You are on page 1of 2

Sinopsis (abstract) de resultados con fines divulgativos en un mximo de 500 palabras.

Si
Usted lo considera conveniente enve, adems, esta sinopsis en ingls.
Este estudio, que compara los discursos oficiales y populares de Estado, Nacin y
Democracia al intentar entender la crisis poltica colombiana actual, da las siguientes
observaciones y conclusiones. En el discurso oficial los tres conceptos se relacionan y se
implican: el Estado encarna a la Nacin, mediante las relaciones de la Democracia. En este
discurso, la Nacin existe tanto como una realidad espiritual cuanto como secular; el Estado es
su forma institucional, y as representa a toda la Nacin; y las relaciones polticas que enlazan
el Estado con la Nacin se las entiende como democrticas, por tanto, justas y apropiadas. La
fuente central de este discurso es la Constitucin de 1991, pero se le adscribe al poder
gobernante no importa quien sea; y mientras que los polticos opositores puedan hacer crticas
al gobierno, tienden a reproducir los supuestos bsicos del discurso. En ms de 300
entrevistas realizadas por los investigadores, este discurso oficial no se vio reflejado mucho.
Los discursos populares de Estado, Nacin y Democracia recopilados por los investigadores en
varias ciudades colombianas, incluso Bogot, Medelln, Pasto, Cali, Leticia, Riohacha, Quibdo y
otros lugares, tendan a diferenciarse del discurso oficial al versar sobre el Estado y la
Democracia. La perspectiva popular sobre el Estado es que es esencial e incorregiblemente
corrupto; cabe notar, sin embargo, que a pesar de una falta de fe generalizada y la
desconfianza casi activa frente el Estado, su mximo representativo, el Presidente, se lo estima
bastante. En cuanto a la Democracia, haba informantes que, al definir el concepto de manera
implcita en trminos de libertad de expresin y elecciones frecuentes, expresaban la opinin
de que la democracia colombiana funcionaba bien. La crtica se expresaba en trminos de una
falta de democracia social, esto es, los informantes decan que la democracia faltaba en cuanto
que su situacin en particular era mala (esto es, faltaba educacin, vivienda, alimentacin: una
situacin de pobreza con respecto a otros colombianos); o en trminos de la observacin
repetida de que el voto, tal vez el fundamento de cualquier definicin de la Democracia, era en
Colombia, un objeto de comercio. Desde la calle a algunas casas de gobernacin, haba
informantes insistiendo en que la democracia colombiana era abiertamente sujeta a la compra y
venta. Adicionalmente, se informaba que una vez instalados, los polticos se olvidaban de los
votantes. Cabe sealar, empero, que slo con muy pocas excepciones, los informantes
afirmaban la existencia de la nacin colombiana y enfatizaban el orgullo y honor de pertenecer
a ella. Cuando se les preguntaba por qu, entonces, no haba ms participacin en la
elaboracin de una democracia ejemplar y un estado responsable y confiable, la respuesta que
emergi era el miedo de represalias violentas y extra-polticas. Como recomendacin general,
luego, los investigadores creen que es imperativo que haya esfuerzo en institucionalizar un
rgimen sujeto a la ley, que el Estado asuma su obligacin constitucional de proteger
imparcialmente cada colombiana en el ejercicio de sus derechos polticos. Slo as se podr
hablar de la democracia colombiana en trminos que no sean de crisis.
This study, which compares official and popular discourses of state, nation and democracy in
an attempt to understand the current Colombian political crisis, yields the following observations
and conclusions. In official discourse the three concepts are closely related and imply each
other: the state is the embodiment of the nation, mediated through the relations of democracy.
In this discourse, the nation exists both as a spiritual and secular reality; the state is its
institutionalized form, and as such represents the entire nation; and the political relations which
link the state with the nation are understood as democratic, and thus as just and appropriate.
The chief source for this discourse is the Constitution of 1991, but generally this sort of
discourse can be ascribed to the governing power at any particular time, and while opposition
politicians may be critical of the government, they tend to reproduce the basic assumptions of
the discourse. In over 300 interviews conducted by the researchers, this official discourse did
not find itself reflected very often. The popular discourses of state, nation and democracy
collected by the researchers in various Colombian cities, including Bogot, Medelln, Pasto,
Cali, Leticia, Riohacha, Quibd, and from several other locations, tended to differentiate
themselves from official discourse when dealing with the Colombian state and Colombian
democracy. The popular perspective on the state is that it is essentially and almost
irredeemably corrupt; it should be noted, however, that despite a general lack of faith and even
active distrust in the state, its chief representative, the President, was generally held in high
regard. As for democracy, a number of respondents, implicitly defining the concept in terms of

free speech and regular elections, expressed the opinion that Colombian democracy was alive
and well. Criticisms generally were expressed in terms of a lack of social democracy, that is,
respondents felt that there was a lack of democracy insofar as their particular situation was
materially substandard (i.e., lack of education, housing, food: a situation of poverty relative to
other Colombians); or in terms of the repeated observation that voting, perhaps the bedrock of
any definition of democracy, was in Colombia, an object of commerce. From the street to
certain government offices, respondents insisted that Colombian democracy was openly subject
to buying and selling. Additionally, it was often reported that once in office, politicians
immediately forgot their constituents. However, it must be pointed out with only very, very few
exceptions, the respondents affirmed both the existence of the Colombian nation and the pride
and honor of belonging to it. When asked why, then, given this nation, more people werent
active in the elaboration of an exemplary democracy and a responsible and trustable state, the
answer that emerged was, quite simply, a fear of extra-political, violent reprisal. As a general
recommendation then, the researchers believe that it is imperative that work be done on
instituting a true and generalized rule of law, and that the state assume its constitutional
obligation to impartially protect each and every Colombian in the exercise of his or her political
rights. Only then will we be able to talk about Colombian democracy in terms other than crisis.