Keiko Fujimori takes a position, by Jaime de Althaus | Trade politics



Keiko Fujimori He could have said the same in a way that would keep him from losing ground. He could have said: we are now going to the referendum for judicial reform, but political reforms require more debate, there are uncomfortable points and there is no point in making it urgent when the pressing problems are others. That is all pure common sense. However, it preferred the attack and the populist of political reform and implicitly to its own president. And it is true, the president makes populism at the expense of the rejected congress, for its "legitimacy". to strengthen (Prime Minister Dixit). However, it is a good populism if it leads to improvement of the congress with reforms. But it is bad if it leads to degradation, if it is institutionally destructive. And so it will be if the topic of the non-re-election of the congressmen is not properly discussed.

It is true that the main task of the President is reconstruction, combating anemia, crime, etc. If she were to put those priorities aside in order to distract herself from the discussion about political reforms, Keiko Fujimori would be right. But on the other hand, political reform was the task of Congress, and it had made little progress. Fuerza Popular has never suggested anything about it. And it is an inevitable topic. Nothing prevents the executive from continuing to resolve urgent problems and progress of Congress in discussing judicial and political reforms. Each on its own.

It is also true that what is not considered urgent is not done. It gets lost in the middle of what is really urgent. It is therefore logical that the political reform is urgently needed if it is possible to guarantee a minimum of quality in the proposed solutions.

The two-room project is well thought out. But the non-re-election of congressmen – the most requested – would be negative. Is there a way to save it so that it does not lead to the inability to ever consolidate an experienced political class? Perhaps – positively – if we find mechanisms to strengthen the parties, so that those who stop with congressmen can be included by the party in programmatic tasks, parliamentary advice or training. The idea of ​​"parties X taxes" proposed by Carlos Meléndez to think tanks & # 39; to finance in the competitions would serve that purpose. There may also be competitive funds for public policy research by the parties, attracting academics and specialists. Or tax deduction for companies that lend their supervisors five years to go to the congress …

After the KF message, we can foresee that Congress will not approve the projects for political reform, and there will be no referendum on it, but only on the reform of the judiciary. But she also said that FP "will not pose any obstacles or delay a discussion".

There would therefore be good, in-depth meetings between the PCM technicians who prepared the proposals and the Constitution Commission, to see if a consensus was reached and to go to a referendum in December, or if more time is needed. A little kindness, from both sides.


Source link

Keiko Fujimori takes a position, by Jaime de Althaus | Trade politics



Keiko Fujimori He could have said the same in a way that would keep him from losing ground. He could have said: we are now going to the referendum for judicial reform, but political reforms require more debate, there are uncomfortable points and there is no point in making it urgent when the pressing problems are others. That is all pure common sense. However, it preferred the attack and the populist of political reform and implicitly to its own president. And it is true, the president makes populism at the expense of the rejected congress, for its "legitimacy". to strengthen (Prime Minister Dixit). However, it is a good populism if it leads to improvement of the congress with reforms. But it is bad if it leads to degradation, if it is institutionally destructive. And so it will be if the topic of the non-re-election of the congressmen is not properly discussed.

It is true that the main task of the President is reconstruction, combating anemia, crime, etc. If she were to put those priorities aside in order to distract herself from the discussion about political reforms, Keiko Fujimori would be right. But on the other hand, political reform was the task of Congress, and it had made little progress. Fuerza Popular has never suggested anything about it. And it is an inevitable topic. Nothing prevents the executive from continuing to resolve urgent problems and progress of Congress in discussing judicial and political reforms. Each on its own.

It is also true that what is not considered urgent is not done. It gets lost in the middle of what is really urgent. It is therefore logical that the political reform is urgently needed if it is possible to guarantee a minimum of quality in the proposed solutions.

The two-room project is well thought out. But the non-re-election of congressmen – the most requested – would be negative. Is there a way to save it so that it does not lead to the inability to ever consolidate an experienced political class? Perhaps – positively – if we find mechanisms to strengthen the parties, so that those who stop with congressmen can be included by the party in programmatic tasks, parliamentary advice or training. The idea of ​​"parties X taxes" proposed by Carlos Meléndez to think tanks & # 39; to finance in the competitions would serve that purpose. There may also be competitive funds for public policy research by the parties, attracting academics and specialists. Or tax deduction for companies that lend their supervisors five years to go to the congress …

After the KF message, we can foresee that Congress will not approve the projects for political reform, and there will be no referendum on it, but only on the reform of the judiciary. But she also said that FP "will not pose any obstacles or delay a discussion".

There would therefore be good, in-depth meetings between the PCM technicians who prepared the proposals and the Constitution Commission, to see if a consensus was reached and to go to a referendum in December, or if more time is needed. A little kindness, from both sides.


Source link

Leave a Reply