AND
n the concept game we are not far behind. National security fills our mouths and we put the really existing State against the wall because its leaders do not understand anything.
It was confirmed that the President cannot alter a clearly written constitutional mandate designed to ensure the validity and duration of an agreement between the government and his party and those who make up the opposition. Nothing more and nothing less.
But the constitutional agreement of that time has been flagrantly run over by the government responsible for fulfilling and protecting it. The agreement spoke of a possibility, of a path through which we could aspire to forms of governance that at each step would capture the essence of diversity and plurality with which, for better or worse, we have navigated the battered globality of which we are a part . This did not happen and the responsibilities are yet to be elucidated.
The nations affected by the crises, of which there are several, and of course by the vicissitudes of known globalization, have to resort to different formats of agreements and search for consensus between parties and organized social forces. If they fail to do so, they may face various moments of questioning of their authority and legitimacy until they fall, when it comes to a parliamentary regime or the frontal division that uses trench warfare as a symbolic horizon for the next presidential election. Here is one of the advantages of the parliamentary system, solemnly despised in our midst.
The topics of a hypothetical national meeting would be, in any way and in any format, those that have to do with production and employment and, of course, with the distribution of its fruits. A process that never ends, but the autonomy granted by the liberal vision must be reviewed in the light of both its irrefutable imperfections and the enormous distributive flaws that a format of free, and sometimes free, movement of economic forces fosters.
The (in)security that defines us today demands separate treatment. It has to start with a convention of experts in its different dimensions; Of course, it has to do with the actors and institutional forces that urgently need to be put into action to stop the violence of organized crime and deploy an authentic strategy of containment and dissolution of their phalanxes.
None of this will be minimally viable without an active neighborhood contest, led by the United States of America, but more than revisited by the countries of the Central American Isthmus. How much foreign presence we need is not a matter of sovereignty, but of tactics, convenience and strategy.
The concepts fly and mutate, until they change their nature, but the decisive forces are ready, throughout the length and breadth of the country. Here there are not, there should not be, political opponents or enemies of the project. What has to happen, and soon, is the implementation of a robust protocol of understanding for the action of political forces and organized social forces. How many scenes like the ones on Tuesday will be necessary to confirm that we are in bad shape and bad, that changes are urgently needed and they cannot wait any longer?
Firmly and strategically closing the passage to contingents such as those that once again poked their ominous nose in Guanajuato and Guadalajara is a real matter of national security that has put the homeland and the State itself in imminent, true, close danger. A great challenge, whose true attention requires in-depth rethinking of the strategies followed.
