Next weeks ago having a debate the Izquierda Unida people, firstly in an internal list of mail, and lately in some Facebook wall, about how the UPyD irruption can affect us in the electoral panorama. In fact there are two interlaced debates, which take place in a parallel way, and with parallel positions also. In the first one of them, it is discussed about which it is going to be the electoral effect purely quantitatively, that is to say, how many votes UPyD is going to take from IU, or, rather, how it goes to distribute the representation after the UPyD appearance with a significant number of votes. The second debate is, perhaps, of more soaked: Is IU going to feel touched in changing into something his speech and his politics to try to avoid this votes diversion? Is a change of this style desirable?
The positions with clearly parallel in both debates. Some we support – well it is true than without information that support us - that yes this votes transvase is going to produce to himself, although we are not capable of determining in what quantity, while others support that such a diversion will be something purely anecdotal and punctually, because UPyD and IU are different political forces that go to different social sectors. The first ones we believe that we lose these votes because we have resigned from part of our speech and of our politics, and we must recover them, and the second ones support that there are no changes to be done, because that would be derechizar our speech to recover a few votes that in fact we do not want. Those who speak clearer say – and caricaturizo a little, although the phrase is published in a Facebook wall - that no IU voter is going to vote for «the Nazi of Rosa Díez».
It is an error, in my opinion, because leaving aside that Rosa Díez neither is a Nazi, - although it is a populist politics that personifies in itself all the vices that impute the politicians in the imaginary popular one - the political UPyD project neither is of extreme right, probably do not even be of rights, however much he insists on it. And it is not also necessary to obviate that the majority of his political speech not only is asumible for the left, but the left should never to have resigned him. And it does not mean that UPyD is of lefts, because I insist that it is a populist force that adapts his message to the circumstances and to the surveys that they pay to him. What I mean is that UPyD has generated his political speech concerning an idea that has been stolen from the left, and that is, also, one it designs clearly of lefts. I refer to the defense of the common state, of the strong state, which guarantees the equality of rights and of opportunities, which guarantees the public services and common fiscal policy capable of financing the welfare state, without historical privileges not social or territorial exceptions. The state that can be unitary – not centralist, eye - or federal, that can be more or less decentralized, but that in no case is, does not even cost, the chaos into which the state of the autonomies has degenerated, opportunists' paradise of all kinds and condition.
Those who support that UPyD is not going to do too much electoral damage to us attribute it to which UPyD and IU speak to different social layers. Another error, in my opinion. UPyD speaks to the society in his set. And it very is right, because this is what must do a political party that aspires to have influence and power to apply his program. IU, on the other hand, gives the impression of which it speaks only to «ours«, and this way it us goes, and that's why we are where we are. «Ours« vote for the most part for the Spanish socialist party and for the PP. And now, they are going to begin voting for UPyD also. It is explained very well by one of the persons who intervenes in one of these debates about which I speak to them:
… perhaps it would be good to think that if for the most part we come to certain urban sectors, with certain formation and occupation, we are harming. I believe sincerely that more that to look at UPyD we should know which we want that it is the centrality of our political speech. For me it is clear and now it is more urgent than never: contradiction capital - work to which the capital - nature would add contradiction. Because if we are a political movement and social anticapitalist evil we go if we do not think about how to be a modality of the most precarious social layers vote for the one for whom they vote …
There is the center of the matter: only we want that «ours« vote for us only speak to «ours«, vote for the one for whom they vote, and if «we come to certain urban sectors, with certain formation and occupation, we are doing a little ma l». The truth is that the matter has grace great, because these social sectors «urban, with certain formation and occupation» there are precisely the supports for that a lefts political education must look and republican that does not have the eyes put in the 30s of last century, but in the second decade of the present. Without it meaning that we should speak exclusively to them.
Anyway, and for returning to the center of the matter: I believe that UPyD is going to hurt us very much. In Madrid, and in the rest of Spain, And it apart from the fact that I took many or few votes from us. IU Is going to be the part most harmed in the share-out of benches, because it is clearly minority with regard to the Spanish socialist party and the PP, and also, is going to happen of being the third political force to the fourth one, if it is that it obtains representation.
It is not a question of changing our speech on the model of the state for adapting ourselves to the UPyD appearance. It is a question of correcting a very important error that we have committing years ago: the defense of the state as tool of redistribution of the wealth.
Without complexes, and without authorizations.
No comments:
Post a Comment