. Therefore the autonomy is acting reflexive of a reason that is believed in a movement without end, in a way at the same time singular and social.”Now then, of the Greek democracy until the representative democracy have passed many theoretical considerations, until our days when one speaks of a democracy. In other words, the politics has disappeared, in the sense of the existence of free citizens that permanently question the institutions reflexively and to the same instituted society. Castoriadis plays with the articles to assure that the political thing has substituted to the politics. In the Venezuelan case the domain continues in the field of the parties (some even wobbly ones, but that they are reproducing the conditions of the domain).

This way, they announce the agreements to go together to the elections or they are buried in the fights among having left by the dominance of some of them. This is, they are empty agoras that continue dominating to the instituted society where the impulse of the institution doesn’t sprout. Épimélia is a word that implies the care of oneself and that he gives origin to the politics, with the article “the”, to respect the conceptual variants of Castoriadis. The freedom characteristic of the politics has been exterminated, because what we are imposed is as “to belong.”

 

 

 

Now then, this person that thinks is a social product. The society makes to the person, but this person cannot forget that she has a power able to modify, in turn, to the society. The person (and I am using the word in the sense of the Christian humanism) it is manifested in the properly this partner-historical field (the action) and in the psyche. We have been put in that psyche that is impossible a change inside her that bears to an action. It is certain that the actions of the society instituyente are not given through a visible radical action. He plays us to who think, to point out, to make notice that the participation imposed in an instituted heteronomy, impedes the person’s personalization, but that it is possible the alteration of the social world for a slow process of impositions on the part of a society trasvasada of having instituted to instituyente.

 

The possibility goes by the creation of articulations, not very showy, that is to say, by means of an unfolding of the subjected society to an imagination process that changes the significances the alteration that bears to a change sociohistórico taking place this way (action). there is the necessity of a new language there, the creation of new paradigms that you continue going by the social thing and for the psyche. We leave, necessarily, of the conviction that the things like they are they don’t work and they should be changed (psyche) and for he should offer another sense type. The second (social) it is to make notice that the person can achieve it without having an explicit power (massmedia control, a party, or any other of the institutions that traditionally have been receivers of the power). He is necessary to insinuate an instituted alteration of the procedural thing. It is to produce a displacement of the passive acceptance toward a field of substitute creation. I have put as example the non acceptance of the vertical parties and their substitution for a social net that allows the flow of the civic will.

 

 

To turn off, to diminish, to hide and to frustrate the spirit instituyente is one of the fundamental causes that the Venezuelans live what we live. Now we have to the new instituted power trying to create an imaginary one altered to the one that is not opposed one of liberation, in the sense of loosing the creative possibilities of the social body. In fact the only thing that one argues in its against it is the turn to the peace, to the tolerance, to the dialogue, maintaining unharmed the old unsuccessful institutions. Somebody argued that there is always a future to make. On that future the society leans or to preserve that instituted or to loose the you tie of the possible thing.

 

In Venezuela we should look for new derived meanings of new significant. If this government that we suffer continues unmoved his road is because the factors that sustain it stay faithful to an imaginary genuineness. This doesn’t mean that for they don’t take out it to it with violence (procedure that I condemn, is enemy firm of the military blows), but rather for they swallow it thick in front of its desplantes and atrocities. The explanation is in a society constrained instituyente, without capacity of putting on the mat the answer to the future. This government that the Venezuelans suffer is already a failure, not only for his apparent inability to face the population’s basic problems, but for his total desbarrancamiento in the effort to impose an imaginary one. The Greeks already knew that he won’t be able to have a person that is worth without a polis that is worth, and this government with his sleepless socialism of the XXI century has transformed the polis into a pigpen.

 

In spite of the announcement that in Venezuela there was a “revolution” the certain thing is that we live in that instituted and, for if it was little, in an instituted even more degenerate. The religious thing (Chávez seems a North American Protestant shepherd) it has been a decisive factor of the failure. This government has denied the imaginary instituyente and he has taken the one on the way to an imaginary one instituted. It is basing on a genuineness of the dominance, that makes impossible the transformation of the psyche and their projection toward the concrete thing historical-social.

 

The transformation begins when the social body puts in trial cloth the existent thing (this way, this government is it conserved, what it is necessary to change) and it supplants the imaginary one offered. The appearance of a person is required with its conception of the Being in the politics (what we could accept as the “new man”, one that never leaves the intent of changing it with the sentence “to be rich is bad”), one that decides to make and to institute. The matter resides in that to tame the Venezuelan-government of Chávez – it is not possible. The correct position is to induce that the human life is not repetition, and many less than you pierce them political, and to find again in the reflection and in the deliberation a new sense. We are not speaking of a “revelation” sudden but of the social imaginary creation of a new one.

 

This way, without filling with ideas and thought on the future to make it won’t be possible to change the existent thing. This Venezuelan government questions every day his reason of being and it is it condition within our reach to build the new paradigm. The institutional possibility is hidden in the anonymous community. This way it is necessary to forget the classic terminology. The maximum value is not a Constituent Power. It is it a Power, what doesn’t mean that the institution is not institutionalized, for then to be questioned by the new emersion of the institucionalidad. The democracy is, because, I change continuous. All process of this type lapses-it is obvious – in a concrete historical circumstance. In ours, in that of today’s Venezuelans, we cannot fear to the uncertain of the future.

 

The institution is not qualifiable a priori as good or bad. It is the hour of building the future and if the construction goes leaving faulty, because we correct. It is possible in an alive democracy. Impossible in a régime that imposes. The democracy of the XXI century that I conceive is, then, a permanent setting a day.

 

tlopezmelendez@cantv.net