Suchergebnisse

1- Introducción En un breve artículo ciertamente premonitorio, William Schneider (1994) identificaba las características de la nueva cultura política que, condicionada y a su vez potenciada por las nuevas tecnologías de la información, estaba cambiando la relación histórica entre partidos, líderes y electores. Schneider avanzaba tres características principales de este nuevo acontecer político (Schneider, 1994: 779), a saber: el pragmatismo entendido como la dilución de las ideologías; el personalismo con la emergencia de la figura del candidato por sobre la del partido; y por último el populismo como un movimiento claramente anti-elitista y anti-establishment. En el mundo post guerra fría, la demanda acentuada de participación popular y de control del demos sobre los procesos de decisión y las herméticas elites gubernamentales, obligaría al sistema político a rever las estrategias de comunicación, facilitar la inclusión de las masas y mejorar los procesos de rendición de cuentas. Esto conduciría a une mejora del sistema político y del funcionamiento democrático de las instituciones2. Sin embargo, escasos son los cambios que las principales democracias del mundo han introducido en sus instituciones para mejorar el proceso de inclusión democrática, como así lo atestan el mantenimiento de sistemas electorales a menudo arcaicos y la renuencia de las élites políticas a la utilización de mecanismos de democracia directa. Donde sí ha existido una modificación orientada a complacer a la ciudadanía es, como bien menciona Schneider, en el discurso y en la estrategia política. Cortejar a las masas e incluirlas en un proyecto común (del cual excluiremos a las élites) ha progresivamente reemplazado el debate ideológico. El discurso político se transforma entonces en una técnica de movilización del pueblo en contra de una comunidad política desarticulada y debilitada cuyas instituciones flaquean en sus componentes organizativo y representativo (Badie, 1997: 227). Es en este ámbito de quebranto de los valores de la democracia representativa donde la crisis de la representación y "la faillite du politique" cobran amplio sentido y donde el populismo se inscribe entonces como un proceso subversivo de los canales tradicionales de movilización política, creando nuevas lealtades (apolíticas o anti políticas) culturales, nacionales, comunitarias, étnicas, etc., en reemplazo de las anticuadas construcciones sociales (élites, establishment, clase política, etc.). Pero si el populismo se define antes que nada en oposición al sistema político, no es en sí ni una teoría política ni un programa económico alternativo (Touraine, 1997: 242), y es por eso que podemos argumentar que el populismo se inscribe más en la práctica discursiva que en el dominio de lo normativo. Pero, a fin de cuentas, ¿qué es el populismo? Todo y nada se ha escrito sobre este fenómeno que apasiona y confunde tanto por su complejidad (e inconsistencia) teórica, su variabilidad histórica y la ambigüedad moral que este fenómeno histórico, político e ideológico ha generado entre críticos y defensores. El estudio del populismo ha sido objeto de enfoques disciplinarios que, en lugar de integrar el fenómeno en un contexto general, han contribuido a su compartimentación (Holmes, 1990: 27). Así, los historiadores se han focalizado en los aspectos descriptivos del fenómeno, los politólogos han intentado construir definiciones operativas del concepto, los sociólogos se han centrado en aplicar las teorías de la movilización para explicar la construcción de los movimientos populistas, y los enfoques marxistas, por ejemplo, han aportado clarificaciones sobre la relación entre el populismo y el desarrollo del sistema capitalista moderno. Ernesto Laclau, uno de los más fecundos pensadores sobre la cuestión, ha propuesto que el sustento del populismo reside en la oposición semiótica entre una entidad denominada Pueblo y otra denominada Poder (Laclau, 1977: 167) y que es la propia vaguedad de estas construcciones discursivas la que avala la permanencia y resistencia de este fenómeno. El populismo se articularía y construiría a partir de dos premisas centrales. La primera es una dependencia epistemológica de lo negativo, del enemigo; el populismo, como movimiento con un débil componente ideológico y normativo, se construye preferentemente sobre la crítica más que sobre la propuesta. Es en la identificación del enemigo donde el populismo gana la mitad de la batalla. La segundad premisa, igualmente negativa, es la construcción de un sentido y vínculo comunitario a través del "sacrificio colectivo". Es necesario para esto una articulación narrativa que oponga al Pueblo (o sociedad virtuosa) a una élite egotista destinada al sacrificio (Schulte-Sasse, 1993: 96). El populismo, por lo tanto, no sólo debe definir (y construir) un enemigo, sino que la eliminación de ese enemigo pasa a ser el factor aglutinante del discurso y el accionar político. Si el enfoque de Laclau permite efectivamente un amplio espectro de análisis, es la imprecisión conceptual del "fenómeno populista" lo que ha llevado a la manipulación y abuso teóricos de un concepto por demás interesante. En efecto, la política del antagonismo no es privilegio exclusivo de los movimientos populistas, sino que es producto de la banalización y pauperización del discurso político, contribuyendo así a la creación de sociedades binarias donde los matices y la búsqueda de compromisos inclusivos ceden terreno frente a posiciones radicales. Aquellos que anunciaban el amanecer de una "política de consenso" más allá de las tradicionales demarcaciones izquierda/derecha, constatan en la actualidad la emergencia de nuevas fronteras políticas que fragilizan el consenso y de partidos políticos que aprovechan la debilidad del debate democrático para anunciarse como representantes directos investidos de la voz del pueblo (Mouffe, 2005: 51). En este sentido, la práctica discursiva que construye categorías excluyentes como pueblo/poder, amigo/enemigo, sociedad civil/élites, nacional/foráneo etc., no define únicamente al populismo, sino que ha pasado a ser una estrategia recurrente de movilización política en las democracias modernas. Por lo tanto, la fuerza explicativa de este proceso semiótico en referencia al populismo se diluye, ya sea porque se ha "populizado" la política o porque se ha politizado el populismo. 2- El populismo europeo El populismo europeo, vigente desde mediados/fines del siglo XIX, está fuertemente ligado al sentimiento nacionalista y, en algunos casos, a la consolidación del Estado. Desde fines del siglo XVIII, las nociones de nación y pueblo han articulado las construcciones de las diferentes instituciones y regímenes políticos, pero independientemente de cuáles hayan sido los caminos recorridos, todos se han visto inculcar por el Estado un cuerpo de valores destinado a exaltar las particularidades propias de cada pueblo, cimentadas en un sentimiento de solidaridad excluyente (Hermet, 1997: 34). Esta construcción de una solidaridad e identidad nacional siguió dos caminos diferentes. En los países liberales como Gran Bretaña y Francia, donde existía ya una ciudadanía en vías de expansión, la adhesión al proyecto nacionalista se logró bajo el entendido que si las masas hasta ahora sometidas devenían progresivamente actores políticos, el sistema sólo podría sostenerse a través de la solidaridad y pertenencia a una identidad común, a la vez nacionalista y cívica. Es en el ejercicio creciente de sus responsabilidades y derechos cívicos y políticos donde el pueblo (la ciudadanía en este caso) edifica un proyecto único del cual todos son parte. Por el contrario, en estados más autoritarios que liberales y de creación reciente y cuyo proceso de unificación aún no estaba terminado, como en Alemania o Italia, la nacionalización acelerada de esas identidades fragmentadas, tanto a nivel político como religioso, se construyó antes que nada sobre la solidaridad cultural de la población, a fin de paliar el lento (o inexistente) proceso de construcción cívica (Hermet, 1997: 35). El primer tipo de construcción nacional es lo que ha pasado a denominarse nacionalismo cívico liberal, más acotado a los Estados de Europa occidental. El segundo caso es el de un nacional-populismo o un nacionalismo orgánico y autoritario, más propio de Europa central y oriental Estas construcciones arquetípicas reflejan las dos grandes concepciones sobre la nación y la ciudadanía. La idea de nacionalismo occidental u oriental es intercambiable con la noción de nacionalismo político (el caso francés) o cultural (caso alemán). Si bien es sabido que todos los nacionalismos poseen a su vez características políticas o culturales, la distinción entre estas dos vertientes dependerá de la importancia relativa y de la prioridad histórica de los principios de la organización política o de las preocupaciones culturales (lengua, literatura, historia, folklore, etc.). En el caso de la nación política (Francia): el pueblo = Estado = nación. Toda la población residente sobre el territorio controlado por el Estado constituye la nación. Es el Estado quien crea, quien define la nación (creación desde arriba). En este caso, la unidad política precede a la unidad cultural. En este modelo, la ciudadanía puede ser adquirida por todos aquellos nacidos en el territorio (ius solis), y que adhieran a esta concepción (en el caso francés, a los valores republicanos). Típicamente esta forma de nacionalismo no reconoce la diferencia cultural (ej. velo musulmán). En el caso del nacionalismo cultural (Alemania), la unión se logra a través de una identidad común, lingüística, étnica o cultural. La Nación crea el Estado; la unidad cultural precede a la unidad política. En estos casos, la ciudadanía no puede ser adquirida, sino que es innata, reservada a un grupo primigenio definido en términos étnico-culturales (ius sanguinis). Este nacionalismo no reconoce la asimilación cultural (ej: los judíos o los turcos) (Greenfield, 1999: 48-49). El nacionalismo cívico liberal fue en gran medida impulsado por la clase dominante del momento-la burguesía económica-, y reposa sobre principios abstractos de igualdad y libertad propios de individuos desarraigados de los lazos comunitarios y necesarios para la creación de regímenes burgueses liberales (Khon, 1967). La burguesía, que no se reconocía en le "petit peuple", se oponía a la creación de una identidad nacional basada en características culturales populares. El nacional-populismo, por el contrario, más pasional que intelectual, se desarrolló ahí donde los constructores del Estado nación no tenían otro recurso que exaltar los particularismos culturales (o étnicos) de la comunidad en su proceso de construcción política. En los países de Europa Oriental, donde las élites burguesas carecían del empuje necesario (en parte por una débil industrialización y la permanencia de fuertes estructuras rurales, con históricos lazos de solidaridad entre sí y de subordinación a la autoridad), los valores liberales no lograron influenciar la construcción del Estado. El nacional populismo puede ser visto, igualmente, como un fenómeno de resistencia y de rechazo hacia una opresión exterior, como fue el caso de los Balcanes bajo la dominación Austro-Húngara, de Irlanda hacia Inglaterra o del país vasco contra España. Esta forma de solidaridad se cristalizó en gran medida en las minorías oprimidas en el seno de imperios multiétnicos que, ansiosos por imponer una uniformidad liberal o autoritaria, provocaron como reacción la consolidación de identidades nacionales deseosas de garantizar su libertad, autonomía e integridad a través de la edificación de un Estado propio. El nacional populismo, exacerbando en algunos casos el carácter casi mesiánico de pertenencia a una cultura única, producirá emancipaciones ideológicas peligrosas como el fascismo. El populismo europeo ha conocido diferentes corrientes políticas a lo largo del siglo XX que desgraciadamente no podemos tratar aquí. Conviene sin embargo mencionar que en su acepción más reciente, el populismo europeo se ha visto revigorizado por una unión discursiva con la extrema derecha (o lo que se ha denominado como la "nouvelle droite"), que maneja a placer los discursos identitarios, nacionalistas y anti-elites en un peligroso cocktail ideológico a fuerte potencial de movilización. Mazzolenni ha identificado 5 características centrales de este "neo-populismo" europeo (2003: 117). En primer lugar el populismo conduce a una valorización del pueblo, del "hombre de la calle". El llamado al pueblo implica la participación política directa y la desconfianza de la democracia representativa. El "culto al pueblo" se acompaña con la crítica a las élites. En cuarto lugar, un equilibrio precario se instala entre crítica y aceptación del sistema. Como las instituciones son necesarias para aportar la legitimidad política, la crítica no puede abiertamente intentar destruir el sistema político; en algunos países pueden entonces instalarse "simulacros de democracia". Por último, el populismo es acompañado casi siempre de la exaltación del líder carismático en el cual se concentran el proyecto y las aspiraciones del pueblo. Convengamos, sin embargo, que no todos los movimientos populistas europeos son de derecha, reflejando así la "flexibilidad" ideológica (u oportunismo político) de estos partidos así como la heterogeneidad de la base de apoyo a los movimientos populistas. Estos y otros puntos han conducido a ciertos autores a ver en el resurgimiento del populismo de derecha una amenaza al orden democrático (Mouffe, 2005), pero otros, más mesurados, ven en el éxito de estos partidos de "nueva derecha" un realineamiento de los clivajes tradicionales y de las lealtades partidarias (Sciarini et al. 2002, Hug y Treschel, 2002, Lachat y Kriesi, 2008, Oesch, 2008). En este sentido, los partidos populistas se beneficiarían de un posicionamiento ideológico en terreno fértil y de una hábil estrategia política frente al inmovilismo de los partidos más tradicionales, socialistas y de centro derecha, limitados en su accionar por lealtades de clase y concepciones morales anquilosadas. 3- El populismo Latinoamericano El caso latinoamericano no escapa, como sus colegas europeo o norteamericano, a las dificultades de conceptualización producto de diferentes enfoques disciplinarios. Weyland (2001) ha realizado un importante trabajo estudiando los diferentes conceptos que han sido utilizados para abarcar el populismo latinoamericano y demostrar que la confusión conceptual proviene del hecho que los académicos enfatizan diferentes atributos como características decisivas del concepto, sin ponerse de acuerdo si estamos hablando del ámbito político, económico, social, discursivo u otro (Weyland, 2001:2). Tres grandes enfoques han predominado en el estudio del populismo. Entre 1960-80, la utilización de conceptos cumulativos predominó en el estudio del fenómeno3, influenciada por las teorías desarrollistas (modernización y dependencia) que argumentaban la fuerte subordinación de la esfera política a los factores socio económicos. Estos autores resaltaban en el populismo un conjunto central de características políticas y socioeconómicas. Los regímenes populistas serían en parte una respuesta a los fenómenos de urbanización, de industrialización y de participación masiva que fragilizaron las instituciones existentes y permitieron la emergencia de regímenes inestables centrados a menudo en una lógica de acción política personalista y carismática, plebiscitaria y redistributiva, destinada a agrupar y movilizar las masas desorganizadas y amorfas (Germani, 1974). Ciertos autores han querido ver en el populismo un proceso de desarrollo intermedio entre el pasaje de una sociedad tradicional o pre industrial hacia una sociedad moderna industrializada, orientada a la sustitución de importaciones y donde un régimen oligárquico cede terreno frente a la emergencia de la sociedad de masas (Cardoso y Faletto, 1979). Otros autores, como Roberts (1995: 89), han intentando descifrar el populismo utilizando conceptos radiales o de adición4. Así, los populismos latinoamericanos tendrían las siguientes características: Un liderazgo paternalista y personalista; una coalición política heterogénea y multi –clase; un proceso de movilización política top down que cortocircuita las instancias tradicionales de mediación; una ideología amorfa y ecléctica; y un proyecto económico que utiliza importantes políticas redistributivas y clientelares. La existencia de estos 5 aspectos caracterizaría al populismo pleno, mientras que la presencia de una o más características constituiría sub-tipos particulares de populismo. Por último, la tradición más reciente se ha centrado en el estudio del populismo latinoamericano como un concepto clásico en el ámbito político. El populismo no puede ser enfocado como un concepto económico, argumenta Weyland (2001:11) porque su utilización es confusa y problemática y la política económica es, en manos populistas, un instrumento, no un fin. La definición política ve al populismo como una manera particular de competir y ejercer el poder. El populismo se sitúa en la esfera de la dominación, no de la distribución. El populismo intenta antes que nada construir formas de control político, y la distribución de beneficios a través de políticas socio-económicas es una herramienta para facilitar ese control. El líder populista busca ganar y ejercer el poder, y su oportunismo tiene como corolario un débil compromiso en el campo ideológico y programático. Construido a partir de la dicotomía amigo/enemigo que permea toda acción política, el populismo debe ser definido como una estrategia política, entendida como la capacidad de los líderes de perpetuarse en la arena política. Bajo el populismo, el "gobierno" es ejercido por un líder carismático, no por un grupo u organización política (Weyland, 2001: 18). El populismo surge principalmente cuando ese líder logra arrear y agrupar el apoyo masivo de gran parte del pueblo en un movimiento espontaneo y atomizado donde la lealtad de cada individuo se inscribe en una lógica vertical de subordinación entre él y el líder, y no en una lógica horizontal de solidaridad mecánica de pertenencia a un proyecto común. En este sentido, los movimientos populistas y sus adherentes carecen de la cohesión ideológica necesaria para que el movimiento sobreviva a la partida/muerte del líder. 4- Democracia populista Vs. Populismos semi-democráticos A modo de breve conclusión, desearía discutir brevemente uno de los puntos subrayados en la introducción. Si una de las características principales de la nueva cultura política y democrática es el populismo, entendido como un discurso anti élite y anti establishment (y hasta anti intelectual), conviene interrogarse entonces en qué se parecen las democracias populistas modernas (como la Americana o la Francesa) y los regímenes populistas democráticos o semi-democráticos (Argentina, Venezuela, Ecuador, etc.). Por lo tanto, hay que distinguir entre lo que es una característica secundaria del sistema – el populismo como lenguaje político – de un principio ordenador y legitimador del poder -el populismo en los regímenes latinoamericanos-. La diferencia puede ser entendida con un claro ejemplo. Mientras que el lenguaje populista en las democracias modernas tiene como cometido "igualar" al líder político con el votante común, el populismo latinoamericano presupone todo lo contrario, la excepcionalidad del líder. El populismo americano o francés actual elimina todo privilegio, todo "passe-droit" que la figura del líder político piense poder tener por su pertenencia a un grupo privilegiado; por el contrario, presupone que el contrato de confianza ciudadano entre gobernados y gobernantes demanda una conducta intachable y responsable de estos últimos. En el caso de los populismos semi-democráticos, el líder es por naturaleza excepcional y, ya sea por la escasa instrucción cívica y ciudadana, por la corrupción del sistema político o por lo que es aún peor, la creencia dogmática en el carácter mesiánico del líder, éste se encuentra, de facto, por encima de la ciudadanía (y por ende de la ley). El culto al líder al que se libran los populismos latinoamericanos y la triste complacencia de las ciudadanías amorfas erosionan el accionar democrático, debilitan la separación de poderes y conducen a la utilización irresponsable y clientelista de los recursos nacionales. Si es innegable igualmente que el discurso populista en las democracias modernas puede ser antes que nada una estrategia política en época de crisis y vacas flacas, no obstante éste se construye sobre una premisa incuestionable: la igualdad ciudadana y la necesidad de contralor del poder político. Lo importante aquí no es la incorporación ética por parte de las élites de los principios de igualdad y responsabilidad, sino la sanción, electoral o legal, de todo comportamiento que infrinja ese contrato de confianza. Lejos de mí la idea de asimilar al elector francés o americano a un quijote cívico y moralizador, pero en su estrategia "maximizadora" de bienestar no se encuentra la tolerancia a la corrupción política, al abuso de poder o a la desigualdad manifiesta entre gobernantes y gobernados. Si bien admitimos que el populismo latinoamericano emerge en un contexto histórico de débil institucionalización en las décadas del 20-30 en adelante (en cierta medida heredero de las tradiciones caudillistas), y que el vínculo primordial entre líder y pueblo fue en parte necesario para asegurar derechos sociales y cívicos antes del otorgamiento de plenos derechos políticos, ¿qué argumentos justifican 60 años después de un Perón o un Vargas la ciega obsecuencia ante un "déspota iluminado"?.1- El presente artículo retoma partes de un trabajo más extenso dedicado al estudio del fenómeno populista en los Estados Unidos (en vías de publicación). Lo que se presenta a continuación sirve como introducción teórica en dicho artículo. La conclusión de este artículo sí representa una reflexión original.2- Autores como Schumpeter, sin embargo, han argumentado contra el concepto clásico de democracia popular extendida, avanzando que una parte importante de la ciudadanía carece de los conocimientos necesarios para realizar juicios instruidos y determinar el bien común y que por lo tanto estaría ésta a la merced de élites políticas "manipuladoras". En este sentido, el ciudadano debería limitarse a la elección de líderes y a su sanción periódica vía los procesos electorales. Ver J. SHUMPETER, 1994 (rev. ed), Capitalism. Socialism and Democracy, Routledge.3- Los conceptos cumulativos elaboran definiciones combinando los atributos de diferentes campos a través de la lógica de inclusión "Y". Sólo las características comunes de todos los dominios son adoptadas como determinantes del concepto. Los conceptos cumulativos aportan un alto estándar de inclusión con un pequeño número de casos y excluyen la posibilidad de casos "límite". Un problema recurrente de los conceptos cumulativos es su debilidad empírica si hay escasa superposición entre las diferentes áreas de estudio, generando así pocos casos reales que cumplan con el fuerte contenido teórico.4- Los conceptos radiales utilizan la preposición lógica "O", conectando los atributos propuestos por los autores en diferentes campos. Si un caso posee al menos una de estas características puede ser incorporado al estudio del concepto. Si los conceptos radiales poseen las ventajas de abarcar un amplio universo de casos, la pertinencia de cada caso dependerá del número de características totales que posea, falseando entonces la comparación entre los diferentes casos. Así, en el caso del populismo, tendríamos populismos "leves" que poseen unas pocas características conceptuales contra populismos fuertes que se asemejarían a los "tipos ideales". 5- BibliografíaAERSINGER, P., «Ideology and Behavior : Legislative Politics in Western Populism» in Agricultural History, Vol. 58 (jan. 1984), pp. 43-58.AGULHON, M., et al. «Le populisme ? Neuf réponses» in Vingtième Siècle. Revue d´histoire, Nº56, Numéro spécial : Les populismes (Oct.-Dec., 1997), pp. 224-242.BADIE, B., «Une Faillite du Politique» in «Le populisme ? Neuf réponses» in Vingtième Siècle. Revue d´histoire, Nº56, Numéro spécial : Les populismes (Oct.-Dec., 1997), pp. 226-228.CARDOZO, F.H. and FALETTO, E., 1979, Dependancy and development in Latin America, University of California Press, Berkeley.FERKISS, C., «Political and Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism, Right and Left» in Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, Vol. 344 (Nov., 1962), pp. 1-12.GERMANI, G., 1974, Política y Sociedad en una Epoca de Transición, Paidós, Buenos Aires.GOODWYN, L., 1976, Democratic Promise : The Populist Movement in America, Oxford University Press, New York.GREENFIELD, L., «Is Nation Unavoidable ? Is Nation Unavoidable Today ?» in KRIESI, H., et al. (eds), 1999, Nation and Nationality Identity. The European Experience in Perspective, Verlag Rüegger, Chur, pp. 37-54.HERMET, G., «Populisme et Nationalisme» in Vingtième Siècle. Revue d´histoire, Nº56, Numéro Spécial : Les populismes (Oct. –Dec., 1997), pp. 34-47.HOLMES, W., «Populism : In Search of Context» in Agricultural History, Vol. 64, Nº4 (Autumn, 1990), pp. 26-58.HUG, S., and TRECHSEL, A., « Clivages et identification partisane » in HUG, S., et SCIARINI, P. (eds.), 2002, Changements de valeurs et nouveaux clivages politiques en Suisse, L´Harmattan, Paris, pp. 207-235.KOHN, H., 1967 (rev. ed.), The Idea of Nationalism, Collier-Macmillan, New York.LACHAT, R. et KRIESI. H., «Supply Side: the Positioning of the Political Parties in a Restructuring Space», in Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R. et al., 2008, West European Politics in the Age of Globalization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.LACLAU, E., 1977, Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory, Verso, London.MATTHEWS, F., «"Hobbesian Populism" : Interpretative Paradigms and Moral Vision in american Historiography» in The Journal of Amercain History, Vol. 72, Nº1 (Jun., 1985), pp. 92-115.MAZZOLENI, O., 2003, Nationalisme et Populisme en Suisse : la radicalisation de la nouvelle UDC, Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Lausanne.MELANDRI, P., «La rhétorique populiste aux Etats Unis» in Vingtième Siècle. Revue d´histoire, Nº56, Numéro Spécial : Les populismes (Oct. –Dec., 1997), pp. 184-200.MOUFFE, C., «The "End of Politics" and the challenge of Right-Wing Populism» in Populism and the Mirror of Democracy, Panizza, F. (ed), (2005), Verso, London, pp. 50-71.OESCH, D., 2006, Redrawing the class map: stratification and institutions in Britain, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.ROBERTS, K., «Neoliberalism and the Transformation of Populism in Latin America» in World Politics, Vol. 48 (oct. 1995), pp. 82-116.SCHNEIDER, W., «The New Populism» in Political Psychology, Vol. 15, Nº4 (Dec., 1994), pp. 779-784.SCHULTE-SASSE, L., «Meet Ross Perot : The Lasting Legacy of Capraesque Populism» in Cultural Critique, Nº25 (autumn, 1993), pp.91-119.SCHUMPETER, J., 1994 (rev. ed.), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, RoutledgeSCIARINI, P., and NICOLET, S. (eds), 2010, Le Destin Electoral de la Gauche : Analyse du vote socialiste et vert en Suisse. Georg, Genève.SHOGAN, C., «Anti-Intellectualism in the Modern Presidency : A Republican Populism» in Perspectives on Politics, Vol.5, Nº2 (Jun., 2007), pp. 295-303.TOURAINE, A., «Le Brun, le Rouge et le Français» in «Le populisme ? Neuf réponses» in Vingtième Siècle. Revue d´histoire, Nº56, Numéro spécial : Les populismes (Oct.-Dec., 1997), pp. 239-242.TURNER, J., «Understanding the Populists» in Journal of American History, Vol. 67 (Sep. 1980), pp. 354-373.WEYLAND, K., «Clarifying a Contested Concept : Populism in the Study of Latin American Politics» in Comparative Politics, Vol. 34, Nº1 (Oct., 2001), pp.1-22. Germán Clulow - Universidad-ORT.

En la arena educativa, uno de los focos de tensión irresuelto en la actualidad es el propio de las relaciones entre la escuela pública y la escuela privada. Los partidarios de cada opción participan en un debate apasionado con posiciones sustentadas básicamente en argumentos religiosos, políticos y sociales y ello, ante la carencia de estudios que posibiliten el conocimiento de la génesis y desarrollo de la escuela privada y permitan su tratamiento propiamente educativo. En consecuencia se ha determinado seguir el devenir histórico de la conformación de un sistema de instrucción nacional público y privado junto con el concepto de libertad de enseñanza, garante entre otros de la libertad de creación de centros, al menos desde el liberalismo doceañista hasta los albores de la Guerra Civil en un triángulo matriz cuyos vértices quedan determinados en cada momento histórico por ia ideología gubernamental, la todopoderosa actuación de la Iglesia católica y las siempre escasas partidas económicas dedicadas a la instrucción. El trabajo sigue la metodología de la investigación histórica tradicional procurando interpretar los hechos acaecidos basándose en documentos históricos. El punto de partida no puede ser otro que el R.D. de 1 de julio de 1902 documento que conforma un instrumento de inspección estatal de escuelas privadas que tradicionalmente habían quedado fuera de su control y la documentación consiguiente de más de un centenar de centros educativos que solicitan los trámites de apertura y funcionamiento dirigidos a la Universidad Literaria de Sevilla. Ellos son una fuente de información primigenia acerca de los cuadros de enseñanza (asignaturas, gabinetes y material científico) y documentos de filiación (certificados de buena conducta y residencia )entre otros, además de las condiciones de moralidad e higiene en que se desenvolvían .imprescindibles en la autorización del establecimiento. En esos momentos históricos , la necesaria reforma educativa en cuanto a leyes educativas, planes de estudios, contenidos.etc, cede paso al pulso, estatista de una parte; confesional de otra, por el control político e ideológico de la escuela. A comienzos del s. XX la ciudad de Huelva alcanza elevados índices demográficos y económicos debidos en buena parte a la actividad minera. Así, las necesidades de la población se traducen, bajo la premisa de la mejora de los servicios públicos, a veces en manos privadas, en una mayor demanda de agua, mercados de abastos y escuelas, entre otros. En 1901 el Gobernador civil propondrá al Consistorio una profunda reforma en el abastecimiento de aguas . Urge trazar una red apropiada que provea de agua potable a la población. A este problema se le une poco después, en el verano, las obras de la nueva plaza de abastos que quedarán paralizadas debido a problemas en el ensamblaje metálico de la cubierta .En lo referente a las escuelas, no pocas veces los planteamientos educativos quedarán en un segundo plano, advirtiéndose principalmente el coste que suponen las subvenciones, gratificaciones, construcciones, pago de haberes. en un mapa escolar variopinto donde toman acomodo la escuela pública - nacional, la católica, 1a escuela laica y un colegio. Otro de los problemas que preocupa ai consistorio es el de la mendicidad de oficio, que será estudiado en la Comisión de Beneficencia y el abaratamiento de los artículos de primera necesidad, aspectos de una sociedad en rápido crecimiento. El estudio de la escuela primaria privada requiere el establecimiento de cortes cronológicos. En el primero, que abarca desde principios de siglo hasta 1923 se hace patente el desarrollo "autónomo" de los colegios religiosos aprovechando los pactos con la Iglesia, las confrontaciones políticas, los beneficiosos procedimientos administrativos , al menos en lo relativo a la titulación^ la desidia que acompañaba estos temas. Con Primo de Rivera, el restablecimiento del R.D. de i de julio de 1902 y la proliferación de escuelas y colegios de congregaciones e institutos religiosos. El planteamiento novedoso de la escuela unificada de manos de la República y su programa laico y secular izad or culminará con disposiciones que dictarán la supresión de subvenciones a colegios religiosos, la incautación de sus edificios y la desaparición de algunos colegios. La escuela no oficial de Huelva forma un mosaico complejo y variado. Junto a la escuela de la mina surgida a partir de 1873 con la llegada de capitales extranjeros para la explotación de los criaderos de minerales y a escuela evangélica, tan ligada a ella y algunas pocas escuelas privadas no confesionales .laicas y racionalistas toleradas y vigiladas de cerca , ya en la capital, ya en la provincia, por los servidores de la Iglesia católica. Junto a unos pocos colegios para hijos de obreros, los colegios de primera y segunda enseñanza, garantes de una educación de calidad para la pujante clase media y los colegios y escuelas de órdenes, institutos y congregaciones religiosas, que se asientan en la capital y en desarrolladas localidades provinciales para ofertar junto a una educación de calidad otra de caridad para los más desfavorecidos. Queda patente la importancia de la escuela católica > parte medular del sistema educativo y ello por un doble motivo; por el número creciente de escuelas y colegios establecidos, y por la colonización creciente de sus enseñanzas en el currículo , sin olvidar el papel inspector que ejercen en el resto de escuelas, Restan las escuelas particulares, las más numerosas, las que se encuentran diseminadas por toda la geografía onubense, de corte mayoritariamente femenino si se atiende a la dirección y clientela y que subsiste a duras penas con exiguos pagos o cicateras subvenciones de los ayuntamientos a cambio de matricular a un determinado número de alumnos pobres, aliviando así las sonrojantes listas de matriculación escolar. El mapa escolar ha de completarse con la labor educativa y social de Manuel Siurot en sus Escuelas del Sagrado Corazón de Jesús, transmisor de las enseñanzas de Manjón y !a Escuela Francesa , verdadero referente educativo capitalino que perdura actualmente, Finaliza este trabajo reparando en los protagonistas inmediatos del hecho educativo: el profesorado y el alumnado. Dividido el periodo acotado en cuatro décadas , se estudian en cada una las titulaciones y obligaciones de maestros y maestras, haciendo referencia a los planes de estudio y, cuando los datos lo permiten, reparar en aspectos tales como el estado civil, procedencia, edad y número de maestros y maestras, así como la oferta educativa y los niveles de asistencia en las escuelas públicas, privadas, de patronato y subvencionadas, aspectos que permiten caracterizar la escuela en el periodo mencionado. Esta es nuestra contribución al conocimiento de la escuela privada, conocimiento modesto tanto por la dimensión local como por el estudio de una documentación que refleja parcialmente la realidad, pues si bien es cierto que hemos seguido fielmente todos los documentos de los archivos mencionados, también es cierto que por el camino se han quedado cientos de escuelas "amigas" que quedan fuera de control aunque aún perduren en la memoria. Queda abierta una vía para futuras investigaciones. ; In the educational arena, one of the tension focal points still unresolved at present Is the one belonging to the relationship between the state school and the private (Independent) school. Supporters of each option take part in a passionate debate with positions essentially sustained by religious, political and social arguments due to the lack of studies that make possible the understanding of the genesis and development of the private (independent) school and enable their proper educational treatment. Consequently, it has been determined to follow the historical development of configuration of a national state and private education system together with the concept of academic freedom, guarantor of, among others, the freedom of establishment of centres, at least from the doceanista liberalism to the dawn of the Civil War in a matrix triangle whose vertices are determined in each historical period by the governmental ideology, the powerful action of the Catholic Church and the always scarce economic funds devoted to instruction. The study follows the methodology of traditional historical research trying to interpret the events based on historical documents. The starting point can not be other than the Royal Decree of 1st July 1902, a document that functions as a state inspection instrument of private (independent) schools that had traditionally been beyond its control and the consequent documentation of more than a hundred education centres applying for the opening and operation procedures directed to the Literary University of Seville. They are a primal source of information with regards to teaching charts (subjects, offices and scientific equipment) and affiliation documents (certificates of good behaviour and residence) among others, including the morality and hygiene conditions where they were working, essential for the approval of the establishment. In those historical moments, the necessary educational reform in terms of education laws, curricula, contents.etc, gives way to the arm wrestle, state-controlled on the one hand, confessional on the other, for the political and ideological control of the school. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the city of Huelva reaches high demographic and economic indices largely due to the mining activity. Thus, the population necessities are translated, under the premise of improving public services, sometimes in private hands, in a higher demand for water, food markets and schools among others. In 1901 the Civil Governor will propose to the City Council a major remodelling of the water supply, it urges to design an appropriate network for providing drinking water to the population. This concern is joined shortly after, in summertime, by the building work of the new food market that will be paralysed due to problems with the metallic structure of the roof. With regards to schools, not rarely educational approaches will remain in the background, noticing mainly the costs involving subsidies, school fees, building work, salary payments.in a diverse school map that accomodates the state elementary school - the national, the Catholic, the secular school and a secondary school. Other problems that concern the City Council are the proffesional begging, which will be studied by the Charity Committee, and the price reduction of prime necessity goods, aspects of a society in rapid growth, The study of the private elementary school requires the establishment of chronological frames. In the first one, spanning from the beginning of the century until 1923, is patent the "autonomous" development of religious schools taking advantage of pacts with the Church, political confrontations, beneficial administrative procedures, at least in terms of qualifications, or the apathy that accompanied these issues. With Primo de Rivera, the restoration of the Royal Decree of 1st July 1902 and the proliferation of elementary and secondary schools of religious congregations and religious high schools. The original approach of the unified school thanks to the Republic and its lay and secular plan will culminate in provisions that will dictate the abolition of subsidies to religious schools, the seizure of their buildings and the dissapearance of some schools. The non-official school of Huelva forms a complex and varied mosaic. Together with the school of the mine emerged from 1873 with the arriving of foreign capital for the exploitation of mineral farms and the Evangelical school, so bound to it and a few non-religious private schools, secular and rationalist tolerated and closely monitored, in the capital and the province, by the servants of the Catholic Church. Together with a few schools for the children of labourers, primary and secondary schools, guarantors of a quality education for the burgeoning middle class and elementary and secondary schools of religious orders, high schools and religious congregations, that establish themselves in the capital and in developed provincial localities to offer besides a quality education, a charity one for the most deprived people, it becomes clear the importance of the Catholic school, core of the education system and this is obvious for two reasons: because of the growing number of established primary and secondary schools, and the growing colonisation of their teachings in the curriculum, not forgetting the inspector role they play in the other schools. It remains to mention private home-schools, the most numerous ones, which are scattered throughout the geography of Huelva, mainly for girls if we look into their management and customers, and that hardly survive with meagre payments or stingy subsidies from Town Councils in exchange of enrolling a certain number of poor pupils, relieving in that way the embarrasing school enrolment lists. The school map should be completed with the educational and social work of Manuel Siurot in his schools of the Sagrado Corazón de Jesús, transmitter of the Manjon and French School pedagogies, real capital educational model that currently endures. This paper finishes noticing the immediate leading figures in the educational process: teachers and pupils. Dividing the chosen period in four decades, the qualifications and duties of teachers are estudied in each of them, referencing to the curricuium and, when data allows it, notice aspects such as marital status, origin, age and number of teachers as well as the educational provision and attendance standards of state schools, private (independent) schoois, sponsored schools and subsidised schools, ail aspects that allow to picture the school in the mentioned period of time. This is our contribution to the knowledge of the private (independent) school, modest knowledge for both the local dimension and the study of documentation that reflects the reality only partially, even if we have accurateily followed all the documents of the mentioned archives, it is also true that we had left behind hundred of private "child-friendly" schools (escuelas "amigas3) outside our matter of study even if they still endure in our memory, An avenue for future research remains open.

Alexis de Tocqueville was the first author to correctly underline some of the main factors that stimulated, or better yet triggered, a series of events that led to the social and politically structure based radical changes implemented by the French Revolution. Tocqueville properly highlighted which social and political aspects of the Old Regime not only survived, but were strengthen and vigorously adopted by the Revolution and its begotten system. In this sense, he was able to demystify the French Revolution from its characteristically tabula rasa, or national foundational-stone, kind of event given by later post-revolution French governments. The French Revolution transformed many things from its roots, but so many remained unchanged or were even reinforced. Tocqueville's The Old Regime and the French Revolution masterfully embodies Lampedusa's famous dixit in Il Gattopardo: "The more things change the more they remain the same". On the other hand, Tocqueville's work suffers from a few shortcomings. First, he tries so emphatically to demonstrate the continuances between the Ancient Regime and the post-revolution system that he almost completely undermines the social and political changes brought up by the Revolution. Secondly, he does not pay any kind of attention to exogenous or international system factors. Tocqueville, actually, disregards them as having any role in the revolution's origins. This paper will briefly comment on Tocqueville's factors that triggered the French Revolution and briefly comment on the variables that he did not consider.It is rather interesting to see that Tocqueville defines the French Revolution as a religious revolution but with no anti-religious goals. He defines the revolution in such terms in order to emphasize its universal aspiration. The French Revolution originated in France but dealt with issues that were common to all humanity. The revolution tried, not only, to free the Frenchmen but all men. Tocqueville refers to the Revolution's philosophical foundations: the Enlightenment. During the second half of the 18th century, France was its cradle. The Enlightenment's ideas achieved for universal freedom from despotic rule. They were notorious among the kings' court, the nobility and the rapidly growing upper bourgeoisie and, finally, were the intellectual product of aristocratic individuals. In this way, Tocqueville points out how the French nobility was going to be one of the main factors of the French Revolution in two distinct ways. First, the Enlightenment's political and social ideas, which were the core of the political ideology that would embody the Revolution and inspire the policies enacted after July 1789, were a conception of aristocratic minds. The nobility, in a way, conceived the ideas that would later on politically, socially and morally justify and legitimize their downfall. Secondly, according to Tocqueville it was the French aristocracy who first rebelled against the absolutist monarchical power. The nobles did not only conceive the ideas that would destroy them, they also actually started a series of events that would culminate in a Revolution that they did not envisage and that would ultimately decimate them. Tocqueville accurately recognizes that it was the French aristocracy that petitioned the calling of the General Estates in 1787 because they were trying to impede the Monarchy's last possible financial resort at its hand: the taxation of the nobility. Tocqueville actually downgrades the fiscal constraints to which the French State was subject at the end of the 18th century. He argues that the State's bankruptcy was not an issue because it was not the first time that a similar situation happened to the French Crown and because between 1780 and 1789 France was a more economically prosperous country than during the Seven Years War and the American Independence War. The issue was not that the Crown did not have any money; it was that the State decided to end with the centuries' long aristocracy's exception of taxation; which resulted in nobility's rebellion. Tocqueville describes how the French nobility had lost its feudal role and, instead, it primarily dedicated to civil management, most importantly court and fiscal administration; to rent their lands to small peasants; and, to partake in the King's court. All of them were exempted from taxation just because they owned a noble title. Tocqueville underlines the pivotal role that the nobility played in being civic servants. Even if many members of Absolutist regime's bureaucracy were bourgeois, the courts, fiscal agencies and other institutions, like the provincial parliaments and the municipal councils, were almost exclusively integrated by noblemen. The central power of the State and its immense bureaucracy is one of the continuities that Tocqueville sees between the old and the new regime; particularly, the idea of a bureaucratic machine managed by elites. As Tocqueville, and much later Perry Anderson, notice, the French aristocracy had an enormous control over the Absolutist system; the Monarchy could only enact its desired policies when they did not harm the nobility's interests(1). If any decision taken by the Crown was detrimental to their interests then they would have obstructed its implementation in an institutional way: the aristocratic packed courts and provincial parliaments would have delayed or refused to execute any unfavorable provision (2). The French aristocracy, then, obstructed the French Monarchy's taxation plan and pressured the King to call the General Estates in 1787. The upper bourgeoisie, on the other hand, favored the Crown's taxation plan but wanted to take advantage of the General Estates calling in order to gain more leverage in the tax reform's decision process (3). Either way, it was the French nobility's rebellious attitude against the King that would prompt the next series of events. Much has been said about this aristocratic political defiance; Tocqueville does not regard nobility's actions as a way to transform Absolutist France into a British kind of constitutional monarchy where the aristocracy would obtain political dominance, with regards to the Crown and the upper bourgeoisie, through an income-based or landownership-based representative parliament (4). He just perceives these actions as the last available desperate option to a soon to be old socio-economic system's class. French aristocracy had become a burden to France. If they did not turn themselves into a productive force, like the growing bourgeoisie, they would remain a useless, parasitic and institutionally over-represented class in the eyes of France's main economic sector: the peasants. As stated before, Tocqueville does not give too much of a relevant role to the bourgeoisie in the origins of the French Revolution. Both the upper and lower middle class would have a greater role after the 14th of July 1789. Instead, he sees the roots of the Revolution in the French aristocracy, as indicated above, and in the French peasantry. Tocqueville is able to empirically prove that the feudal agrarian system was almost dead in 18th century France. Seigniorial-peasantry relationships just amounted to land-renting, hunting and pasture privileges and harvest's percentage rendering (5). However, peasants were drowning in taxes. More than 75% of their returns were destined to the French central State, to the regional or provincial departments and to the municipalities (6). The last two were mainly aristocratic conformed institutions. Additionally, peasants were forced to give in to the central State's or departmental authorities a substantial percentage of their harvest for the urban populations. Furthermore, if it is considered that during the 1780s a series of famines and bad harvests produced a serious of food shortages, where commodity's high prices could not compensate the limited quantity of offered goods, worsening the peasantry conditions. Then, it is no surprise that there was a growing discontent among the peasants against the Crown failed foreign policies endeavors, that they were supporting with their work and their children, and against the aristocracy's unproductive and untaxed life style that they had to provide for (7). Here, Tocqueville discerns continuity between the old and the new regime: France after the revolution will still be mostly peasant and they will still be severely burdened with taxes and wars but a new kind of political system will replace Monarchy and a new class will replace the aristocracy. All those circumstances were the catalyst for a sequence of peasant's rebellions, starting in 1788, that overwhelmed the Monarchy's police authority (8). Ironically, the Crown was unable to contain the rising revolts because its repressive power depended on army garrisons that were headed by the aristocracy, whom, at first, refrained from suppressing in order to pressure the King with no taxation. The fateful combination of the rebellion of the dominant classes against the regime's authority plus the total breaking of the State's repressive power permitted an all-out uprising of the lower classes. Peasants and middle classmen were able to take the reins of the revolution and change the French socio-political system according to their interests. Regardless of Tocqueville's successful achievement in identifying the origins of the French Revolution, (the aristocracy refusal to be taxed and the peasantry's discontent on the nobility's untaxed privileges) it has to be said that no exogenous factors are taken into consideration. Tocqueville did not agree with the idea that the American Independence War depletion of France's reserves had provoked the civil unrest that later triggered the revolution. Even if the causal correlation between the American Revolution and the French one is indirect, international systemic variables did matter in the revolution's inception. Without strong international competition from a rising industrialist country like Great Britain and a series of military defeats, the French Monarchy would have not had to resort to tax the aristocracy and the regime's repressive mechanisms would have worked and effectively stopped the peasant's uprisings (9). Finally, Tocqueville sees the bourgeoisie a class that masterfully took advantage of a revolution that they did not originated. Even if the role of the bourgeoisie may have been greatly exaggerated in the French Revolution's narrations, it still had a pivotal role in confronting the aristocratic courts and parliaments; in replacing the nobility as civic servants; and, in obstructing the aristocracy's crave for an exclusive political role in State's decisions. Without the upper and lower middle class, nobility may have gained total control of the Absolutist system (10). Lastly, it has to be said that there are moments where Tocqueville affirms that political and social freedom were greater during the Ancient Regime than afterwards. These statements have to take into account Tocqueville's own historical context and personal life at that moment. He had self-exiled from politics after Louis Bonaparte coup d'état in December 1852 and was completely aware that Napoleon's III regime was a new kind of authoritarian system with more repressive and despotic rule than the pre-revolutionary Absolutist regimes. Nevertheless, Tocqueville's work stands out among the best and most descriptive analysis of the French Revolution's origins. His emphasis on underlining the continuances between the old regime and the new one and the almost complete lack of attention paid to the important and radical social and political changes brought by the Revolution have to attributed to the fact that The Old Regime and the French Revolution was the first part of his uncompleted work on the revolution; which had it been continued and concluded would have certainly highlighted the system-changing ideas enacted after July 1789.1) See Anderson, Perry, Linages of the Absolutist Sate, New Left Books, London, 1974. It is rather interesting to compare Tocqueville take on the French State compared with his views on the United States. He argues that one of the main differences between of how the Frenchmen and the American perceived the State was that the first ones saw it as place to look for working positions an mode of living, while the latter had a completely opposite idea.(2) See Skocpol, Theda, States and Social Revolutions. A comparative Analysis of France, Russia & China, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1979, pp. 56-60.(3) See Furet, Francois and Richet, Denis, The French Revolution, Macmillan, New York, 1970.(4) See Cobban, Alfred, Old Regime and Revolution, 1715-1799, Penguin, Baltimore, 1957, pp.155.(5) See Moore Barrington, The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World, Beacon Press, Boston, 1966, pp. 40-108. (6) See Skocpol, Theda, States and Social Revolutions. A comparative Analysis of France, Russia & China, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1979, pp. 119.(7) See Moore Barrington, The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World, Beacon Press, Boston, 1966, pp. 40-108. (8) See Skocpol, Theda, States and Social Revolutions. A comparative Analysis of France, Russia & China, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1979, pp. 121.(9) See Skocpol, Theda, States and Social Revolutions. A comparative Analysis of France, Russia & China, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1979, pp. 60-65.(10) See Moore Barrington, The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World, Beacon Press, Boston, 1966, pp. 40-108. Moore's famous theory: weak landlords but strong bourgeoisie give rise to democratic system like the French on.*Estudiante de Doctorado, New School for Social Research, New YorkMaestría en Estudios Internacionales, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Buenos AiresÁrea de Especialización: Procesos de formación del Estado moderno, sociología de la guerra, terrorismo, genocidio, conflictos étnicos, nacionalismos y minorías.

"The news from Delaware is crystal clear: it's Sarah Palin's party now." Senator John Kerry The Tea Party insurrection against the establishment is causing some headaches for the Republican leadership. Republican primary elections everywhere are being won by Tea Party candidates, some of which are credible and electable in national contests (Marco Rubio in Florida, Joe Miller in Alaska), but many of which are an embarrassment to the party. Christine O'Donnell, who won the Delaware primary, last week, falls into the latter category. The Republican Party had fielded a very strong candidate, Mike Castle, who had already been elected seven times to Congress, and would most likely have won the coveted seat in the national election. But he was considered "too liberal" and "too wedded to the establishment" by the Tea Party. Instead, victory went to Tea Party candidate O'Donnell, who had been endorsed by Sarah Palin. During her campaigning the 41-year old O'Donnell, fresh faced and attractive, adopted the dress style, body language and folksy speech of her flashy mentor, lending some credence to Senator John Kerry's claim that the GOP "is Sarah Palin's party now." O'Donnell had been signed out as not credible by the GOP: not only does she lack any experience and qualifications, but she has a questionable personal finance history and a bizarre background that includes having "practiced witchcraft" before becoming a Christian youth counselor and defender of sexual abstinence. She had run for a House seat twice before and lost, getting only about 4.5% of the vote statewide. Her story brings into focus the dire position the GOP finds itself in: by stirring up the anger and frustration of a public deeply affected by the Great Recession and worried about their economic future, and by using the Tea Party movement's energy and populism to mobilize the electorate, Republicans now find themselves in the awkward situation of having to support and fund fringe candidates for the November election. The Tea Party upheaval has been compared to the Reagan Revolution of 1980. Ronald Reagan transformed the Republican Party by creating a new coalition of social and fiscal conservatives and foreign policy hawks. He brought in the Southern Democrats and the Christian Right, and many moderates from the North East were purged from the party. He forged a new majority, renewed the party's cadre and dominated the national political agenda at least for a decade. Similarly, the Tea Party is imposing a "purity test" on Republicans that includes long-held party principles such as fiscal discipline, balanced budgets and low taxes. But it also demands adherence to more intrusive social dogmas such as opposition to abortion and gay marriage, and blatantly reactionary ideas against immigration and free trade, and in favor of the right to carry guns. With its populist, nativist rhetoric it is feeding the frenzy and anger prevalent in certain sectors of the country today to the point of rendering it ungovernable. Indeed, in order to win, Republican candidates everywhere find that they have to adopt Tea party language and principles even when some of these run counter to the realities of governing. In deep contrast with their extreme views of closed borders, Reagan gave amnesty to a huge mass of illegal immigrants, and was a staunch supporter of free trade, a central tenet of the conservative business class that is anathema to the Tea Party insurgents. Their brand of rampant populism was quite absent from the Reagan revolution: he was a leader who understood where the country was historically and emotionally, and he had the convictions and the policies to move it forwards. His philosophy of hard work, sacrifice, fiscal responsibility and smaller government has endured and influenced many conservative and moderate politicians around the world. In addition, he had the great gift of communication and persuasion, and knew how to use history and logic to back up his actions. Few would compare the Great Communicator with the grammatically challenged elements that lead the Tea party: they tend to speak in sound bites, have poor syntax and grammar, and make obscure, often absurd references that few people are able to follow (for example, Sarah Palin's 2008 comment that "as Putin rears his head and enters U.S airspace, the first thing he sees is Alaska" as an justification of why being governor of that state gave her some foreign policy experience; or Christine O'Donnell's "mice with human brains" reference when explaining her opposition to stem cell research). Their inexperience, rampant populism, and contempt for intellect and knowledge do not bode well for next Congress. Others consider late Senator Barry Goldwater, a blunt-spoken conservative libertarian from Arizona, as the predecessor of the Tea Party. Goldwater, who ran for president in the 1960s against Lyndon Johnson, wanted to abolish the whole welfare state established by the New Deal, and advocated the use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam. He lost to LBJ by a landslide, bringing the Republican Party down with him. But he was a libertarian and this put him at odds with the Christian right agenda of the 1970s. Although it is true that there is a libertarian, Goldwater-like element in some groups of the Tea Party, most of its members embrace an ultra-conservative social agenda of government intrusiveness into people's lives, and that is already a source of contention and conflict within the movement. Given its grassroots, decentralized approach, its platform is a hybrid of sometimes conflicting ideas, but at its core, it is an anti-federalist movement. It officially appeared in the political map on tax-filing day, April 15 of 2009, when "tea parties" were organized in several states to protest against government spending. It grew as a bottom-up organization but, as it gathered strength, it was courted by the GOP as an instrument to revive the party and mobilize its supporters. The Tea Party in its nature and its approach to politics is more reminiscent of the movement that coalesced around Ross Perot in the 1990s. He was against the expansion of the federal government, against free trade and open borders, against Washington "insiders" of both parties, and in favor of balanced budgets and lower taxes. The main difference is that the Tea Party is trying to transform the Republican Party from the inside, instead of running against it as a third party, as Perot did in 1992, thereby preventing the re-election of President Bush senior, and delivering a victory to the Democrats. The question is whether the Tea Party movement will succeed and, whether, by moving the party to the Right, it will have a "corrective" effect, or whether, due to its populist excesses, it will self destroy and bring the party down with it. The Perot movement dissolved because of its internal dissent and lack of leadership, and the Tea Party may encounter the same fate. What the Tea Party movement has in vigor and energy, it lacks in logic, organization and cohesiveness. They would most certainly not have been so successful if they had had to find their own moneys to fund their campaigns. Unfortunately for the GOP, there are at least two Political Action Committees (PACs) that are giving financial support to these fringe-quality candidates: Sarah Palin's own PAC, and the Tea Party Express run by old Republican political operative and entrepreneur Sal Russo, who identifies "promising" candidates that can attract contributions and bring treasure into his own formerly moribund PAC. A third PAC, FreedomWorks, run by former Representative Dick Armey, has been more selective in the Tea Party candidates it supports. It refused to fund Christine O'Donnell, who instead received substantial campaign funds from the other two. Some serious conservative voices are being raised against the Tea Party, but it may be too late. Charles Krauthammer, one of the leading conservative intellectuals, called O'Donnell's triumph a "stunning but pyrrhic victory" that will prevent the Republicans from regaining control of the Senate. While conceding that the Tea Party itself was "the most vigorous and salutary grass-roots movement of our time" and a "source of electoral energy", he still cautioned Republicans that they had to be selective. He said that O'Donnell was problematic and most likely unelectable. Showing his frustration with the defeat of Mike Castle, he stated that the so-called "Buckley rule"-"Support the most conservative candidate that is electable" -had been violated. Also, Karl Rove from his new column in the Wall Street journal called her "unfit for office" and "not a credible" candidate. O'Donnell was the seventh Tea Party candidate to defeat an incumbent, so now the National Republican Committee will most likely have to fund their national campaigns. Not all are unelectable, but the question is, once in power, will they follow the party line or their own? As the GOP moves to the extreme Right to please the Tea Party supporters, it is the moderates that are left out of place. In Florida, the unstoppable Senate race of Tea Party candidate Marco Rubio has forced his opponent Charlie Crist, whom Rubio defeated in the primary, to leave the GOP and run as an Independent. Unlike O'Donnell, Rubio is a very credible candidate who may some day run for president, while Crist has been too much of a moderate for the present political climate, and as governor has supported several of Obama's initiatives. Tea Party Senate candidate Joe Miller, who beat incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska primary, is also a candidate with solid credentials (WestPoint graduate, then Yale Law), but he is still outside the mainstream on basic issues such as Social Security, which he considers "unconstitutional, because it is not in the Constitution". This is what most worries the party moderates: that a huge part of the electorate, frustrated with the expansion of US government, debt and deficits, will feel so disgruntled as to elect a Republican Congress majority populated with extremist candidates that will ignore the party line, and will try to impose their simplistic, atavistic views of government, turning the clock back one or even two centuries. Unquestionably, not all is said and done in this election, and the Republican primary results are cautiously being watched by Democratic candidates who now see an opening to regain the moderate Independents' vote. But the generalized anger against incumbents in the electoral may very well lead many of them to vote for Tea party newcomers all the same, no matter how extreme and erratic they may seem. Objectively, one can understand and respect philosophical differences and the traditions of this country's two-party politics. In order to survive in the post-Bush era, the Republican Party needed to undergo a correction towards smaller government and balanced budgets, which are the core principles of their ideology. During his eight years in power, Republican George Bush oversaw the biggest expansion of the federal government since the 1960s; he made the decision to fight two wars while at the same time lowering taxes across the board and deregulating private financial institutions. It should thus come as no surprise that his course of action brought about the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, and that a public backlash against government spending ensued. A year and a half of frantic efforts by the Obama White House and Congress, which obviously demanded more government spending for the short-term, have not delivered palpable results and, although the Recession has officially ended, unemployment is still at 10%. The popular outcry against big government is to be expected. But some groups have used this opportunity to propose hare-brained schemes based on ignorance, nescience and prejudice. Whether they are railing against immigrants, taxes and social welfare programs, or in favor of armed insurrection against the federal government, quite often, to legitimize their demands, they refer their critics to the US Constitution of 1787. To the extent that the Constitution established the federal government and its relative power over the states, their claims have little merit. Perhaps they confuse it with the Articles of Confederation that preceded it and vested power in the states. In any case, the infantile worship of a three centuries old document in an era of globalization, interdependence and a communications revolution speaks for itself: the Tea Party is reactionary, regressive, and irritating to mainstream Americans. But given the level of anger and disenchantment with Washington, they may linger in the political landscape longer than initially predicted. Tea Party supporters tend to confuse their candidates' folksiness with authenticity, their simple- mindedness with sincerity and their populist slogans with serious policy proposals. The truth is that the United States, for all its failures, has governmental institutions that have endured, and is governed by the rule of law and not by mob rule. It is normal and healthy in a democracy to protest against an unresponsive government. It is quite a different thing to put opportunistic, unproven, inexperienced people at the helm in order to role back institutions that took years to build and that the newcomers in their ignorance scorn upon. There is no telling that they would be less greedy or more competent than those they replace. More likely, a Tea-Party-dominated Congress would be a complete disaster as they focus on their petty interests and ideological vendettas; they repeal existing social legislation and refuse to fund the federal government; they start handing out subpoenas to investigate made-up claims against the Executive, and they do not address any of the real problems facing the country. Their narrow-mindedness, their disdain for the realities of democracy and their disinterest in the welfare of others is quite alarming. It may come back to haunt the other Republicans in Congress, who will realize too late that they have to rely on Democrats in order to pass any spending bill and that anger cannot be turned into an agenda for governing. Ironically, this week has been proclaimed Education Week in America, as the White House unveils its new plan to reform the public school system and to bring American students up to par with other advanced democracies. Although the new emphasis will be on science, math and a longer school year, one can only hope there is room in the curriculum for more civic education, a better understanding of American History and a greater appreciation for democracy and its institutions. Only when that happens will this kind of movement be forever confined to the fringes of society, where it belongs. Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia

ResumenEn este artículo examino la gratitud y la ingratitud como herramientas analíticas valiosas para determinar cómo las desigualdades sociales le dan forma a las prácticas de parentesco. Acusar a un pariente de ingratitud revela los límites y las líneas de falla del parentesco, así como también expectativas estrechamente relacionadas sobre qué debe ser dado, cómo debe ser dado y cómo debe ser recibido. Como tal, este ensayo sigue la línea de una valiosa tradición antropológica de unificar los análisis del don y del parentesco. Argumento que expresiones de y discursos sobre la gratitud y la ingratitud remiten muy de cerca a dimensiones de relaciones sociales tales como el género, la generación y la clase social, y simultáneamente revelan tensiones dentro de las relaciones de parentesco donde el deber y la obligación son cuestionados. Los ejemplos etnográficos son tomados del trabajo de campo en Ayacucho, una pequeña ciudad en los Andes peruanos, donde la crianza adoptiva informal y las relaciones tensas entre hijos adultos y sus padres ancianos suministran dos esferas relacionadas de expresiones de ideas acerca de la gratitud y la ingratitud. Analizando estos dos ejemplos, argumento que la gratitud y la ingratitud son heurísticas analíticas, útiles para identificar y centrarse sobre dimensiones de relaciones que, según se entiende, caen dentro del dominio del parentesco, y son potencialmente útiles también en otros escenarios.Palabras clave: Parentesco, crianza, niñez, el don, Perú. Abstract. Towards an Anthropology of Ingratitude: Notes from Andean KinshipAccusations of ingratitude to kin reveal much about the edges and fault lines of kinship that would otherwise not be apparent. But equally, they reveal much that is unexpected about the gift – about expectations of what should be given and how it should be received. In this article, I bring together anthropological literature on the gift and on kinship in order to argue that expressions of gratitude or ingratitude index dimensions of social relations such as gender, generation, and social class, and simultaneously reveal tensions within kinship relations where duty and obligation are contested. Examples are drawn from fieldwork where informal fostering and the fraught relations between grown children and their aging parents provide arenas for analysis of expressions of gratitude and ingratitude. Analyzing these examples, I argue for gratitude as an analytical heuristic, useful to identify and focus upon dimensions of relations understood to fall within the domain of kinship, and potentially useful in other settings as well.Key words: fostering, childhood, the gift, the Andes. Referencias Alberti, Giorgio y Enrique Mayer (1974). Reciprocidad andina: Ayer y hoy. En G. Alberti y E. Mayer, eds., Reciprocidad e intercambio en los Andes peruanos. Lima, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 13–37. Anderson, Jeanine (2010). Incommensurable Worlds of Practice and Value: A View from the Shantytowns of Lima. En P. Gootenberg y L. Reygadas, eds., Indelible Inequalities in Latin America: Insights from History, Politics, and Culture. Durham, Duke University Press, 81–105. Appadurai, Arjun (1985). "Gratitude as a Social Mode in South India", Ethos 13, 3: 236–45. Arnold, Denise, ed. (1997). Gente de carne y hueso: Las tramas de parentesco en los Andes. La Paz, CIASE/ILCA. Bolin, Inge (2018) [2006]. Creciendo en una cultura de respeto. La crianza de los niños en la sierra peruana. Lima, Universidad de Ciencias y Humanidades. Bolton, Ralph y Enrique Mayer, eds. (1977). Andean Kinship and Marriage. Washington, D.C., American Anthropological Association. Borneman, John (1997). "Cuidar y ser cuidado: el desplazamiento del matrimonio, el parentesco, el género y la sexualidad", Revista Internacional de Ciencias Sociales, 154. Versión digital. Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/revista.oa?id=654 Candea, Matei y Giovanni Da Col (2012). "The Return to Hospitality", Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 18: S1–S19. Carsten, Janet (2000). Introduction: Cultures of Relatedness. En J. Carsten, ed., Cultures of Relatedness: New Approaches to the Study of Kinship. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1–36. Chodorow, Nancy (1978). The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. Berkeley, University of California Press. Cohen, Lawrence (1998). No Aging in India: Alzheimer's, the Bad Family, and Other Modern Things. Berkeley, University of California Press. Cole, Jennifer y Deborah Lynn Durham (2006). Introduction: Age, Regeneration, and the Intimate Politics of Globalization. En J. Cole y D. L. Durham, eds., Generations and Globalization: Youth, Age, and Family in the New World Economy. Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1–28. Collier, J. (2009) [1997]. Del deber al deseo. Recreando familias en un pueblo andaluz. México D. F., Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social; Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana; Universidad Iberoamericana. Degregori, Carlos Ivan (1997). The Maturation of a Cosmocrat and the Building of a Discourse Community: The Case of Shining Path. En D. E. Apter, ed., The Legitimization of Violence. New York, New York University Press, 33–82. de la Cadena, Marisol (2014) [1998]. El racismo silencioso y la superioridad de los intelectuales en el Perú. En Hünefeldt, C., Méndez, C. y de la Cadena, M. Racismo y etnicidad. Lima, Ministerio de Cultura, 54-97. Derrida, Jacques (1995) [1991]. Dar (el) tiempo. Trad. Cristina de Peretti. Barcelona, Editorial Paidós. Díaz Gorfinkiel, Magdalena y Ángeles Escrivá (2012). "Care of Older People in Migration Contexts: Local and Transnational Arrangements between Peru and Spain", Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 19, 1: 129–41. di Leonardo, Micaela (1987). "The Female World of Cards and Holidays: Women, Families, and the Work of Kinship", Signs 12, 3: 440–53. Dubinsky, Karen (2010). Babies without Borders: Adoption and Migration across the Americas. Toronto, University of Toronto Press. Edwards, Jeanette (2000). Born and Bred: Idioms of Kinship and New Reproductive Technologies in England. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Emmons, Robert A. (2004). The Psychology of Gratitude: An Introduction. En R. A. Emmons y M. E. McCullough, eds., The Psychology of Gratitude. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 3–16. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1976) [1937]. Brujería, magia y oráculos entre los azande. Trad. Antonio Desmonts. Barcelona, Editorial Anagrama. Favret-Saada, Jeanne (1980). Deadly Words: Witchcraft in the Bocage. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. García, María Elena (2005). Making Indigenous Citizens: Identity, Development, and Multicultural Activism in Peru. Stanford, Stanford University Press. Gilligan, Carol (1993) [1982]. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Gregory, C. A. (1980). "Gifts to Men and Gifts to God: Gift Exchange and Capital Accumulation in Contemporary Papua", Man, New Series 15, 4: 626–52. Gregory, C. A. (1982). Gifts and Commodities. Academic Press. Han, Clara (2004). "The Work of Indebtedness: The Traumatic Present of Late Capitalist Chile", Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry 28, 2: 169–87. Harris, Olivia (2000). To Make the Earth Bear Fruit: Essays on Fertility, Work and Gender in Highland Bolivia. London, Institute of Latin American Studies. Hattori, Tomohisa (2003). "The Moral Politics of Foreign Aid", Review of International Studies 29, 2: 229–47. Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette y Ernestine Avila (1997). 'I'm here, but I'm there': The Meanings of Latina Transnational Motherhoo",. Gender & Society 11, 5: 548–71. Isbell, Billie Jean (1977). 'Those who love me': An Analysis of Andean Kinship and Reciprocity within a Ritual Context. En R. Bolton y E. Mayer, eds., Andean Kinship and Marriage. Washington, D.C., American Anthropological Association, 81–107. Isbell, Billie Jean. 2005 [1978]. Para defendernos: ecología y ritual en un pueblo andino. Cusco: CBC/Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos Bartolomé de las Casas. Jurgens, Jeffrey T. (2009). Mobility Bargains, Transnational Gifts, and the Affective Economies of Turkish Diaspora. Ponencia presentado en American Ethnological Society/ Canadian Anthropological Society Annual Meeting, Vancouver, British Columbia. Keane,Webb (2002). "Sincerity, "Modernity," and the Protestants", Cultural Anthropology 17, 1: 65–92. Komter, Aafke Elisabeth (2004). Gratitude and Gift Exchange. En R. A. Emmons and M. E. McCullough, eds., The Psychology of Gratitude. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 195–212. Laidlaw, James (2003). "A Free Gift Makes No Friends", Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 6, 4: 617–34. Lallemand, Suzanne (1993). La circulation des enfants en société traditionnelle. Prêt, don, échange. Paris, L'Harmattan. Lambek, Michael (2011). "Kinship as Gift and Theft: Acts of Succession in Mayotte and Israel", American Ethnologist 38, 1: 2–16. Leinaweaver, Jessaca B. (2008a). "Aging, Relatedness, and Social Abandonment in Highland Peru", Anthropology & Aging Quarterly 29, 2: 44–46, 58. Leinaweaver, Jessaca B. (2008b). The Circulation of Children: Adoption, Kinship, and Morality in Andean Peru. Durham, Duke University Press. Leinaweaver, Jessaca B. (2008c). "Improving Oneself: Young People Getting Ahead in the Peruvian Andes", Latin American Perspectives 35, 4: 60–78. Leinaweaver, Jessaca B. (2009). "Caring for Aging Parents in Peru: Social Obligations and Economic Change", Anthropology News 50, 8: 14–15. Leinaweaver, Jessaca B. (2010). "Outsourcing Care", Latin American Perspectives 37, 5: 67–87. Leinaweaver, Jessaca B. (2011). "Kinship Paths to and from the New Europe: A Unified Analysis of Peruvian Adoption and Migration"., Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 16, 2: 380–400. Leinaweaver, Jessaca B. (2012) (2007). "El desplazamiento infantil: las implicaciones sociales de la circulación infantil en los Andes". Trad. Jessica Herrera, Script Nova. Revista electrónica de geografía y ciencias sociales. XVI, 395 (13). Disponible en http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn/sn-395/sn-395-13.htm Leinaweaver, Jessaca B. (2015) [2013]. La migración adoptiva: criando latinos en España. Lima, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1969) [1949]. Las estructuras elementales del parentesco. Trad. Marie Therése Cevasco. Barcelona, Editorial Paidós. Lutz, Catherine (2002). Feminist Emotions. En Jeanette M. Mageo, ed., Power and the Self. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 194–215. Lutz, Catherine y Lila Abu-Lughod (1990). Language and the Politics of Emotion. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Malinowski, Bronislaw (1986) [1961]. Los argonautas del Pacífico occidental. Trad. Antonio J. Desmonts. Barcelona, Paneta-Agostini Mannheim, Bruce (1986). "The Language of Reciprocity in Southern Peruvian Quechua", Anthropological Linguistics 28, 3: 267–73. Mauss, Marcel (2009) [1925]. Ensayo sobre el don. Trad. Julia Bucci. Buenos Aires, Katz Editores. Mayer, Enrique (2001). El campesino articulado. Lima, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP). McCullough, Michael E. y Jo-Ann Tsang (2004). Parent of the Virtues? The Prosocial Contours of Gratitude. En R. A. Emmons y M. E. McCullough, eds., The Psychology of Gratitude. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 123–41. Medick, Hans y David Warren Sabean (1984). Interest and Emotion in Family and Kinship Studies: A Critique of Social History and Anthropology. En H. Medick y D. W. Sabean, eds., Interest and Emotion: Essays on the Study of Family and Kinship. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 9–27. Miles, Ann (2004). From Cuenca to Queens: An Anthropological Story of Transnational Migration. Austin, University of Texas Press. Mintz, Sidney W. y Eric R. Wolf (1950). "An Analysis of Ritual Co-Parenthood (Compadrazgo)", Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 6, 4: 341–68. Ong, Aihwa (2006). Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty. Durham, Duke University Press. Orlove, Benjamin y Glynn Custred (1980). The Alternative Model of Agrarian Society in the Andes: Households, Networks, and Corporate Groups. En B. Orlove and G. Custred, eds., Land and Power in Latin America. New York, Holmes and Meier, 31–54. Ossio, Juan M. (1984). Cultural Continuity, Structure, and Context: Some Peculiarities of the Andean Compadrazgo. En R. T. Smith, ed., Kinship Ideology and Practice in Latin America. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 118–46. Padilla, Mark (2007). Love and Globalization: Transformations of Intimacy in the Contemporary World. Nashville, Vanderbilt University Press. Parry, Jonathan P. (1986). The Gift, the Indian Gift and the 'Indian Gift.' Man 21, 3: 453–73. Parry, Jonathan P. (1989). On the Moral Perils of Exchange. En J. P. Parry y M. Bloch, eds., Money and the Morality of Exchange. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 64–93. Peletz, Michael G. (1995). "Kinship Studies in Late Twentieth-Century Anthropology", Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 343–72. Peletz, Michael G. (2001). Ambivalence in Kinship since the 1940s. En S. Franklin y S. McKinnon, eds., Relative Values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies. Durham, Duke University Press, 413–43. Pribilsky, Jason (2007). La chulla vida: Gender, Migration, and the Family in Andean Ecuador and New York City. Syracuse, Syracuse University Press. Real Academia Española (2001). Diccionario de la lengua española. At: www.rae.es/. Rebhun, Linda-Anne (1999). The Heart Is Unknown Country: Love in the Changing Economy of Northeast Brazil. Stanford, Stanford University Press. Reddy, William M. (1999). "Emotional Liberty: Politics and History in the Anthropology of Emotions", Cultural Anthropology 14, 2: 256–88. Ricoeur, Paul (2005). The Course of Recognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Hay traducción al castellano: Ricouer, P. 2005. Caminos del reconocimiento: tres ensayos. Trad. Agustín Neira. Madrid, Trotta. Roberts, Elizabeth F. S. (2009). The Traffic between Women: Female Alliance and Familial Egg Donation in Ecuador. En D. Birenbaum-Carmeli y M. C. Inhorn, eds., Assisting Reproduction, Testing Genes: Global Encounters with New Biotechnologies. New York: Berghahn Books, 113–43. Roberts, Robert C. (2004). The Blessings of Gratitude: A Conceptual Analysis. En R. A. Emmons y M. E. McCullough, eds., The Psychology of Gratitude. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 59–78. Ruddick, Sara (1989). Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. Boston, Beacon Press. Russ, Ann Julienne (2008). "Love's Labor Paid For: Gift and Commodity at the Threshold of Death", Cultural Anthropology 20, 1: 128–55. Sanders, Todd (2008). Beyond Bodies: Rainmaking and Sense Making in Tanzania. Toronto, University of Toronto Press. Schneider, David M. (1980). American Kinship: A Cultural Account. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Schneider, David M. (1984). A Critique of the Study of Kinship. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press. Schrauwers, Albert (1999). "Negotiating Parentage: The Political Economy of 'Kinship' in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia", American Ethnologist 26, 2: 310–23. Scott, James C. (1976). The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia. New Haven, Yale University Press. Smith, James Howard (2008). Bewitching Development: Witchcraft and the Reinvention of Development in Neoliberal Kenya. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Smith-Rosenberg, Carroll (1975). "The Female World of Love and Ritual: Relations between Women in Nineteenth-Century America", Signs 1, 1: 1–29. Solomon, Robert C. (1984). Getting Angry: The Jamesian Theory of Emotion in Anthropology. En R. A. Schweder y R. A. LeVine, eds., Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotions. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 238–54. Strathern, Marilyn (1985). "Kinship and Economy: Constitutive Orders of a Provisional Kind",American Ethnologist 12, 2: 191–209. Strathern, Marilyn (1992). After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Swanson, Kate (2010). Begging as a Path to Progress: Indigenous Women and Children and the Struggle for Ecuador's Urban Spaces. Athens, University of Georgia Press. Tedlock, Dennis y Bruce Mannheim (1995). The Dialogic Emergence of Culture. Urbana, University of Illinois Press. Theidon, Kimberly Susan (2004). Entre prójimos: el conflicto armado interno y la política de la reconciliación en el Perú. Lima, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Thompson, E. P. (1995) [1971]. La economía "moral" de la multitud en la Inglaterra del siglo XVIII. En E. P. Thompson, Costumbres en común. Barcelona, Crítica, pp. 213-93. Thornton, Arland (2001). "The Developmental Paradigm, Reading History Sideways, and Family Change", Demography 38, 4: 449–65. Tripp, Aili Mari (1997). Changing the Rules: The Politics of Liberalization and the Urban Informal Economy in Tanzania. Berkeley, University of California Press. Turner, Victor W. (1964). "Witchcraft and Sorcery: Taxonomy versus Dynamics", Africa: Journal of the International African Institute 34, 4: 314–25. Valeri, Valerio (1994). "Buying Women but not Selling Them: Gift and Commodity Exchange in Huaulu Alliance", Man (New Series) 29, 1: 1–26. van Dijk, Diana (2012). Bending the Generational Rules: Agency of Children and Young People in 'Child-Headed' Households. En Not Just a Victim: The Child as Catalyst and Witness of Contemporary Africa. Leiden, Brill. Van Vleet, Krista E. (2008). Performing Kinship: Narrative, Gender, and the Intimacies of Power in the Andes. Austin, University of Texas Press. Walmsley, Emily (2008). "Raised by Another Mother: Informal Fostering and Kinship Ambiguities in Northwest Ecuador", Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 13, 1: 168–95. Weiner, Annette (1976). Women of Value, Men of Renown: New Perspectives in Trobriand Exchange. Austin, University of Texas Press. Weismantel, Mary (1988). Food, Gender, and Poverty in the Ecuadorian Andes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hay traducción al castellano: Weismantel, M. 1994. Alimentación, género y pobreza en los andes ecuatorianos. Quito, Ediciones Abya-Yala Weismantel, Mary (1995). "Making Kin: Kinship Theory and Zumbagua Adoptions", American Ethnologist 22, 4: 685–709. Weismantel, Mary (2001). Cholas and Pishtacos: Stories of Race and Sex in the Andes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hay traducción al castellano: Weismantel, M. 2017. Cholas y pishtacos. Relatos de raza y sexo en los Andes. Lima, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. White, Jenny B. (1994). Money Makes Us Relatives: Women's Labor in Urban Turkey. Austin, University of Texas Press. Whitten, Norman (1993) [1981]. Transformaciones culturales y etnicidad en la sierra ecuatoriana. Quito, Ecuador , USFQ. Zelizer, Viviana A. (1985). Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value of Children. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Throughout the past two decades there has been a resurgence of the concern with the rise of new great powers and its thematic cousin, American hegemony's challenges and challengers (a resurgence that must be seen, of course, as relative to the static preoccupations of Cold War/bipolar International Relations theory). However, scholarly production has not been particularly enlightening. Not because the subject there considered is unimportant. On the contrary, rises and declines –be it of states, empires, civilizations, inter alia- and the potential to restructure world politics inherent to preeminent or hegemonic political units are powerful engines in international relations. This is why a critique of the epistemological, methodological and empirical aspects of this literature and a quest for more productive avenues of research is necessary.Neither a comprehensive critique of the literature nor a complete proposal for an alternative research project can be the goal of the present short essay. For the time being it will suffice to open some paths of discussion by way of putting forward certain challenges to this literature and sketching some notes (in a not un-Gramscian way) on alternative paths of research.By now the reader might reasonably be wondering what does Gramsci has to do with all this. Gramsci's concept of hegemony, but also his ideas on war of position vs. war of movement and passive revolution could eventually be employed, I will argue, as one of the building-blocks of, as Gramsci would have expressed it himself, a counter-hegemonic narrative on the phenomenon of the rise and fall of great powers and international hegemony. (1) A note on the use of Gramsci: As with most of the work of the Italian Marxist, coming up with a circumscribed definition for these critical concepts and ideas is an arduous, and probably unfruitful exercise. The Prison Notebooks, (2) Gramsci's magnum opus, is in itself just notes; ideas dispersed in short chapters that do not claim to be a coherent project (at least in the way we tend to think the argumentative organization of books). Thus Gramsci's own work allows for a not rigidly structured use of his ideas (e.g. there is no need to follow him all the way down in his unorthodox Marxism). Even more, one of the central points of Gramscian thought centers around the notion of a pragmatic understanding of theory. In other words, the search for a "real theoretical truth" is not nearly as relevant as the search for a "useful truth". With this spirit is that I approach the issues of hegemony and rise and fall with the Prison Notebooks behind the arm.* * * * * * The most diffused argument on the rise and decline of the great powers (3) can be summarized, grosso modo –and avoiding existing differences between schools and theorists- as following: the international system, against what balance of power theorists would argue, tends to have a hegemonic power (Spain in the 16th centuries, Portugal in the 17th century, the Netherlands in the second half of the 18th century, Great Britain in the 19th and beginnings of the 20th century, and, from then on, the United States) that establishes a certain international order. But the system is not immutable, the difference in the rates of growth between states will generate competitors to the hegemon, which, if dissatisfied with the present order, will try to bring it down (4) -even if this entails the use of force (i.e. a hegemonic war, in the words of Raymond Aron). (5) Not surprisingly, and in some ways understandably, the literature has an obsession with transition periods and war. In social scientific terms then, the whole phenomenon of rising and declining ends up as the explanandum to explicate the explanans (i.e. transition and war). By doing this it obscures an array of phenomena that cannot be studied in a dichotomy of hegemon and challenger. Methodological and empirical issues (e.g. How do we measure power? Is economic rise a sufficient cause for a change in the system? How many cases are historically relevant? etc.) are part of the problem (more on these difficulties below). Moreover, this approach seems to be propelled by an anxiety generated by the prospect that there will be no huge transformations in the world. In the words of John Gray: "paranoia is a protest against unimportance." (6) In Gramscian vocabulary: people need to think they are living in changing "epochal" times (especially academics that make a living out of "explaining and predicting" these "epochal changes"). The result has been an anxious expectation for the arrival of a challenger to the hegemon and the plausibility of a hegemonic conflict in the process of transition. First came the USSR from the 1950s to the 1970s. When the Soviets proved to be a pathetic challenger, the time came for Japan, the "rising sun." Japan's challenge was dismissed before the end of the 20th century. However, this was not a cause of distress for students of power transitions, now they had China.As I have showed elsewhere, (7) serious contemplation cannot but conclude that there is little use for the kind of futurology contest that this literature has turned into. Of course, the central question then is: acknowledging that this is a topic that should be seriously studied, how can the discipline go forward?Diversifying the questions we have been asking is one way. For example, the problématique should be not so much what will happen when a state rises, or even which are the states currently rising, but why have so many states failed to rise -a necessary(!) counterpart to understand the deep reasons for "successful" rises. Working on the "rise of the West" in a comparative-civilizational line, Jack Goldstone comments on the tendency to uncritically accept a "winner" bias: "Because all too often, we view world history in terms of 'winners' and 'losers,' elevate to prominence much in the 'winners'' history, and obscure or lose sight of similar items in the history of retrospective 'losers'." (8) Until we have a good grasp of why the great-powers-that-could-have-been -or as I call it elsewhere, "failed rises"- (9) follow different trajectories from those considered "successful" rises (while sharing similar departure points) our understanding of rises, declines and hegemony will stay worryingly incomplete.On the other hand, increasing the complexity in the concept of hegemony (and thus, of power) promises to be a profitable enterprise. And here is where Gramsci enters the scene.The most convincing Gramscian in International Relations theory has defined the Italian's concept of hegemony in the following way:"Antonio Gramsci used the concept of hegemony to express a unity between objective material forces and ethico-political ideas in Marxian terms, a unity of structure and superstructure- in which power based on dominance over production is rationalized through an ideology incorporating compromise or consensus between dominant and subordinate groups…. A hegemonial structure of world order is one in which power takes a primarily consensual form…"(10) One of Gramsci's biggest challenges was how to devise the creation of a new hegemony in Western Europe –that is, an alternative to western capitalism/democracy. The classical methods of frontal and violent attack, essence of the Russian Revolution, or what Gramsci calls "war of movement," were of no use in the West. While it was just a government that the Bolsheviks had to overthrow in order to install a new regime, the proto-Modern Princes (i.e. Communist Parties) in Western Europe would have to confront a much more robust complex represented in the formula "civil society plus state." In this context a "war of position" would be the best option. The core of this notion is that, confronted to such a resilient organization, one must win the battle from within; create a new hegemony before taking power. According to Gramsci: "A social group can and indeed must, already 'lead' before winning governmental power (this indeed is one of the principal conditions for the winning of such power)"(p. 47, Prison Notebooks). A simple power battle -a new October 1917- was not enough. This is why Cox talks about a "consensual form" and the primacy of ideology.Going from mainstream IR "thin" to a "thicker" version of hegemony (using Geertzian concepts in a slightly unorthodox way) would problematize the issue of rises and declines in interesting ways.To begin with, the preeminent place currently occupied in the literature by rates of growth would seem laughable to Gramsci. (11) Both in the analysis/futurology of possible challengers to US hegemony and for the more general dynamics of rises and declines -see especially the libraries of (naïve?) scholarly and journalistic production on the so-called "BRICS". Even if these trajectories of growth could be accurately predicted (a dubious assumption), inferring a new international historic bloc or a new great powers configuration would depend on a leap of faith. Extrapolating Gramsci's historicism, it could be argued that an essentially material account of power might have been plausible during, let's say, Habsburg preeminence in the 16th and part of the 17th centuries. This has not been the case for a long time. Just as Gramsci devised a qualitative change in European politics, in which civil-society/state and ideas/material-forces were inevitably intertwined, there is case to make that the present international order is too complex to be seen just through ratios of economic growth and other material variables. (12) A counter-hegemon would need to do much more than surpass the US materially (however this is defined). But the point is also that the general phenomenon of the rise of great powers is likewise much more complex than devising future scenarios under the bewilderment generated by the BRIC's growth rates. Several paths follow the critique of "thin" hegemony. One is to give a more relevant place to discourse, recognition and legitimacy. Achieving great power status or building a hegemonic order is in many ways a discursive affair. In the 19th century recognition as a great power might have been identified by, inter alia, studying who participated in the diplomatic arena as a legitimate great power –e.g. who was sitting as a peer at the table during the Congress of Vienna. This discursive dynamic is probably more complex nowadays –e.g. who is identified in the cover of the Economist as "rising"- but is still an essential element and it should be studied carefully.(13) In a word, achieving a certain status in world politics is not the automatic effect of material variations but the recognition by an Other(s) that a political unit has become part of a particular club or class because, among other things, such a variation in material capabilities has occurred. This mutual empowerment aspect could also be useful in explaining the aforementioned phenomenon of "failed rises" (the development of this idea, however, must be saved for another occasion).It should be clear that this is also a call to historicize the sources of power. Since, as Gramsci assumed, hegemony –but any order in general- changes its basic attributes and dynamics with time, likewise the variables that explain how agents interact with those structures should also change. Social scientists tend to be weak against the temptation to over-generalize; a Gramscian outlook could work as an antidote to the follies inherent in the excesses committed in the name of social scientific "laws."Another interesting possibility lies in the elucidation of the resilience American hegemony seems to be presenting. Neorealism has been left in an uncomfortable place under the unwillingness of American preeminence to give place to a multipolar or bipolar world (since unipolarity is an anomaly for neorealist theory). A "thick" notion of hegemony would help explain this. Even if material change is continuously going on, "thick" hegemony, as explained before, does not depend exclusively on it. There is an ideological aspect that reinforces path dependence trajectories that might turn hegemony more resilient even when the US might be losing ground in terms of its material preeminence (this could be paired with neoliberalism's focus on institutions as central to an hegemon and its order). Hegemonic path dependence does not mean that we have arrived to the "end of History and the last Hegemony", to paraphrase an excessively well-known title. It is, however, an acknowledgment that change in international politics is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon.* * * * * * It is certainly possible that one day –probably a long time from now- China will replace the US as the most powerful state, eventually –but not necessarily- building a new international order. It is also possible that the "BRICS" (or any other creation from the armies of acronym-chasers) will rise to great power status conforming a multipolar world. The problem is that it is also very possible that 30 years from now no one will remember the "rise of China" or the "rise of the BRICS." These are unknowns we cannot escape. As with "Japan's rise" in the 1980s, the infinite paper, ink, and time wasted could end up in the most embarrassing dustbin in the history of the discipline. This should not be interpreted as a call to stop studying these dynamics, but as an emphatic request to critically think about the best way(s) to do this. Though engaging in futurology is definitely the correct approach if the goal is selling books and being published in well-known journals, I argue that the best way to do this if the purpose is building knowledge is: a) increasing the complexity in the use of variables and concepts such as power, hegemony, rise and decline, etc. b) avoiding a "winner bias" and understanding the cases of "failed rises", c) historicizing structural dynamics and properties and the sources that explain how agents interact with those structures, d) engaging with history in the search for clues on how to think about the present and not in an attempt to come up with historical "laws", e) finally, and probably the most important, accepting the complex nature of profound change in international politics instead of escaping to the triteness of futurology that rather than educating fosters misunderstanding. (1) This is not an unprecedented line of work. There is a substantive body of scholarly work on Gramscian IPE. It must be said, however, that I will not attempt to engage in a rigorous Gramscian analysis of international relations, but just use some of his ideas as building blocks.(2) Gramsci, Antonio, Selections From the Prison Notebooks, International Publishers, New York, 2010.(3) See: Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge University Press, 1981; Organski, A.F.K. and Jacek Kugler, The War Ledger, Chicago University Press, 1980; and Kennedy, Paul, The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, Vintage, 1989.(4) Though some argue that it is the fear of the hegemon to lose its current position that brings about hegemonic war.(5) Nota bene: Aron worked on the concept of hegemonic war as part of his studies on "total war", and not in the transition framework. This point is pertinent since he should not be included in the group of scholars conforming this literature –being his oeuvre of a sophistication and scope not matched by them.(6) Interview at The Browser, available online: http://thebrowser.com/interviews/john-gray-on-critiques-utopia-and-apocalypse(7) Castro, Guzmán, "Measuring the Future: Rises, Failed Power Transitions and the Problem of Systemic Change," unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania, 2011.(8) Goldstone, Jack, "The Rise of the West – or Not? A Revision to Socio-economic History", Sociological Theory, 18:2, July 2000.(9) Castro, Guzmán, "The (Intellectual) Costs of Hegemony: Hegemonic Bias and the Poverty of the Theories of Systemic Change," unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania, 2012.(10) Robert Cox cited in Keohane, After Hegemony, Princeton University Press, 1984, p. 44.(11) See here to laugh with Gramsci.(12) Gramsci is clear on this: "The analysis of these propositions tends, I think, to reinforce the conception of historic bloc in which precisely material forces are the content and ideologies are the form, though this disctintion between form and content has purely didactic value, since the material forces would be inconceivable historically without form and the ideologies would be individual fancies without the material forces" (p. 377).(13) There is some encouraging new work on the subject. See: Zarakol, Ayse, After Defeat: How the East Learned to Live with the West, Cambridge UP, 2011, and Suzuki Shogo, "Seeking 'Legitimate' Great Power Status in Post-Cold War International Society: China's and Japan's Participation in UNPKO," International Relations, 2008 22: 45.Sobre el autorProfessor, Ph.D. student.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Pennsylvania.

República Federal AlemanaLa República Federal Alemana es una república democrática, representativa, parlamentaria y federal, compuesta por 16 Estados. El parlamento es bicameral. El Bundestag o Asamblea Federal posee 598 miembros y el Bundesrat o Consejo Federal posee 69. El Poder Ejecutivo es ejercido por el Canciller Federal que es el Jefe de Gobierno.El país mantiene altos índices en materia de Estado de Derecho:Estado de derecho en Alemania(1)Observamos como en una perspectiva histórica de 15 años, los valores concernientes al Estado de Derecho se ubican en una posición constante de un percentil 94/100, lo que nos habla de un elevado índice de garantías políticas. Siguiendo a Bobbio, quién se funda en los principios de la ley natural de Locke, podemos afirmar en este caso la existencia de un verdadero imperio de la ley. La sociedad se compone de un 91.1% de alemanes, un 2,3% de turcos y kurdos, 0,7% de personas provenientes de la ex Yugoslavia, 0,7% de italianos, 0,4% de griegos y bosnios y 0,2% de gitanos. (2) En cuanto a religión, predominan la católica con un 33% y la protestante con un 32%, existiendo a su vez minorías judías y musulmanas (6% de la población). (3)Alemania ha sido escenario de abundantes inmigraciones, las cuales dejaron como consecuencia principal una serie de minorías que no pasaron desapercibidas a lo largo de su historia. En este sentido, es el tercer país en materia de recepción de migrantes. Una posible razón a este fenómeno es su posición liberal ante el asilo político que el Estado ha predicado desde siempre –incluso actualmente- ya que en el artículo 16a de su Constitución dispone que "todo perseguido político goza de derecho de asilo en Alemania". (4) Es interesante observar en este punto como el principio de defensa de los derechos inalienables del individuo poseen una implícita primacía por sobre los conceptos de Estado y nación. Es este un elemento que sustenta la intención de defender las garantías políticas de todo individuo que se vea privado de las mismas, aún cuando careciere de la nacionalidad alemana. Observamos entonces como subyace el principio filosófico de la teoría liberal de Locke. Destacamos, por otra parte, que en la actualidad Alemania es uno de los países europeos que más dificulta la inmigración –en circunstancias distintas a las previamente mencionadas- y la expedición de su nacionalidad. Dado la enorme complejidad de la persecución que históricamente han sufrido las minorías en Alemania, nos limitaremos a mencionar las cifras del holocausto llevado a cabo por el régimen Nazi: 11 millones de víctimas, de las que 6 millones eran ciudadanos polacos. Asimismo, además de los 6 millones de judíos, hubo 5 millones que incluían a afro-europeos, Testigos de Jehovah, discapacitados, homosexuales, gitanos, sacerdotes y líderes cristianos y perseguidos políticos opositores al sistema. (5) Destacamos este hecho histórico no sólo por la enorme relevancia que tiene en materia de Derechos Humanos y por constituir una atrocidad que ha calado hondo en la percepción del mundo sobre los alcances de la naturaleza humana, sino –y a los efectos de nuestro análisis- para plantear la evidente consecuencia de este fenómeno en nuestros tiempos. Persiste en la sociedad y gobierno alemán una suerte de cargo de conciencia, profundizado por el saberse moralmente reprobado y vigilado por el mundo entero. Esto obliga a tener una profunda y particular consideración para con el trato de las minorías en su país. Paso seguido, ¿Cuál es el papel de las minorías en términos de participación política? El sistema de representación alemán determina que sólo aquellos partidos "receiving more than 5% of the vote are represented in parliament in proportion to their vote." (6) En este sentido observamos su evidente consecuencia: "El establecimiento de dicho umbral logró reducir la oportunidad de representación de los partidos pequeños." (7) Esto obliga a generar un sistema de gobierno de coalición donde las minorías –que exceptuando a la suma de judíos y musulmanes no superan en ninguno de los casos el 5%- sólo podrían verse representados en función de negociaciones con los grandes partidos, donde su influencia o poder de imposición sería escaso –por no considerarlo nulo en términos relativos. El problema se ve incrementado por el escaso porcentaje de extranjeros nacionalizados y, por ende, poseyentes de derechos políticos. "Only a third of Turks have become German citizens, in part because dual citizenship is not allowed." (8) Esto, de acuerdo a la teoría del gobierno representativo de John Stuart Mill, caería dentro de lo que podría considerarse una deficiencia del sistema de representación. Sin embargo, queremos destacar que aún a pesar de lo que las cifras llevan a inducir, los resultados de las elecciones del 2005 determinan que "there were at least eight members of ethnic minorities in the Bundestag and one on the Federal Constitutional Court, but none in the cabinet." (9) Lo que nos habla de un sistema de representación que en cierta medida pudiere estar funcionando en la práctica. Otro problema radica en la pobre integración –particularmente de los turcos- ya que, como es señalado en un artículo The Economist, la población joven desconoce el alemán e intensifica sus prácticas religiosas –distantes a la tradición cristiana alemana- careciendo muchas veces, como señalábamos previamente, de la nacionalidad. Eso, producto también de las mayores trabas existentes para obtener la ciudadanía, en parte porque, como indica el artículo, "immigrants are welcome, but you also have to get to know our culture, says Wolfgang Schäuble, the interior minister, who rejects the growth of parallel societies." (10) En cierto sentido, buscando distanciarse de las llamadas falsas promesas de la democracia planteada por Bobbio. Esta es una de las causas de la complicada situación que persiste en materia de Derechos Humanos para con las minorías extranjeras (debidamente protegidas por la constitución alemana en su artículo 3 (11)), donde"harassment, including beatings, of foreigners and racial minorities remained a frequent problem throughout the country." (12) En relación a micro grupos operando organizadamente en materia de persecución política, el Departamento de Estado de los Estados Unidos sostiene que "the FCO defines politically motivated crimes as offenses related to the victims' ideology, nationality, ethnicity, race, skin color, religion, worldview, ancestry, sexual orientation, disability status, appearance, or social status. The FOPC report listed 180 right wing extremist organizations and groups." (13) Sin embargo, es necesario remarcar que el país se destaca por sus bajos índices de violencia y su buena estabilidad política (14): Estabilidad política y ausencia de violencia en Alemania (15) En esta línea, The Freedom House (16) posiciona a Alemania en un puntaje de 1 (valor que representa la escala máxima de libertad) en materia de libertades civiles y políticas. En su análisis se destaca particularmente el buen funcionamiento de las instituciones democráticas y el Estado de Derecho, aunque sugiere también un llamado de atención en materia de ataques a minorías étnicas y en lo que respecta a ciertas restricciones a la participación política: "Political pluralism in Germany has been constrained by laws restricting the far left and far right." (17) En lo que al Poder Judicial respecta, observamos que prevalece una estricta independencia amparada en la misma constitución, estableciendo explícitamente en su artículo 97 que "los jueces son independientes y están sometidos únicamente a la ley." (18) Esto, sumado a que "the government is free of pervasive corruption" (19) nos habla un funcionamiento democrático que se aleja en buena medida de las falsas promesas a la democracia planteadas en la teoría de Bobbio. En materia de libertad de expresión, también The Freedom House (20) ubica a Alemania entre los países considerados libres. Esto se fundamenta en su Constitución, donde se establece explícitamente en su artículo 5 que "No se ejercerá censura." (21) El análisis de The Freedom House lo posiciona como poseyente de una prensa diversa e independiente. Asimismo, dicho derecho se ve respaldado en el artículo 10 (22) de la European Convention on Human Right, considerado en Alemania ley federal. Por último, se observa que "Germany's government is accountable through open debates in parliament that are covered widely covered in the media" (23), indicios de una aproximación al debate público que pudiere dar origen a una suerte de democracia deliberativa. Sin embargo, pensamos que a la luz de la eficacia que en definitiva parecieran tener las instituciones democráticas en Alemania, sugerimos que quizá dicho camino democrático no sería –a la fecha- necesario.Estudio comparado Entendemos que en buena medida el estudio de cada uno de los casos ha permitido al lector generar una suerte de deducción en materia comparativa. Sin embargo, consideramos necesario remarcar algunos puntos del análsis comparativo e incorporar algunos detalles que pudieren servir en esta materia. Observamos entonces, en una primera lectura, cómo los indicadores marcan una importante diferencia en los factores que hacen a la gobernabilidad, inclinándose decididamente en favor de Alemania. Como estudiamos en cada caso, la posición de cada país en el Indice de Estado de Derecho elaborado por el Programa de Gobernabilidad del Banco Mundial ha sido debidamente estipulado. Mientras Turquía se posiciona en una escala media, Alemania prevalece en un percentil cercano al 100. Una situación similar se da en el Indice de Rendición de Cuentas, donde Alemania se encuentra por encima de 95/100 y Turquia por debajo de 50/100. Aquí, las respectivas Constituciones nos informan sobre el tratamiento en la materia: por un lado, Turquía mantiene un vocabulario amplio y vago que deviene en un Parlamento fuerte y centralizado, con posibilidad de ejercer presión sobre las instituciones en teoría independientes (por ejemplo, el Poder Jucidial y Consejo Supremo de Radio y Televisión) al tiempo que la arbitrariedad en materia de libertades fundamentales limita toda posibilidad de mecanismos de contralor o rendición de cuentas. Por su parte, en Alemania impera una Constitución clara y contundente, que garantiza tanto la independencia indiscutida de las instituciones como los mecanismos que determinan la efectividad en la rendición de cuentas. Por otro lado, nos remitimos al indicador más contundente en materia comparativa: el Indice de Estabilidad Política (Alemania alcanza 80/100 y Turquia 20/100). No profundizaremos particularmente en este concepto, porque entendemos ha sido debidamente considerado en cada uno de los estudios de caso. Sin embargo, es posible relacionar este indicador con lo que ocurre en materia de libertades y participación política.Por último, nos detenemos en lo que hace al control de la corrupción, elemento que incide notablemente en muchas de las falsas promesas propuestas por Bobbio. Aquí, Alemania obtien 90/100 y Turquia mejora su dsempeno relativo, alcanzando un indicador de 60/100. La enorme distancia que prevalece también en este sentido da fe del difícil camino que tiene Turquía por delante si se plantea seriamente reformar la efectividad de sus instituciones para generar un clima político acorde a su vecino europeo. Sólo de este modo podría garantizar las libertades fundamentales de todos los individuos que conforman su sociedad. Finalmente, en materia de libertad de expresión nos encontramos ante una Turquía que genera especial preocupación, particularmente en el trato con las minorías. Esto permite realizar una lectura entre líneas que determina la situación de persecución en que dicha población se encuentra, tal como ha sido estudiado con antelación.Consideraciones Finales La evidente distancia en materia de instituciones democráticas, Estado de Derecho y tratamiento de las minorías entre la República Federal Alemana y la República de Turquía dan fe de las dificultades que en definitiva enfrenta esta última ante la posibilidad de su eventual incorporación a la Unión Europea. Pareciere que Alemania ha asumido las lecciones del pasado en materia de protección de las libertades liberales, al tiempo que el camino emprendido por Turquía en la materia no parece estar dando los resultados esperados. Nos posicionamos, en este sentido, ante una Alemania libre y de instituciones independientes, con un clima político que posibilita un alto grado de inclusión, al menos desde la conformación de coaliciones políticas. Por otro lado, Turquía permanece en una posición de centralismo que limita enormemente la eficacia a la hora de garantizar la independencia de sus instituciones y las libertades de sus individuos. En un clima de alta corrupción, las falsas promesas de Bobbio afloran en una Turquía con una Constitución más asemejada a los procederes estipulados por Rousseau que a las libertades individuales articuladas por Locke, sin siquiera preservar el rousseauniano idealismo teórico a la hora de la procura de una voluntad generaldesinteresada e independiente. Con un vocabulario amplio y vago, la arbitrariedad es introducida de modo legal, coartando las libertades individuales que son consideradas fundamentales –e incluso previas al Estado- en la concepción liberal. Alemania, aún con algunas señales preocupantes en el trato de la población a las minorías étnicas, carece de estas penetrantes limitaciones que limitan a la democracia y oprimen a las minorías. El estudio comparado refleja una Turquía distante y ajena a los principios democrático-liberales en que está embebida Alemania, distancia que repercute directamente en las condiciones de vida y participación política de sus respectivas minorías. Una eventual Europa que incluyera a ambos gigantes sentiría en sus miembros la palpable distinción que persiste entre un individuo siervo, y un individuo en pleno ejercicio de su libertad. (1) WORLD BANK. (2) Valores aproximados: GUÍA DEL MUNDO: (3) GUÍA DEL MUNDO: (4) LEY FUNDAMENTAL DE LA REPÚBLICA FEDERAL DE ALEMANIA. (5) HOLOCAUST FORGOTTEN.(6) NEW ZEALAND ELECTION STUDIE. (7) Descripción del sistema de Representación Proporcional Mixto en Alemania. .pag 13(8) The Economist. 2007.(9) U.S. DEPATRTMENT OF STATE. 2008.(10) The Economist. 2007. (11) LEY FUNDAMENTAL DE LA REPÚBLICA FEDERAL DE ALEMANIA. (12) U.S. DEPATRTMENT OF STATE. 2008. (13) Íbid.(14) Debido a los antecedentes, los casos de violencia son tratados con especial cuidado, lo que no determina necesariamente que la violencia sea sistemática o que mantenga índices extravagantes.(15) WORLD BANK. (16) FREEDOM HOUSE.2005. (17) FREEDOM HOUSE.2005.(18) LEY FUNDAMENTAL DE LA REPÚBLICA FEDERAL DE ALEMANIA. (21) LEY FUNDAMENTAL DE LA REPÚBLICA FEDERAL DE ALEMANIA. (22) CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS. 1950. (23) FREEDOM HOUSE.2005. *Estudiantes de la Licenciatura en Estudios Internacionales, FACS - Universidad ORT Uruguay.AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL. Informe 2011: El Estado de los Derechos Humanos en el Mundo. Disponible en internet: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL. Turquía: libertad de expresión. Disponible en internet: ANMESTY INTERNATIONAL. 2007. Informe 2007: el estado de los derechos humanos en el mundo. Disponible en internet: BOBBIO, Norberto. 1986. Fondo de Cultura económica. México D.F. CENTRO DE INVESTIGACION Y DOCENCIA PARA AMÉRICA LATINA Y MEDIO ORIENTE. Los Kurdos en Turquía. Disponible en internet: CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS. 1950. Disponible en internet: DAHL, Robert. 1989. Un prefacio a la teoría democrática. Argentina: Grupo Editor Latinoamericano.DERECHO CONSTITUCIONAL TURCO. 1982. Constitución de la República de Turquía. Disponible en internet : Descripción del sistema de Representación Proporcional Mixto en Alemania. Disponible en internet: EL MUNDO EN LÍNEA. Pueblos sin Estado: los kurdos, una nación partida sobre pozos de petróleo.Disponible en internet: EXTRA, Guus; GORTER, Durk (2001). The other languages of Europe: Demographic, Sociolinguistic and Educational Perspectives. Multilingual MattersFEDERACIO D´ASSOCIACIONS GITANES DE CATALUNYA. Proyecto Europeo. Disponible en internet: FIGUEROA, Manuel Ruiz. 2007. El islam y Occidente desde América Latina. México. FREEDOM HOUSE. 2005. Map of freedom in the world: Germany. Disponible en internet: FREEDOM HOUSE.2005. Map of press freedom. Disponible en Internet: FREEDOM HOUSE.2005. Country Report: Turkey. Disponible en internet: GLOBAL SECURITY. Military. Disponible en internet: GUÍA DEL MUNDO. 2007. Disponible en internet: GÜRBEY, Gülistan. 1996, The Kurdish Nationalist Movement in Turkey since the 1980s. Lexington, Ky. : University Press of Kentucky.HABERMAS, Jürgen. 1999. La inclusión del otro: estudios de teoría política. Barcelona: Paidós. HOLOCAUST FORGOTTEN. Holocaust: Non-Jewish Victims. Disponible en internet: La enseñanza del idioma kurdo en Turquía : una reivindicación legítima y justa.2010. Disponible en internet: LA INSIGNIA. 2005. Derechos Humanos. Turquía: AI pide la derogación del artículo 301 del Código Penal. Disponible en internet: LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE. El Atlas III. Un mundo al revés. De la hegemonía occidental al poli-centrismo. Capital intelectual. 2009. LEY FUNDAMENTAL DE LA REPÚBLICA FEDERAL DE ALEMANIA. Disponible en internet: LOCKE, John. 1664. La ley de la naturaleza. Madrid: Editorial tecnos.MILL, John Stuart. 1985. Del gobierno representativo. Madrid:Tecnos. Minorities in Germany: The integration dilemma. 2007. En: The Economist. Disponible en internet: NACIONES UNIDAS. Declaración de los Derechos Humanos. Preámbulo. Disponible en internet: NEW ZEALAND ELECTION STUDIE. Minority Representation, Empowerment,NEWSWEEK. The World`s Best Countries. Diponible en internet: NÚÑEZ DE PRADO, Sara. Minorías nacionales y medios de comunicación: una visión de Europa. Disponible en internet: PETTIGREW, Thomas: "Reactions toward the New Minorities of Western Europe". Annual Review of Sociology. Vol. 24, 1998.ROUSSEAU, Jean-Jacques. El contrato social o principios de derecho político. Editorial tecnos. 1988, original en 1762. Madrid. Traducción de María José Villaverde. Pág. 34.THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY. Disponible en internet: TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL. Corruption Perceptions Index 2005. Disponible en internet: U.S. DEPATRTMENT OF STATE. 2008. Humans Right Report: Germany. Disponible en internet: VELASCO, Juan Carlos (2009). Democracia y deliberación pública. Confluencia XXI. Revista de Pensamiento Político. México.WAGMAN, Daniel. Integración e inmigración. Disponible en internet: http://www.fongdcam.org/manuales/educacionintercultural/datos/docs/ActoresyEscenarios/Actores/GrupoSociales/IntegracioneInmigracionT67.pdfWHITE, Jenny B. : "Turks in the New Germany". American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol 99, número 4, Diciembre 1997. WORLD BANCK. Country Data Report for TURKEY, 1996-2009. Disponible en internet: WORLD BANK. Country Data Report for GERMANY, 1996-2009. Disponible en internet: ZERAOUI, Zidane. 2000. El dilema Kurdo. Editorial Limusa S.A

Having reached the mark of 2,118 delegates, Barack Obama has gone from candidate in the closest head-to-head primary ever to presumptive nominee. Appropriately, he will accept the nomination at the August convention in Denver, on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. This is political history in the making: he is the first African-American to be the head of the presidential ticket of a major party. After years of angst and self doubt, there is a renewed optimism on the street, and a whole new group of voters has been mobilized. However, Obama, who has run on a message of hope and change, faces an extremely difficult path ahead. His vulnerabilities have become apparent in the succession of events over the last few weeks of this long primary season.He lost nine of the last fourteen primaries, including South Dakota, where he was favored (55% to 45%), and Puerto Rico (68% to 42%); he has had to cut ties with his Church due to its radicalism and anti-establishment stance, and, one day after Obama claimed the nomination, one of his top fund-raisers was found guilty of wire fraud and money laundering in a federal court in Chicago. Now his campaign will have to overcome this dry patch and move forward to the greater challenge, that of defeating McCain. His next task at hand is to choose a vice-president, and this, too, poses a serious dilemma.In the first place, Hillary Rodham-Clinton took five days to acknowledge defeat, giving cause for some speculation that she is pressing for the vice-presidential spot with the implied threat that she will continue fighting all the way to the convention. She has the right to do so, if we consider the fact that she has won all of the big states and probably a larger number of the popular vote (around 18 million). And, as she not so humbly claims, she is the more experienced candidate who could better stand up to McCain. On the other hand, there is great concern that Barack's image as the unconventional, charismatic, post-modern Washington outsider will be damaged if he chooses her. So the decision will require reflection, pondering and a lot of vetting interviews of alternative candidates.Much ink will be spent in speculating why Hillary lost the primary. Here, I will just offer a few reflections, leaving the second guessing of the way her campaign was run to those who will manically analyze every decision taken, every tactic used, every gesture, every word, and will have their eureka moments when finding the flaw, the error, the underestimation that brought her down. And yet, quite often fate, luck and other imponderables irrevocably determine the outcome of a narrow race, regardless of the brilliant strategies of the campaign managers, advisers and other experts. It has already been said that Rodham Clinton started her campaign as the inevitable candidate, as the incumbent, and that her sense of entitlement turned many voters away. At the same time, her main message was one of change, of moving forward, of undoing the Bush legacy, but Obama co-opted that message, and he was much more convincing as an agent of change. Hillary began her campaign running not as a woman, but as the most hardened and experienced, candidate that would deliver both peace and prosperity to all Americans. Obama ran from the beginning as the post-racial candidate and this theme remained constant throughout his campaign. She was trying to woo independents and disaffected Republicans and had thus to prove that she was as tough as John McCain. Obama had no intention of treading down that path, which he derided as part of the Washington game. Instead, he stuck fearlessly to his convictions. It was this independent streak, his absolute confidence in the soundness of his cool, post-modern world vision that was irresistible to the young voters. This should not obfuscate the fact that both ran historic campaigns and have unremittingly shattered the barriers of gender and race in American politics at the highest level. Still, the promise of change was more credible when pledged by the young unknown than by the seasoned insider. With no substantial philosophical differences between the two, the richer contrast was all inspiration and charisma versus politics as usual.First of all, we need to consider a fundamental fact: even if the media and their respective campaigns have played up the differences between the two candidates, their basic policy choices and ideologies are one and the same. From health care to fiscal policy, from education to foreign policy, there may be some minimal disagreements but they both share the basic ideology of more equitable economic distribution, protection of civil rights and overall tolerance toward others that typify Democrats in the United States. Some observers may bring up Hillary's vote in favor of the Iraqi invasion of 2003 as evidence of an important disagreement, and also a cause of her loss of popularity in the early stages of the campaign. That certainly did her harm, which is ironic because, in academic and political circles alike, few believe it represents her real conviction. As a Senator for New York and a future presidential candidate, she carefully chose to vote in favor of a war that, in October 2002, had a high rate of approval among the population, who had clearly bought the Republican idea that the invasion "over there" would make us safer "over here". At the time, she hedged that gamble against the fact that "there was enough evidence" Saddam was piling up WMDs, which had little to do with 9-11 and Al Qaeda. But a scared populace is an easy target for deception and false reassurances. Intent on proving her masculine toughness on security issues, she fell into the Republican trap. Five years down the road, this carefully measured decision came back to haunt her, and the controversy over that vote generated an enormous surge of support for Obama that might have created the momentum that helped him win the early contests, namely, the Iowa caucuses and the wins of February 5th. This momentum, coupled with the televised debates, proved he was a worthy, viable candidate; it brought the media to his side and attracted new voters. He irradiated a cool self-assurance, a subdued charm, an understated intelligence that was indeed enchanting to young voters, to black voters and to hard core Democrats tired of the vitriol of Washington. The country, it seemed, was ready for Obama. His timing was impeccable and had the effect of making Rodham-Clinton look tired, strident and blasé. The media had found its golden boy and started treating Hillary as the intruder, who would do anything to prevent a new Camelot.After his initial sweep, Hillary slowly started to recover and as the campaign progressed, her message became more focused and she found her voice. She switched strategies and, from being the more experienced candidate that would deliver peace and prosperity to all Americans, she turned back to her traditional constituencies, namely, women and blue-collar workers. Speaking to her strengths, namely, her devotion to public service and her familiarity with the intricacies of policy-making, she became a great communicator that invariably connected with her audiences. And she started winning again.Even those that dislike her have to acknowledge her skills as a campaigner, her endurance and poise under tremendous pressure and, more importantly, her dramatic recovery of the popular vote towards the end of the campaign, which made her claim to bring this battle to the convention quite legitimate. Her wins in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, as well as her immense support in the Hispanic community as shown by the Puerto Rican vote, cannot be discounted by the party when it looks ahead to the national election in November.One should bear in mind that these primaries were the closest contest in primary history, and in spite of having the whole media establishment against her from the beginning, Hillary did not at any time show signs of faltering or self-doubt and never allowed herself to make the road easier for Obama. She stayed on message, speaking to the issues, proving she was ready to become the first woman president. Both her competency and her warmth gained her a huge following. But once she lost the media she also started losing the super-delegates from inside the party. One after the other, the big names in the party started lining up behind Obama: Tom Daschle, Ted and Caroline Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Bill Richardson, and towards the end, even John Edwards.This took many by surprise, and is related to another phenomenon that very few had perceived before: the animosity that the Clintons, especially Bill, provoke from within the party itself. Although Bill and Hillary are the most powerful brand name in the Democratic Party, there is a surprising amount of anger against them that had remained latent till now. Bill Clinton's harsh remarks in South Carolina primary astonished many and may have hurt her campaign, reinforcing the perception that the Clintons would do anything, even play the race card, in order to win the White House.Then there was the question of demographics and identity politics. Although Rodham-Clinton attempted to run as the candidate for all, after the first losses and as she increasingly won the vote of women and blue collar workers, she turned to her natural constituencies. She started running as a woman and as the champion of the working class. In her new more populist persona, she also won among Jews, Catholics and rural workers. Obama did best among college educated youth, intellectuals and black voters. In other words, they both win the identity vote. Identity has come up often during the campaign, and not in a positive way. Irate at the way the media were treating Hillary and indulging Obama especially in interviews (there was even a sketch in Saturday Night Live that parodied this noticeable difference), Geraldine Ferraro accused the media of sexism and went as far as saying that Obama would not be treated with so much deference if he was a white man. After disproportionate outcry by the media and the public, Clinton had to fire Ferraro as her advisor. Thus, bringing up sexism completely backfired for Hillary.The irony once again, is that Identity Politics is most likely the prism through which both Hillary and Obama, see America: as a society divided by categories of class, gender, race, ethnicity and sexual preference. His as well as her policies are informed by this view. But Obama skillfully downplays it and tries to portray himself as the candidate for all Americans who want change and are tired of Washington politics. He does not deny that race and gender play a role in politics but prefers not to bring it up since it is "not productive". His strategy has paid off so far, but this topic will certainly be revisited in the national election. Due to his background and life experience, McCain has a very different view based on patriotism and service to the country, on individual responsibility and a common civic culture. He will find a way to turn the notion of Identity Politics against Obama, who, in spite of his unifying message, often speaks about redressing balances and ending injustice.Finally, the closeness of the race and the resilience of these two formidable candidates were again in display towards its end, and led to a new critical stage. The momentum that had carried Obama through the early and middle stages started to weaken. As time went by, more scrutiny brought up the issue of his membership in a radical Black Liberation Theology Church, the (inane) fact that he did not wear a US flag pin on his lapel (a symbol of patriotism that became particularly important after 9-11, when even academics came under no small degree of peer pressure to wear one), and this past week, the conviction by a Chicago federal jury of former fund-raiser and friend, Antoin Retzko.As momentum weakened, and as Clinton seemed to resurrect and come closer to Obama in the delegate count, party rules regarding delegate selection became more important . Because in most primaries there has been an early front-runner, and because the last primary contest that had to be taken all the way to the convention without a presumptive nominee was in 1976, very few party leaders and even fewer journalists are aware of the rules. As they began to play out, we were all submitted to a crash course on these intra-party rules. The Democratic Party has a centralized structure, so all states play by the same rules, and its selection system is based on proportional representation, the most democratic form of representation: within each state, any candidate that reaches a threshold of 15% of votes is allocated delegates proportionally to the vote. This, while it is better for representation, tends to prolong the race and make it closer. While Clinton was recovering and making important gains, Obama still continued to pick up a few delegates here and there, and the media kept its constant drum roll in his favor. Super-delegates were swayed to his side, irrevocably. In contrast, Republicans have a decentralized structure so that each state establishes its own rules, and most choose a winner-take-all selection system. This system, while less democratic and representative, enabled them to have a clear winner by March, with all the advantages that that entails.This year a very peculiar situation arose out of Michigan and Florida, where the state governments scheduled the primaries too early, in breach of the Democratic Party rules, so the Democratic National Committee determined they would not seat their delegates. There were 313 delegates at stake. Obama withdrew his name from the ballot in Michigan, and did not campaign in Florida. Clinton won both. At that time nobody thought this issue would become decisive for the nomination, but in such a close race, it certainly did. Last weekend the DNC met with representative so both sides and settled on a formula that allocated delegates to both in a very non-scientific way. It gave each of those delegated half a vote at the convention. While the formula was accepted by both sides, it has been perceived as a bonus for Obama, whose name was not even on the ballot in Michigan and yet he still got delegates allocated. This may still come up again at the National Convention in August. Many factors have thus combined to make Obama the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. In addition to momentum and rules we should also consider the fortunate pairing of Obama to the spirit of the times. The timing for an unconventional candidate could not have been better, and he emerged as the prophetic leader the times demanded. His demeanor, his background, and his non-assuming attitude, all make for the perfect post-modern candidate. The public embraced him and the media anointed him. Now, the question still remains, is his "gift of grace" strong enough to unify America? Can he summon the support he needs to win a national election? Given the complex electoral system based on state votes and an electoral college, and not on the popular vote, can he win the major states and the swing states?Here is where the selection of a vice-president becomes crucial.There is a big movement both from the grassroots and from Clintonites inside the party (yes, there are still some left!) to pressure Obama to pick Hillary as running mate. There are of course, both huge advantages and dismal disadvantages for Obama to ponder in his selection. His first consideration must be to win the election, but he also needs to be able to govern, once he wins.Hillary would bring in those votes that have eluded Obama: mature women, blue collar, rural. Seventy-six of her supporters want her to be Vice-president. She energizes audiences and has won the hearts of all those groups above-mentioned. They feel very strongly about her place in History and demand respect for their candidate. Some may not even come out to vote if Obama's ticket does not include her. She would also help win the big states (she won them all, among them California, Texas and New York) and the swing states, noticeable among them, Ohio, that determined Bush's victory in 04. On the other hand, she does evoke the past in the minds of many voters, and she is now undoubtedly a Washington insider (in fact, her experience has been counted as both an asset and a liability in this sense). She would distort Obama's image as the unconventional candidate, and his message of change and hope may be, if not lost, at least diminished.Insofar as governing, their ideologies and policy positions are perfectly compatible, if not identical, so that would not constitute a problem. She has been studying the intricacies of policy and politics since she was a university student at Wellesley College. She is capable, efficient, convincing and tireless. She is experienced in navigating the meandering straits of policy making, and can muster bipartisan support with her well-reasoned arguments.Another often-mentioned handicap is Bill Clinton himself. With his larger than life personality, can he play prince consort? Or would he be the one that governs behind the scenes, and have his own shadow cabinet, Cheney-style? His reputation has suffered a lot lately, not any more because of that infamous blue dress but because he has not disclosed the list of donors to his library, among which there allegedly are several Middle Eastern governments. There is real vitriol against him, and that is directly transferred to Hillary.For now, both candidates seem to be catching their breaths.Hillary postponed her concession speech for as long as possible, some say to put pressure on Obama to include her in the ticket. Barack, on his part, has quietly named a vetting team for a vice-presidential search. Caroline Kennedy is among its members, as is Eric Holden, President Clinton's former attorney- general. It is headed by Jim Johnson, former Chairman of Fannie Mae, who vetted VPs for John Kerry and Walter Mondale. After exhaustive interviews and background checks, Obama will decide.In the last two months of the campaign, the pundits were prone to repeating that the "math" was against Hillary. This was a gross oversimplification of a race that was characterized by peculiar circumstances and surprises at every turn, and one which was less about math than about intangibles: momentum, media frenzy, rules, emotions, charisma and zeitgeist . In the end, however, it may all very well come down to the "math": if Barack can be convinced that he needs Hillary to win against McCain, then he will pick her as his VP and put the rest of his concerns aside. This will also heal party wounds and bring into the fold her loyal constituencies. But public opinion is fickle, politics is an inexact science and many times emotions can trump the best thought- out and scientifically devised plans. Like Sisyphus rolling the boulder up the mountain, Obama may find he has to prove himself all over again and then come out empty-handed in November.In the meantime, and just for good measure, Obama, the "transformative candidate" is now wearing a US flag pin on his lapel.Puerto Ricans do not have the right to vote in national elections due to the "associated state "status, but they can vote in primary elections.This dynamic in the relationship between momentum and rules has been pointed out in a recent article by Jason Bello and Robert Shapiro, published in the Political Science Quarterly, vol. 123 No.1 Spring 08.Super delegates are unpledged party leaders who do not have to declare their presidential preferences until balloting takes place at the ConventionSenior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia