is quite common in developed countries, to conduct political debates among the possible candidates important positions such as president or head of government as prime minister. These debates, in turn, are highly publicized and exhibited in the mass media. Was well for the debates between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, for example, to help define the Democratic candidate for that country. So was the Obama-McCain debate, once it had defined the final candidates. In fact, Obama and McCain participated in three presidential debates throughout the race, where they were interrogated in all relevant national and international issues. The three debates were televised and were seen by most of the country. Moreover, the debate between Obama and H. Clinton was also televised and broadcast nationally.
How is it then that the debate between Jose Antonio Gomez and Eduardo Frei, the two candidates for the coalition, has been restricted to be located in Talca, without national broadcast without media coverage, with no advertising and only accessible by radio? According to the newspaper La Tercera, Frei command explicitly asked not televised debate and the candidates did not "allude directly" in a pathetic attempt to show "unity concertacional." Is it, perhaps, who fear an informed citizenry? What is so terrible to see two politicians on the same side discussing important issues and trying to show that one is better able to govern than the other?
I can understand that the Coalition wants to come together and the arrows point to the Alliance, in search of a common enemy, but, frankly, an outrage that not carrying out basic democratic bodies to inform the public of the political intentions of the candidates and not seek a complete transparency of ideas and proposals. This, says the experience has been the trend of recent years in Chilean politics, closing the door to dialogue, encouraging non-citizens who read, think, to be informed of what is actually happening. And many books have been written about the why of this and will inquire about it, because it is quite clear. Suffice it to say that ignorance of the public is the joy of government.
I heard the debate. I found the "work" to put the radio, searching for the frequency of Radio Cooperativa and heard throughout the debate. I found it interesting what was said, despite the lack of confrontation between the two participants, who nevertheless was not what I was looking for. It was refreshing to hear on Gomez, a political "state of heart" in his own words, putting on the table concrete proposals on issues quotas, such as subsidies for temporary workers in regions mostly farmers, replacing wood stoves in the south with thermal heating solar, make more spending on educational quality and lower taxes individuals and raise taxes on companies to carry out the necessary expenditure. At last there, in my view, a sample of ideas tangible and distinct solutions to national problems. Frei, on the other hand, showed a new facet of political opening, spoke passionately about the "Chile's bicentennial," and that "it would be stupid to do the same for 93." He gave many concrete solutions, but was expected to be a political "old." However, it proved to be a strong candidate, ready for a dialogue (behind closed doors, perhaps, but dialogue anyway) and discuss taboo, such as therapeutic abortion and the morning-after pill. Something I really liked that he said was "in Chile think that 'issues values' are only those that have to do with sex and reproduction."
After hearing all these ideas and discussions, I was satisfied (on average) than was achieved. Was an important step toward greater democratic openness. However, the next day, surprise! No newspaper, even one, spoke of the debate the day before at his home. The Third I mentioned, briefly, saying it was "cold" and "avoided confrontations" (there was also a pillar of Patricio Navia, to my taste, just Hayo "fome" the debate and gave me the impression he wanted to see more controversy. In other words, I was looking for the usual political show and found none, so use your space in the third to complain). The other day, with Alexis Sanchez on the cover and its allusions to "super champion." WHAT! How is it possible? For me, someone he did not feel that politics is an intrinsic part and priority in my life, it was obvious that he should speak and publicize what happened in the debate. But nothing. "He spent a lanyard." I proved once again that people who have the power to inform our country's interest that the public really knows what happens in the country. Again, an ignorant is the best resource for the status quo .
As an afterthought, I think it's important that what happened happened. It shows an ugly reality, but subtle. Our country has no democratic consciousness ensures that both have. Our country has no means of communication open and pluralistic that both would like to display. Our country does not seek to have grounds to say and try to progress as a democracy, despite the swelling of the chest that has to be a "democratic" country. Our country DOES NOT HAVE THE TOOLS OR DEMOCRATIC DEMOCRATIC CONSCIOUSNESS BASIC, or citizenship, or in the media or politicians. How when?
With luck, until December ...
