opinion

It's not the same and it's not written the same. Legality is a formal criterion. Something is "legal" when it belongs to that which the law sanctions. It's the rule-making consecration of a certain social phenomenon. On the other hand, legitimacy answers to "a substantive criterion. It means the acceptance, by consensus or political consent, on the part of the people with respect to a certain social phenomenon. Something is legitimate when it enjoys general approval and represents the majority. Approval can exist in diverse grades and is gained by different methods. A rule-making system is seen as legitimate insofar as it responds to social needs and interests, channeled through a model of public participation in decision making." (Fridolin Birk).

In other words, governments are not given to acting only with legality without legitimacy. The truth is that government and society are like deafs among themselves, the former exclusionary or repressive, the latter protesting as a knee-jerk reaction, which is an invitation to permanent crisis. To govern is to exercise a positive action upon the course of public affairs with a view toward the common good, and thus it's the government's duty to consult with ordinary citizens periodically, creating the means by which "the consultation" is the result of a process of communication between the government and the citizenry. It's a citizen's duty to organize and participate with proposals, and (if necessary) to protest, contribute and criticize the public authorities.

Now the government isn't some species of supreme being, ubiquitous and all-powerful, but has been desanctified and exposed to all eyes and hatreds. What's fundamental is communication. According to Emilio Durkheim, "when the communication between the governmental consciousness and the rest of society is kept closer, this consciousness extends farther and encompasses more things and improves the democratic character of the society. The notion of democracy is found --- thus defined --- by a maximum extension of this consciousness, and in this way, decisions are made by this communication. ... Democracy is a political form of a society that governs itself. A people is that much more democratic to the extent that deliberation, reflection and the critical spirit play more considerable roles in the course of public affairs. It's so much less democratic to the extent that obliviousness, unknown habits, dark passions, the prejudices in one word stricken from the exam, are the most preponderant.

Is the government being sufficiently democratic according to the aforementioned perspective? The first test was the tax reforms and complaints abound about the celerity and partiality of the consultations. One person, asked if he wasn't interested in the government meeting with all the social players, said: "I need so many resources to be able to develop with equity. You, who say you're committed to the country, tell me where these resources would come from." Or, for example, to tell the Free Zone that instead of paying taxes to the central government they will commit to substantial and direct support to Colon by way of widening the highway and by supporting health and rural and urban jobs programs, things that would benefit the business owners directly and indirectly (by better communications and a population with a better standard of living, and thus, a better environment for security and productivity).

There's a ladder of participation that goes from pure information, passes through consultation and arrives and participation in the taking of decisions. The issue is whether traditionally excluded groups can have access to the state, participating in the decisions that affect their lives and normally would be taken by their elected representatives acting as their delegates. It's about citizens having more presence and democratic control over the government.

Now come the Social Security Fund (CSS) reforms and as we all know, it's a subject that touches a raw nerve in the country. It's especially so among workers and their dependents, given that social security is an axis about which life, sickness, old age and health revolve for most of the population.

Will they impose anti-national or anti-people measures? Will decisions be controlled by way of unending or rigged consultations? Will they be legal and at the same time legitimate reforms? The answers to these questions will tell us which political model really prevails in our country.






Also in this section:
Council on Hemispheric Affairs, The Elliott Abrams appointment
Noriega, The Four Pillars of US policy in the Americas
Leis, Legality and legitimacy
Silié, Caribbean integration and peace
Weisbrot, Cloudy US economic outlook for 2005
Klieman, The sad decline of Daniel Ortega
Greenpeace, Sellout on shipbreaking regulations
Alliance for Conservation and Development, Suspend controversial dam project
Jackson, Rubén Blades wins another Grammy
Bernal, Participatory democracy and the referendum

Back to top

Financial services at Finansbanken --- http://www.finansbanken.dk/english/index.html
Build a home in Las Cumbres with Villa Concordia --- http://villaconcordia-pma.com/
Make the Executive Hotel your headquarters in Panama City --- http://www.executivehotel-panama.com