It is curious that every time with more insistence and from juxtaposed political options, we find ourselves regarding positions in debates and proposals in Government Commissions or Municipal Plenary Meetings, with the discourse on the part of the participants, that there is no voting discipline here , and that each one supports what they think is convenient.
The evidence is that never, in any case, under any circumstance, that unanimity of criteria is broken, and this worries us a lot, because it gives the feeling that in political areas the One Thought is being imposed.
This is not something new, since already in 1819 (now we could celebrate the 200th anniversary, almost coinciding with the 100 of the title of City) Arthur Schopenhauer in Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, describes it as that thought that sustains itself , constituting an independent logical unit, without having to make reference to other components of a system of thought.
Those who have more interest, can consult Herbert Marcuse and his Unidimensional Thought, and although we have clear the position of the Marxist representatives, which is where Marcuse is positioned, even by the influence of Ignacio Ramonet in recent times, which part of An idea of â€‹â€‹the anti-capitalist left, also from "Neoliberal" positions, maintains that unanimity of positions.
Civil Society needs to see those it considers its representatives, giving explanations, assuming political responsibilities, asking for forgiveness, or we do not know the history of our city.
Perhaps we do not know about the mayors who have been in jail and have been convicted of different crimes, perhaps we do not know the final results of the many trials in which the politicians of the "democratic" city councils have been involved, perhaps we do not remember the members of the past corporations, who now want to appear to know nothing, we have forgotten the "advantage" that some have made of their passage through the different municipal corporations.
One of the first things that political parties and their current representatives should do is an examination of conscience and start asking public apologies to citizens for the lack of honesty of some of their colleagues, comrades, friends or whatever they are called among them. , because if they do not, they will be accomplices, cronies, concealers, or whatever it is called who collaborates or hides others with attitudes and criminal acts or at least reprehensible.
They think that simply saying "I used to, I do not know anything, I have nothing to do, I was not ..." is enough, well, no, know that under cover of those acronyms, under that seagull, that rose in fist, that sickle and hammer their parties, they have to assume their share of responsibility, and only after public recognition will they be legitimated to represent us.