By J. Telerman
While factual analysis to belong to the realm of academic speculation, several news and political comment these days indicate that if the national government would have supported me my you could win Mauricio Macri. From what I've read and heard, even within the national government itself there were those who subscribed to this theory, also critical of his own government for its performance during the campaña.Un Some history: It is true that for a while I looked for the possibility of having some level of agreement with Kirchner. But in order to join forces against someone, but because I am absolutely convinced that the policy requires alliances and make stronger government action. I wanted to have that support, but in an area of \u200b\u200boverlap and autonomy. I never accepted the idea of \u200b\u200bbeing a mere delegate or a relationship of submission. We create a space with their own ideas and identity and from there wanted to support, not dissolve in otro.No am saying nothing new: the largest democracies in the world are those who have joined coalitions through agreements and not fragmented into multiple propuestas.Pero should be just that: alliances, agreements, coalitions, not all submissions to uno.Siempre was my vocation and conviction to build a political space and a separate and independent force in the city of Buenos Aires in which we have no problems in recognizing the national government policies with which we agree, but equally clearly express our differences about what we do not like. However, as the election approached was visible to all of something we knew a few: that the essential objective of the Buenos Aires kirchnerismo sector (if not all, at least representing Alberto Fernandez) I was getting the win. Given the evidence that not only would not be possible any level of agreement but that began to emerge, with actions and statements, a harsh campaign against us, I looked for other agreements that would allow, first, expand our base of support and the other, have the basic parliamentary base to support our current and then eventually, the next government. So clear and obvious was the objective of the sector that represents Alberto Fernandez, who on the night of June 3 welcomed the outcome of his fight against me and the sector that accompanies me, even though it was quite obvious the defeat that awaited them on 24 June, in the second vuelta.Las weeks before the first turn, generated high levels of attack, tensions, conflicts, complaints, tension and chaos in the city, promoted from that space, clearly and openly. The consequences were the growing concerns of citizens about the ability that I would have to govern well in that context. It created the idea that I do not would be easy to manage and, consequently, caused a major sector of voters undecided or not tired of this situation, he turned to Macri. The latter, while acknowledging the large number of voters who chose Macri in the first round of accession thereto, without further consideration that will believe that good governance. I decided at that time, no talk with the rawness and clarity that many I suggested, because he felt that would only add fuel to the flames of a conflict created to harm. How all this process influenced the policy that I have bad relationship with Alberto Fernandez, not now but for years? Surely much, reinforced, no doubt, by the belligerence that has also long time to me Aníbal Ibarra. You may wonder if both personal issues affect political decision-making. Should not be so, but in a situation like the one we live without organized political forces, with lines Enclosed individual and to grant and withdraw at will, without discussion of tables, with all the limitations we know .... Yes, unfortunately so. To change that also deals with the political action. To prevent further constituted only as a personal project or small group. Today, political structures are nonexistent and imposing decisions finally are those who take a personal capacity. Personal hatreds and irrational as I describe dominate an agenda in which little or no room left for discussion relevantes.Predominó the perverse idea that "since we can not win, that our anger rather than prime interest in the city." It was obvious that they preferred give up on us to win the election before us. Against any individual that strategy, not ideology, but personal suspicions and resentments of the overnight sector tried to establish that a false choice for the second round as if it were a confrontation with the RIGHT. Frankly, that appeal seems to me indefensible inconsistency. Against this background, it was determined that, although not exclusive, I disregard the second vuelta.Lo we are building in Buenos Aires is not an alternative that does not arise as a reference theme to others. No ghosts join us, or believe to be defined for or against another is sufficient. For us, the world is divided in binary form. No two unique ways of seeing the world or thinking about politics. Nor are there two unique ways of thinking the city. There are other alternatives and ours is one of them. No resentment or spite, but a new way to say "Look, we are something else." Many people understood this and expressed their support in the first round. Many of you understand this and express it every day participating in this space with their comentarios.Voy to continue building and participating in elections to try to win. But if that does not happen, or Buenos Aires or the world will end. Hopefully the new political circumstances and these election results do retrain all in relation to the force with which broad sectors of society reject the lack of respectful dialogue on policy, or the criteria fascia "loyal and enemies" and the slogans "We or chaos." If these changes happen, always I will be willing to talk with those with whom we agree on a city model and promote values.
YES TO LIFE, NOT THE PAPER
NOT FORGET TO JORGE JULIO LOPEZ
0 comments:
Post a Comment