By Julio C. Ferreira,
Compliance is the enemy of development and the jailor of freedom.”
We have been all prepared to detest quizzes, exams and tests. We simply don’t like to run the risks inherent in the search of happiness.
Accustomed to say amen to eccentricities we always save our skin by not standing up to misused power; we would rather disobey little by little without really endeavoring to fight our governors’ proverbial arbitrariness and mismanagements. In this way, laws fall into disuse, but we certainly live a national actuality which is very distant from the imposing façade of our state, which is only a fiction. Indeed, we are all sort of “outlaws”.
Concerns about the national wholeness and unity have always been the reasons for successive discontinuities in our evolutional way in search of freedom, justice and humanity.
Some politicians, along our tumultuous republican history, have never demonstrated a great democratic inclination. They hate plebiscites, referenda, and ballot boxes in general. Restatements of both electoral and political legislations are constant and often made at the last moment before the electoral periods.
Casuistry is then applied so that nothing can be really changed indeed.
We can point out theUNITED STATES OF AMERICAfor; after all, it was the political model dreamt of by the supposed idealists who expatriated the Emperor without a plebiscite, which only took place a hundred years later.
The fundamental test of theUnited Stateswas a civil war which resulted in the removal of some constitutional ambiguities as well as of social and economical differences which disunited the country. Afterwards, both the Assembly and the Executive powers were tested.
The political answer was flexibility to deal with emergencies and also a continuous improving to meet increasing necessities.
The third test took place in the economical area: a minimum but necessary regulation which should be strong and competent to harmonize capitalism and the public interest. They readily drummed up the administrative modernization: jurisdictions were honestly and boldly maintained in the states. The masterly test was the one concerning the ethical behavior adjustment of a new social conscience to the governmental environment. The constitutional structure proved not to be a hindrance at all to electoral claims.
The trash of racism, education and social work were thus gradually removed, without any constitutional reforms, which demonstrated the stability of the original foundations and the consolidation of a national unity ruled by principles, not by truculence of the Union power.
Finally, we may consider the American government’s conduct as regards its foreign policy as an incontrovertible symbol of its good-neighbor policy.
Without modifying its constitution and giving up isolationism, theUnited Statesbecame an active and preponderant participant in the international policy destinies.
Nowadays the Federal Government states has been reduced, the central deficit is being shrunk, assessment acts have been discussed and improved, and problems concerning its own survival in a new world full of urging and commercially dependent matters have been confronted with, in an age of globalization of extremely complex interests. Throughout all the transformation process of the American Society the Supreme Court has always maintained its moral supremacy, as if it were above the short term emergencies as well as long term trends.
In the twentieth century the successive courts kept on finding, through keen interpretation in the analysis of the constitution, the powers which would enable them to maneuver the deciding machines in a permanently changing world, without the arduous, slow and dubious procedures for the formal amendments. The average American holds a fascination for the historical figures that founded their federative confederation of the “independent” States. They have never feared proving it.
They are guided by the reverence for the plainness of a fundamental document for their lives, for the individual’s freedom, for the reconciliation of the ethnic and cultural diversity of the country, which assures the FEDERALIST PRINCIPLES, stability and the power of institutions. This is what the distinguished Ruy Barbosa yearned for the United States of Brazil.
However, politicians and leaders would not, however, submit themselves to the patient efforts and appraisals required by the respect for the founding constitution of 1891.
Look at the consequences!
Julio Ferreira- 512 636 2001 -Austin Tx