Objectivity and conflict of interest: Martinelli’s problem

At the content level on Social Sciences I was able to understand that objectivityin many cases, it becomes partial, that is, very opposite to what was expected, and very remote from any arterutrality.

At that time, alterutrality was a neologism coined by Unamuno himself due to the linguistic impossibility of expressing his political position in any context of polarization, calling it said the concept of the ability to be sympathetic to both sides of a conflictwhich equally implies the authority to give critical remarks to competitors.

Said, in more comprehensible words, in the name of that disastrous “objectivity” of criteria, opinions, attitudes, etc., which in the end bring water to some mill, and not necessarily those who run the water, but pure interests. It could be the decay or surrender of objectivity into the perverse hands of subjectivity.

In this context, it will always happen that for someone or for some, in their analyses, no matter how much objectivity that you express or defend locate you and stigmatize you as supporting this or that competing interest.

It shouldn’t be a barrier to expressing who you are the product of truly objective analysisor. Therefore, you should not be afraid of stigmatization in any way.

The world of ideas are multi-voiced. Basically, In our opinion, it is listening to the contradictions that this phenomenon can hide.

This is part of objectivity. There are obviously forces and interests that avoid analysis from this perspective. It doesn’t suit them. Kant had already warned: A distinction is necessary between phenomena characterized by appearance and appearance noumenon, connoted by essence or substantiality.

It is there, where anyone who calls or describes himself as “objective” must transcend the idea of ​​analysis or discussion. It is not possible in deep intelligence, in sharp wisdom, to reject the analyst because of his depth. conceptual and philosophical. Only a philosophy that transcends humanism and spiritualitywhoever rules it can dissolve the essences or substance of thought.

I said well Descartes “Cogito, ergo sum-I think, therefore I am.”

For years we have written that the post-invasion reality shows a a continuous process aimed at total control of political governanceby clans of economic power.

It is about the return to power of the oligarchy clans, which they are doing after the evident consolidation of liberal and formal democracy. It is in this scenario that it is worth exploring the contradictions that we are moving the current election contest.

It is obvious that behind the removal strategy is economic power, its media power election contest to former president Martinelli. And to say this, in order to understand the essence of the problem, it is not a matter for us to confirm whether he is innocent or not of the charges brought against him, but, as lawyers, we observe very strange things in his trials. We wrote that it is the day on which the institution is obliged the process is mediated, it is better to close the courts and that a kind of anarchy or judicial absolutism reigns.

In fact, there are contradictions on both sides of the bloc economically, dominant and, paradoxically, Martinelli Whoever, by his decision, could be considered part of them, willing to be on the side of the people, that sector considers him and brands him as a great enemy and opponent worthy of condemnation. And it is of little or no importance to them that Martinelli is a man of right-wing convictions.

The previous analysis is what makes us not repeat the oligarchy andn this Martinelli affair. It is sad that many, and even parts of the popular movement, unaware of it, they fell into the intonation of that choir of the oligarchy in its relentless war against the former president.

Tactical line, I think incorrect, you happen to be up against the former president, from an unethical position (An enemy should not give an opinion about his enemy, since it translates to an immoral and unethical position, which decants into the ill will that fuels his opinions) they victimized him to the limit and thus people joined or lined up with homo politicus, and what we have very clearly, far from intersubjectivity, is that in this electoral contest the oligarchy plays and bets on the appointment of an organic cadre, its own, in the Presidency.

Since this homo politicus It opposes the leading and hegemonic role that homo oeconomicus has had for centuries. This is a human figure, but an individualist, very selfish, cold and calculating, whose primary motivation consists of the rational maximization of his interests. It is about a man who secretly moves and trades in relationships that provide the resources of political power which, combined with his economic power, are able to establish the rules of the electoral game and give flow to his real desire and will.

There are different versions of how homo oeconomicus emerged historically, eventually supplanting homo juridicus or the subject of law. For some scholars, the idea of ​​homo oeconomicus would have originated in the 18th century and was emphasizedwith English empiricism.

He is identified as a subject of individual preferences and choices related to his own utility, an individual who, calculating his interests and obeying them, would convergently respond to the expectations of others based on “invisible” hands (or certain providential rationalities of the economic process) In Panama, That man or a few people who fit the description of “homo oeconomicus” have launched a campaign of attack, persecution, discredit, discredit, without end, against Martinelli, and thus, every day more, they are pushing him towards the success of his unquestionable popularity. For our part, we will continue to be, and that is what we stand for, a type of homo juridicus, faithful believers that there are still remnants of the rule of law.

God bless the country!