First days of a year that will not go unnoticed. In April we will write a new page in the book of our battered and misunderstood democracy.
Paraguay is again seen between the ropes, by not presenting a solid proposal within the menu of candidates that means a radical change for our country. Those who lead the polls are already known in their strengths and weaknesses, without the ability to surprise and without the polarization of extremes: two similar in vices and virtues that fight at the head with practically the same propositional line already known and aged similar to that of the last governments. The debate is reduced to alternation, more than healthy and necessary for the development of solid public institutions, for the efficiency of the State and to raise the bar of the political class in the medium and long term. The nemesis of this theory is born from the similarity of both proposals, where the lines of action within the government plans are practically traced, drawn up in a hurry and extremely similar and simple.
On the other hand, we have the party in power that presents a discourse of alternation, a phrase that falls on deaf ears hug after hug, where some faces finally change, but the threads of the structure are managed from the same hands.
Choosing between synonyms will be the premise in April, where we cannot expect surprises and know the results that our decisions can produce.
Why vote then? Because only by voting can we strengthen democracy, in what is a slow and patient long-term process, seeking to gradually improve the political offer, demand and build candidates that are up to the needs of the country and Paraguay that we want to build .
