CHAPTER X
OBSOLESCENCE OF POLITICAL PARTIES:
Not one of the political platforms or ideals posited by political parties is the cause of the principle of constitutional inviolability established in Article 128 of the Constitution of 1857, hence derives its complicity in evading compliance with and respecting the provisions of such a high mission constitutional.
On its obsolescence it can be said that the democratic life of the country is not exempt from negative practices of interest of the individuals who lead the parties, “the politicians”, their actions are divergent and they tend to seek to perpetuate themselves in power to live pending public offices, of the “polis” (politics) which is its main business and its company are the associations called “political parties”, which in theory, must be financed with money from their associates, but prefer the economic prerogatives easy public budget, and other financing of shameful and unknown origin, procuring illegal and dishonest advantages in the electoral contests and in the exercise of power.
Andrés Serra Rojas in his book “Origin of the State”, says: “A society is governed by two different currents: The forces of the spirit contained in their traditions, in the spiritual nature of the man who cultivates values and principles; but there are other negative forces that operate on society deforming it, they originate in the egoisms, passions, instincts and interests of men. ”
Carlos Ruiz Alegría in his work “Political Theory” says: “The parties have serious imperfections, serious phenomena and sociological disorders that limit the fulfillment of the functions that justify their existence.”
Research in Political Science concludes that the usefulness of parties should not be defined in terms of their declaration of principles or programs of action, or because of their philosophy or social class of ideological affinity to which they belong, but rather in accordance with the that they do daily to conquer power or to conserve it, depending on the full fulfillment of their faculties.
Robert Michels, in his book: “The Political Parties”, says: “The iron law of the oligarchy consists, in: the personal or group ambitions of the leaders of the parties, (the politicians) that create a politically differentiated class and subdivided very distant from the common people that form the bases of their affiliates, those leaders, make a process of internal selection closed, which supposes a forced conflict of interests of the majority their associates, which they only use as a mere instrument useful for the day of voting. ”
The harsh reality is that the “parties” self-elect, register and promote to their liking the people who will govern us, however, for the vast majority of the common people of the town, their space is reduced, they do not intervene in that, their opinion does not count, they have a secondary place, their intervention can only occur by competition until the day of voting, their decision is impersonal, that is, they do not vote for the person but for some of the distinctive symbols of the parties, same that appear printed in the boxes of the electoral ballots.
Gonzalo Fernández de la Mora, in his book entitled “La partidocracia” says: “Analyzing historically the evolution, development and strengthening of the parties, it has been proven that these have been placed in a preeminent place (superior) in relation to the taking of decisions in the exercise of power, to the degree that, the true center of state power, has degenerated dangerously moving towards the will of the parties “.
The displacement of the institutional power of the state towards the parties is: “Democracy has degenerated in the oligarchical power (the government of a few) of one or more political parties”
The “Partidocratico” State is the one in which power is monopolized, more or less legitimately by a party or by a plurality of allied parties, which means that they do not substitute it, nor contribute to it in the exercise of power, but, when disputed, they invalidate it and dismember it in the following two ways:
Section A.- The substitution of the parties in the role of the State derived from the Partidocracia: Its characteristics are: _ The loss of independence of the popular representatives; _ The sacrifice of the capacity of the representatives in search of a greater party discipline; _ The transfer of the popular will to the partisan will; _ The dehumanization of the representatives of choice that become a mere instrument of voting for the parties; _ The political devaluation of the legislative assembly; _ The development of the actual process of legislation and parliamentary agreements outside the precincts for that purpose; _ The lack of real control over the government; _ The confusion of the powers of the state; _ The loss of real functions of the representative chambers; _ The deterioration of local political life due to the imposition of partisan criteria; _ The monopolization of political activity that prevents the creation and balanced competitiveness of parties in the exercise of power; and, _ The monopolistic consolidation of an administration that prevents an effective pluralism.
Section B.- Of the disintegration of the State derived from the Partidocracia: Its characteristics are: _One expensive and unsettling pluralism, where a majority coalition is not achieved, only a fragmented and chaotic legislative process; _ The paralysis of government action; _ A vacuum of power; and, _ The lack of a defined government project.
It is against the natural law, morality, public order that the popular representatives maintain their relationship of society and loyalty to their parties, these (relations) do not disappear, the will of public officials and elected remains subject to the dictation of the leaders of his party, maintaining control over the decisions of the state’s servants.
The political parties are not organs of the state, so much so that the meaning of sentence number 10/1983 of the Spanish Constitutional Court dated February 21, 1983, which resolves that: “Parties are prevented from invading the autonomy of the representatives of the people in the parliamentary bodies, regardless of whether they were its promoters, since the popular investiture falls on the candidates, not on the parties that present them and these can not deprive or substitute the voters of their mandate ”
It is clear that the parties and their candidates maintain a divorce relationship with the majority of the population. It is a crisis of participation that gives rise to a crisis of legitimacy that results in popular representations elected by minorities.
Jorge Vera Estañol, in his book, “Apart from the Constitution of 1917”; says: “When public opinion does not manifest itself in the elections; more than this, he stops making his voice heard at all times in relation to all the important acts of the administration, the community of ideas between the people and their representatives insensibly vanishes, the forces that maintain the bonds of dependence and responsibility, they relax gradually; and if the silence is prolonged, the government ends up feeling independent, irresponsible, infallible, omnipotent. Democracy is then a chimera; (a dream, an illusion) the autocracy (tyranny-dictatorship) dressed in false clothes, in reality: The government is master and not servant; makes the elections, instead of the elections make the government.
To qualify the effort of the smaller parties, it is a phenomenon that has been called “useless voting” or useless choice. The differentiated voting reveals the division of civil society that is seduced by this or that party. The interest of small parties is artificial because their only task is to work up to where they can sustain the level of voting required by the law, to reach them to preserve their registration and the benefits of the public budget. It is false loyalty to the principles or doctrines and statutes of its political institute because militant leaders affiliated or sympathetic to the various parties generally when conditions permit, prefer to change to another and vote for a different one to yours without any ethical restraint , demonstrating its lack of ideological identity.
It is against public order that the representations that result from the various parties, when exercising the government in the different jurisdictions and hierarchies, fail to fulfill their duty of co-responsibility, that is, they do not cooperate with each other; on the contrary, they differ with the others from other parties. and tend to face with greater rigor than they did before in the electoral campaigns, they do not forget that they were and continue to be adversaries of ideas and, generally, use their authority to fracture and hinder their respective activities.
Max. Weber, in his book “Economy and Society” says: “Political parties are only a means to make effective the democratic principle, they are not the only way to do so, nor can they substitute the direct intervention of citizens in the exercise of their rights. politicians”.
Fernando Savater, in his book “Politics for Amador” says: “Human societies anywhere in the world have their own reasons to maintain obedience or to disagree with a given regime. It supposes a collective feeling that advocates to overcome the crisis that presents itself. And, in order to prevent the formation around the state, a crust of immovable specialists in command, under which all others have to be resigned specialists in obeying, can be relativized (subordinate) the role of the parties, removing them privileges and importance. ”
Vázquez de Mella notes that: “When a party manages to take its members to power, it is transformed in the long run, into a single dominant party, that situation must be controlled.”
Francisco Porrúa Pérez, in his book “Theory of the State” says: “It is logical that when, under the pretext of forming a political party, an association that is contrary to democratic principles is constituted, which is contrary to the general welfare, To be prohibited, criminal association must be prohibited, contrary to morality, to natural law, or to public order. How would the state tolerate and protect a freedom that in practice tended to destroy the very values that are in its custody?
From the results of the most recent elections (2018) we obtain that the winning party or coalition obtained a total number of votes in the amount of 30,113 483 (Thirty Million One Hundred Thirteen Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Three), which does not comply with the requirement of the principle of the mathematical formula of democracy that requires half plus one of the overall votes of all registered voters, that is, of the total number of registered voters that were 89,332 301, the total amount of 44,666 150 was minimally required, what throws us a shortage of 14,552 668 votes to have been a truly democratic election.