Soberanía y poder: una reflexión arendtiana sobre las experiencias políticas bolivianas
Abstract
La investigación se centra en la distinción arendtiana entre violencia y poder. A partir de ella se distinguen dos marcos posibles de comprensión del poder en la reflexión política: uno tradicional, consumado en la idea moderna de soberanía nacional; y otro distinto, basado en la noción de la acción concertada. Estos dos horizontes de comprensión disimiles se materializan en la experiencia boliviana -en sus propios procesos respectivos, claro está- en dos prácticas opuestas: la de la institucionalidad oficial, ceñida por el paradigma de la violencia; y la de los colectivos (indígenas, campesinos) "clandestinos", definida por la actividad democrática asamblearia. El trabajo sostiene la idea de que cualquier transformación estructural del Estado boliviano debe partir del reconocimiento y de la apropiación adecuada de sus tradiciones políticas esenciales.
The research focuses on the Arendtian distinction between violence and power. From this, two possible frameworks of understanding of power can be distinguished in political reflection: a traditional one, consummated in the modern idea of national sovereignty; and a different one, based on the notion of concerted action. These two horizons of dissimilar comprehension materialize in the Bolivian experience -in their own respective processes, of course- in two opposing practices: that of official institutionality, bound by the paradigm of violence; and that of "clandestine" groups (indigenous, peasantry), defined by democratic assembly activity. The paper supports the idea that any structural transformation of the Bolivian state must start from the recognition and suitable appropriation of its essential political traditions.
The research focuses on the Arendtian distinction between violence and power. From this, two possible frameworks of understanding of power can be distinguished in political reflection: a traditional one, consummated in the modern idea of national sovereignty; and a different one, based on the notion of concerted action. These two horizons of dissimilar comprehension materialize in the Bolivian experience -in their own respective processes, of course- in two opposing practices: that of official institutionality, bound by the paradigm of violence; and that of "clandestine" groups (indigenous, peasantry), defined by democratic assembly activity. The paper supports the idea that any structural transformation of the Bolivian state must start from the recognition and suitable appropriation of its essential political traditions.
Description
Vol. 21, No. 39