One week after presidential elections are all about analysis results obtained: the conditions that made it possible for Ollanta Humala and Keiko Fujimori arrived in the second round, imaginary scenarios of what would have been the resignation of one or another Democratic candidate seen, or an "ideal" coalition of a couple of them, given program near their plans of government and politics.
Most analysts have seen a 2x2 explanation, ie, have identified two main stakeholder groups: candidates and voters, and two themes that have marked the field of debate in the campaign: the model and economic democracy.
Trying
summarize the interpretations made so far could say that "most of the electorate has given its vote for two candidates who represent some change in front of their poverty, even though their careers and interests are not necessarily related to democratic values , turning away three candidates offered more moderate alternatives in economic and respect for democratic institutions. " So what explains the orientation of the vote of the people is poverty and the desire for change, while this explains the defeat of the democratic candidates are qualified as the inability to tie his speeches with these requirements and additionally to that, the dispersion of the vote that three nominations were programmatic similarities.
In general, this reading of the election result implied criticisms, some more explicit than others, the management of the current government for social and economic policies. Thus, there was a unanimous consensus on what were the main flaws of the economic model and social policy: the redistribution of wealth reduced product of inefficient social programs. Even one of the candidate most committed to the current model of state management, former President Alejandro Toledo, held a press conference accepting defeat and questioning the country's economic course over the last twenty years.
However the opinions expressed on the need to change the economic model to promote the development of the poorest, most journalists, analysts and politicians (Congress and presidential candidates included) further entrenched defense of Similarly, in a collective amnesia made a record worthy of Guinness or a chapter of Dr. House. In a minute the (auto) were again moderate critics rabid fans of the model and the balance made between 4 pm (ET electoral flash) and 9 pm (time of listing the first report of the ONPE) were pushed into oblivion, lost amid the paranoia of the results.
What happened in those 4 or 5 hours of thoughtful opinions and exchange tacit commitments? How come any time now missed the consensus on the changes required that the next government in economic matters should run?
The answer can be found in the results of surveys and ONPE. At 4 pm we had a scenario in which Ollanta Humala and Keiko Fujimori went to the second round, the first with a difference of reach, the second with a not very comfortable margin against the third party (Pedro Pablo Kuczynski), but with many opportunities to keep the difference. Until then, the fears about a second round candidates "undemocratic" were confirmed, but still hoped a rebound Kuczynski.
explanations to such unwanted scenario did not wait, opting to strengthen the idea of \u200b\u200bvoting for the poor as a vote for radical changes, which had already been put forward during the campaign ever in the shadow of the discourse on growth economic. The nervous search for an answer to explain the virtual triumph of Humala and Fujimori had to do with the confidence shown by many media on the rise of Kuczynski in the polls before the election. In the previous scenario, the defense of the economic model and democratic forms seemed to lose ground to radical alternatives for change. Then, with the exit poll results in hand, puzzled analysts embraced the idea of \u200b\u200bthe veiled criticism to the model and the need for "responsible change", such as those promised by President Garcia in his hours of candidate. Of course, the intentions of change went hand in hand with the desire to see Kuczynski in the second round, perhaps in anticipation of a campaign strategy closer to the demands of the underprivileged.
Over the hours, ads of the polling approach 100% of the results led to the spirits falter and criticism disappeared. For the time of the report ONPE results, consensus on the need for change gave way to consensus on Kuczynski's defeat and the return to the stubborn defense of the model. The passage from one side to another was so pronounced that the announcement declaring Kuczynski ONPE second was not taken seriously by anyone except by enthusiastic supporters gathered in their local candidate's campaign. ONPE The report was based on 18% of the votes counted, most of them from the capital.
Within minutes, nobody spoke of the needs and demands of the poor within hours, along with the results of ONPE announcing the comeback of Fujimori on Kuczynski and its subsequent move to the second round, went back also the discussion on democracy and spent to defend the exclusive discussion of the economic model.
Fallen Kuczynski, the candidate of democracy and economic stability as the media, Keiko Fujimori became the hope of continuity of one of these two values \u200b\u200bthat defends press, in extreme situations like this, as the main objective of the work of the state: growth / stability of the economy.
At this point, it was obvious that the reflection and (auto) review were not sincere. The explanations used to justify an outcome, and to imagine a runoff with a reform candidate who could make timid, while maintaining democratic institutions as additional supply. Defeated candidate media, there was no reason to continue talking about democracy, after all in that regard Humala was considered a coin and a fruit of the authoritarian Fujimori exercised by his father.
On Monday morning most of the media and spoke only of the need to sustain economic growth with dubious democratic alternative, ie, the proposed Keiko Fujimori. In social networks, Facebook and Twitter, view niche dominated by followers of Kuczynski, the image of Keiko began to sweetened with comments that give you the benefit of the doubt regarding his relationship with his father and the corruption of its government, always accompanied by links to media make the same reflective exercise by referring to the mistakes of the Fujimori decade, always minimized compared to the economic achievements of the era. This has been the keynote of the treatment of Fujimori's candidacy in recent days.
Amidst this scenario weird, the question arises: If it is assumed that the problem that caused the electoral scene as undesirable by many is the limited scope of benefits of the economic model, how it is possible that the final reflection of journalists, analysts and the electorate after the first round, is the uncompromising defense of the same model?
Everything seems to point to a vocation disingenuous of the media, which have a kind of traditional conservative trends of migration to occur when unwanted situations like this, trends explain the plausible assumption that they are defending corporate interests related its commercial interests. But like the explanations put forward by the press on the outcome of the election, this statement could be put aside and we could talk about the impartial work of the press if the scenario that is expected to change, ie dealing with the press more impartial news, or at least exert equal criticism of both sides, as any other medium that has begun to make subtle. In both cases, the reasoning is misleading. Returning to the analysis of election results.
We said that the general position of the media on the elections was that this was understood from the perspective of voters and candidates as well as from the themes of democracy and economic model. Thus, a majority of voters in poverty demanded economic change proposals the candidates, without much emphasis on democratic values, and as none of the candidates proposed to continue with the model and emphasize the aspect of strengthening their democratic tied speeches with such majority, the result was his defeat.
The problem with this reasoning has to do with what is meant by poverty and social exclusion, as well as the demands on the role of the state and democracy. Similarly, this argument lacks the inclusion of an additional actor, the press itself. Understanding these aspects of the debate perhaps we can understand the speed of changes in posture, the same positions and alignments of the media in the second round.
According to many analysts and journalists understand poverty from low income, then comes the issue of insecurity and finally serviocios limited access to health and education. Usually in this logic is to nominate the problems in stages, establishing a hierarchy of needs and argument. In other words, analysts define what poverty is low income, so that the discussion should focus on that aspect, if the explanations within the limits of monetary poverty, it is time to discuss safety issues and, finally, the problem of health services and education. Overall, the conceptualization of poverty is limited almost exclusively to the level of income and therefore do not have a vision of the problem.
But the most glaring error in this conceptualization of poverty is not taking into account the social exclusion as a structural element. For many, the exclusion is a feeling, a perception of the population based on their poverty. However, exclusion is a much broader concept, showing not only benefits the poor fail to get the market, but also the degree of integration with the rest of society. And phrasing may sound ethereal, but this has to do with access to quality public services and respect their rights as citizens, without discrimination of any kind.
This absence in the reasoning of analysts and journalists were prevented from observing that this huge part of the population does not want a democratic system that works for some and not others, and does not want an economic model which are the effects but do not feel it. Also how are expected to achieve identification with a form of politics and managing the state that historically has marginalized "kindly" promising development distant someday maybe your grandchildren to see.
From this perspective, the majority vote is partly explained by their poverty, but also and perhaps primarily, by the conviction that the system works for them and does not represent them. The analysts did not see last Sunday was the manifestation of a fragmentation of the country that goes beyond the classic theme of regional identities. The real problem is that over the past 5 years have exacerbated social gaps with the policy of "Perro del Hortelano", in which the main slogan is that the market is the hub of the nation integrator. And, of course, with a significant proportion of the population living near the margin of these benefits, how to wait to feel integrated into a trading nation project in which the exercise of Peruvians is almost equated with the act of shopping in a supermarket or go to a cevicherÃa all times hold your pocket.
Analysts saw this dimension of the problem because they were not prepared to see it. Most of them have been bought and has endorsed the official discourse on economic growth, where rights basic citizens are not written on paper of the Constitution, but in paper money. Therefore, those who have more bills, more rights accrue. But just as outrageous is the use of debate about democracy to disguise or soften the inequities of a system that benefits a minority.
theatrical find in the media statements on the respect for equal rights, freedom, abuse of the state and the need for institutions to maintain the balance of power in the state. The amazing thing about this crusade for democracy is a fallacy on which analysts and journalists themselves fall. In five years of government have become APRA numerous allegations of corruption in all branches of government and influence one another, ie, lacking the independence of each one when the opportunity presented itself. Funny, then, that now defend a weak institutional framework, which directly benefit weaknesses powers that the state press. At this point, namely that such powers ranging from powerful groups (associations and business associations) to medium power groups (some unions or associations of workers).
is clear that the journalists forgot included among the variables in the analysis of results. They forgot that played an important part in information biased information that ended up believing themselves, why they broke the electoral outcome in the face. But, essentially, be fooled into thinking that impartiality was possible from a limited point of view, a common mistake among those who do not realize that the ideology is not a political speech but a way of making sense of actions. Neoliberalism, the politics of money, captured and they have not noticed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment