Autoridades presentes de todas la latitudes y organismos, muchas gracias. Muchas gracias al pueblo de Brasil y a su Sra. presidenta, Dilma Rousseff. Muchas gracias también, a la buena fe que han manifestado todos los oradores que me precedieron.
Expresamos la íntima voluntad como gobernantes de apoyar todos los acuerdos que, esta, nuestra pobre humanidad pueda suscribir.
Sin embargo, permítasenos hacer algunas preguntas en voz alta.
Toda la tarde se ha hablado del desarrollo sustentable. De sacar las inmensas masas de la pobreza.
¿Qué es lo que aletea en nuestras cabezas? ¿El modelo de desarrollo y de consumo que queremos es el actual de las sociedades ricas?
Me hago esta pregunta: ¿qué le pasaría a este planeta si los hindúes tuvieran la misma proporción de autos por familia que tienen los alemanes? Cuánto oxígeno nos quedaría para poder respirar?
Más claro: ¿tiene el mundo los elementos materiales como para hacer posible que 7 mil u 8 mil millones de personas puedan tener el mismo grado de consumo y de despilfarro que tienen las más opulentas sociedades occidentales?
¿Será eso posible?
¿O tendremos que darnos otro tipo de discusión?
Hemos creado esta civilización en la que hoy estamos: hija del mercado, hija de la competencia y que ha deparado un progreso material portentoso y explosivo.
Pero la economía de mercado ha creado sociedades de mercado. Y nos ha deparado esta globalización, cuya mirada alcanza a todo el planeta.
¿Estamos gobernando esta globalización o ella nos gobierna a nosotros?
¿Es posible hablar de solidaridad y de que “estamos todos juntos” en una economía que basada en la competencia despiadada? ¿Hasta dónde llega nuestra fraternidad?
No digo nada de esto para negar la importancia de este evento. Por el contrario: el desafío que tenemos por delante es de una magnitud de carácter colosal y la gran crisis que tenemos no es ecológica, es política.
El hombre no gobierna hoy a las fuerzas que ha desatado, sino que las fuerzas que ha desatado gobiernan al hombre. Y a la vida.
No venimos al planeta para desarrollarnos solamente, así, en general. Venimos al planeta para ser felices. Porque la vida es corta y se nos va. Y ningún bien vale como la vida. Esto es lo elemental.
Pero la vida se me va a escapar, trabajando y trabajando para consumir un “plus” y las sociedad de consumo es el motor de esto. Porque, en definitiva, si se paraliza el consumo, se detiene la economía, y si se detiene la economía, aparece el fantasma del estancamiento para cada uno de nosotros.
Pero ese hiper consumo es el que está agrediendo al planeta.
Y tienen que generar ese hiper consumo, cosa de que las cosas duren poco, porque hay que vender mucho. Y una lamparita eléctrica, entonces, no puede durar más de 1000 horas encendida. ¡Pero hay lamparitas que pueden durar 100 mil horas encendidas! Pero esas no, no se pueden hacer; porque el problema es el mercado, porque tenemos que trabajar y tenemos que sostener una civilización del “úselo y tírelo”, y así estamos en un círculo vicioso.
Estos son problemas de carácter político. Nos están indicando que es hora de empezar a luchar por otra cultura.
No se trata de plantearnos el volver a la época del hombre de las cavernas, ni de tener un “monumento al atraso”. Pero no podemos seguir, indefinidamente, gobernados por el mercado, sino que tenemos que gobernar al mercado.
Por ello digo, en mi humilde manera de pensar, que el problema que tenemos es de carácter político. Los viejos pensadores –Epicúreo, Séneca y también los Aymaras- definían: “pobre no es el que tiene poco sino el que necesita infinitamente mucho”. Y desea más y más.
Esta es una clave de carácter cultural.
Entonces, voy a saludar el esfuerzo y los acuerdos que se hagan. Y lo voy acompañar, como gobernante. Sé que algunas cosas de las que estoy diciendo "rechinan". Pero tenemos que darnos cuenta de que la crisis del agua y de la agresión al medio ambiente no es la causa. La causa es el modelo de civilización que hemos montado. Y lo que tenemos que revisar es nuestra forma de vivir.
Pertenezco a un pequeño país muy bien dotado de recursos naturales para vivir. En mi país hay poco más de 3 millones de habitantes. Pero hay unos 13 millones de vacas, de las mejores del mundo. Y unos 8 o 10 millones de estupendas ovejas. Mi país es exportador de comida, de lácteos, de carne. Es una penillanura y casi el 90% de su territorio es aprovechable.
Mis compañeros trabajadores, lucharon mucho por las 8 horas de trabajo. Y ahora están consiguiendo las 6 horas. Pero el que tiene 6 horas, se consigue dos trabajos; por lo tanto, trabaja más que antes. ¿Por qué? Porque tiene que pagar una cantidad de cosas: la moto, el auto, cuotas y cuotas y cuando se quiere acordar, es un viejo al que se le fue la vida.
Y uno se hace esta pregunta: ¿ese es el destino de la vida humana?
Estas cosas que digo son muy elementales: el desarrollo no puede ser en contra de la felicidad. Tiene que ser a favor de la felicidad humana; del amor a la tierra, del cuidado a los hijos, junto a los amigos. Y tener, sí, lo elemental.
Precisamente, porque es el tesoro más importante que tenemos. Cuando luchamos por el medio ambiente, tenemos que recordar que el primer elemento del medio ambiente se llama felicidad humana."
miércoles, octubre 31, 2012
viernes, octubre 19, 2012
Chilecon Valley
ONE by one they came to the stage and pitched their ideas to the crowd. There was the founder of Kwelia.com, which makes software that helps landlords mint more money from their properties. There was the co-founder of Chef Surfing, an online service for people looking to hire chefs, and for culinary wizards keen to tout their skills. And the creator of Kedzoh, which has an app that lets firms send short training videos to workers via their mobile phones or tablet computers.
These and other start-ups, some sporting fashionably weird names such as Chu Shu, Wallwisher and IguanaBee, won rapturous applause from the entrepreneurs and venture capitalists in the audience. To your correspondent, who is based in Silicon Valley, it all felt very familiar. Yet this scene took place in Chile, a nation better known for copper-mining and cheap wine than for innovation.
Many countries have sought to create their own versions of Silicon Valley. Nearly all have failed. Yet Chile’s attempt is interesting because it exploits the original Silicon Valley’s weak spot—America’s awful immigration system. When the home of free enterprise turns away entrepreneurs, Chile welcomes them.
“Start-Up Chile” is the brainchild of Nicolas Shea, a Chilean businessman who had a brief stint in government. The programme selects promising young firms and gives their founders the equivalent of $40,000 and a year’s visa to come and work on their ideas in Chile. Since 2010, when Start-Up Chile started, some 500 companies and almost 900 entrepreneurs from a total of 37 countries have taken part. Start-Up Chile has doled out money to Chileans, too (see chart).
Mr Shea says he was inspired by his experience in America, where he studied at Stanford University, a wellspring of high-tech start-ups. “I saw smart people being kicked out of the United States because they couldn’t get visas to stay,” he says. “And I thought: why not bring some of them to Chile?”
Like several other countries, including Brazil and Mexico, Chile wants to establish itself as the entrepreneurial hub of Latin America. It has launched government-funded seed-capital programmes to back local start-ups and made it easier to set up a new company swiftly. Via Start-Up Chile it has also been importing foreign entrepreneurs, in the hope that they will inspire homegrown ones.
Getting handy in the Andes
The programme has been a big hit with foreigners, which is hardly surprising: they get to build their businesses with Chilean taxpayers’ pesos without having to give up any equity. Many rave about their time in the country, where they can write software code while sipping Pisco Sours (a favourite local tipple) and swapping tips with their peers. “The vibe is very Californian here,” says John Njoku, an American who is the founder of Kwelia.
Companies have used their cash for all manner of purposes. TOHL, a start-up that produces flexible piping that can be deployed from helicopters to distribute water in difficult-to-reach areas or disaster zones, says it has spent the money on things such as testing its new system with a Chilean mining company and acquiring a patent.
Start-Up Chile aims to have backed 1,000 fledgling firms by the end of next year, at a cost of $40m. It has already sired some successes such as CruiseWise, an online cruise-booking service, that have gone on to raise capital from other sources. However, it should really be judged by the two yardsticks Chile’s government set for it. Has it raised Chile’s profile abroad as a hub for enterprise? And has it inspired Chileans to start their own businesses?
Judged against the first of these yardsticks, the programme has undoubtedly been a success. Its current executive director, Horacio Melo, and his colleagues regularly criss-cross the globe holding meetings to encourage entrepreneurs to come to “Chilecon Valley”, as the start-up hub has inevitably been dubbed. Start-ups from some 60 countries applied for the latest round of grants. Chile’s experiment has spurred interest elsewhere: Brazil is planning to launch a similar programme to attract foreign talent to its shores later this year. “The public-relations part of Start-Up Chile has been much more successful than even we dreamed,” gushes Juan Andrés Fontaine, a former economy minister who gave a green light to Mr Shea’s idea.
Gauging the programme’s impact on Chile’s entrepreneurial ecosystem is somewhat trickier, but it appears to have had a positive effect. In return for the cash they receive, foreigners are expected to share their know-how by, for instance, coaching local entrepreneurs and speaking at events. Between 2010 and September 2012, Start-Up Chile participants held almost 380 meetings and took part in more than 1,000 workshops and conferences.
Pablo Longueira, Chile’s current economy minister, reckons that Start-Up Chile has helped to drive broader changes, such as a big increase over the past couple of years in the number of Chilean firms applying to other seed-capital funds run by the government, as well as a rise in the number of universities that teach students about enterprise. (The Catholic University of Chile, for instance, plans to open an innovation centre to enable academics and entrepreneurs to work side by side.) Mr Longueira also notes that Start-Up Chile has provided plenty of material for Chilean newspapers, which now devote far more space than before to entrepreneurs and their doings.
Mixing Pisco Sours, and ideas
Since Start-Up Chile opened its coffers to locals, it has inspired plenty of them to try to turn their wacky ideas into businesses. Almost 40% of the most recent round of applications were from Chilean firms. Chileans who have been backed by Start-Up Chile say they have benefited from rubbing shoulders with foreign peers. “A Brazilian on the programme did all of our web development,” says Nicolas Martelanz, the boss of Motion Displays, a Chilean start-up whose software helps retailers boost revenues by putting more information at salespeople’s fingertips. Other Chileans who have taken part rave about the contacts they have made thanks to Start-Up Chile.
Not everything is cool in Chile, however. Local entrepreneurs—and foreign ones who might consider staying on after their time on the Start-Up project—face tough challenges. There are not enough private venture capitalists to support young firms with money and advice. Nor do Chile’s universities spawn start-ups nearly as fast as America’s do. Many ambitious start-ups in Chilecon Valley hope to graduate some day to Silicon Valley.
Another barrier to creating a vibrant start-up culture is Chile’s harsh bankruptcy regime, which makes it hard for those who fail to start afresh. Also, the economy is dominated by a few vast business empires and an extremely conservative bureaucracy. Ironically, this is threatening to stifle a peer-to-peer lending business that Mr Shea, Start-Up Chile’s founding father, recently launched (see box).
There are some signs that things could change for the better. For instance, a bill that will dramatically improve Chile’s bankruptcy regime is wending its way through the legislative process. Mr Longueira is optimistic that it will pass by the end of the year. But Chile will still find it tough to match Brazil, which boasts a massive domestic market and a more developed venture-capital industry. Brazil’s bureaucracy may be worse than Chile’s, but its economy is more entrepreneurial and ten times bigger.
Hernan Cheyre, the boss of CORFO, a government body that oversees Start-Up Chile and other initiatives to support entrepreneurs, argues that while Brazil will inevitably be seen as the China of Latin America given its size, Chile can become the region’s Singapore, which has prospered by welcoming foreign talent and providing businesses with a stable, well-regulated base for their operations throughout Asia.
Singapore, however, has a long track record. Start-Up Chile is only two years old, and it is closely identified with the current centre-right government, which may be turfed out at the polls next year. A new government could axe it.
Whichever party wins, José Miguel Musalem of Aurus, a Chilean venture-capital firm, says he hopes that Start-Up Chile survives. It has already delivered one hefty benefit, he says: “Chileans have seen what smart graduates of Stanford and other leading universities can do, and said to themselves: ‘Hey, I could do that too’.” If Start-Up Chile spurs locals to think big, that would be no small achievement.
sábado, octubre 13, 2012
Inequality And The World Economy (The Economist)
True Progressivism
BY THE end of the 19th century, the first age of globalisation and a spate of new inventions had transformed the world economy. But the “Gilded Age” was also a famously unequal one, with America’s robber barons and Europe’s “Downton Abbey” classes amassing huge wealth: the concept of “conspicuous consumption” dates back to 1899. The rising gap between rich and poor (and the fear of socialist revolution) spawned a wave of reforms, from Theodore Roosevelt’s trust-busting to Lloyd George’s People’s Budget. Governments promoted competition, introduced progressive taxation and wove the first threads of a social safety net. The aim of this new “Progressive era”, as it was known in America, was to make society fairer without reducing its entrepreneurial vim.
Modern politics needs to undergo a similar reinvention—to come up with ways of mitigating inequality without hurting economic growth. That dilemma is already at the centre of political debate, but it mostly produces heat, not light. Thus, on America’s campaign trail, the left attacks Mitt Romney as a robber baron and the right derides Barack Obama as a class warrior. In some European countries politicians have simply given in to the mob: witness François Hollande’s proposed 75% income-tax rate. In much of the emerging world leaders would rather sweep the issue of inequality under the carpet: witness China’s nervous embarrassment about the excesses of Ferrari-driving princelings, or India’s refusal to tackle corruption.
At the core, there is a failure of ideas. The right is still not convinced that inequality matters. The left’s default position is to raise income-tax rates for the wealthy and to increase spending still further—unwise when sluggish economies need to attract entrepreneurs and when governments, already far bigger than Roosevelt or Lloyd George could have imagined, are overburdened with promises of future largesse. A far more dramatic rethink is needed: call it True Progressivism.
To have or to have not
Does inequality really need to be tackled? The twin forces of globalisation and technical innovation have actually narrowed inequality globally, as poorer countries catch up with richer ones. But within many countries income gaps have widened. More than two-thirds of the world’s people live in countries where income disparities have risen since 1980, often to a startling degree. In America the share of national income going to the top 0.01% (some 16,000 families) has risen from just over 1% in 1980 to almost 5% now—an even bigger slice than the top 0.01% got in the Gilded Age.
It is also true that some measure of inequality is good for an economy. It sharpens incentives to work hard and take risks; it rewards the talented innovators who drive economic progress. Free-traders have always accepted that the more global a market, the greater the rewards will be for the winners. But as our special report this week argues, inequality has reached a stage where it can be inefficient and bad for growth.
That is most obvious in the emerging world. In China credit is siphoned to state-owned enterprises and well-connected insiders; the elite also gain from a string of monopolies. In Russia the oligarchs’ wealth has even less to do with entrepreneurialism. In India, too often, the same is true.
In the rich world the cronyism is better-hidden. One reason why Wall Street accounts for a disproportionate share of the wealthy is the implicit subsidy given to too-big-to-fail banks. From doctors to lawyers, many high-paying professions are full of unnecessary restrictive practices. And then there is the most unfair transfer of all—misdirected welfare spending. Social spending is often less about helping the poor than giving goodies to the relatively wealthy. In America the housing subsidy to the richest fifth (through mortgage-interest relief) is four times the amount spent on public housing for the poorest fifth.
Even the sort of inequality produced by meritocracy can hurt growth. If income gaps get wide enough, they can lead to less equality of opportunity, especially in education. Social mobility in America, contrary to conventional wisdom, is lower than in most European countries. The gap in test scores between rich and poor American children is roughly 30-40% wider than it was 25 years ago. And by some measures class mobility is even stickier in China than in America.
Some of those at the top of the pile will remain sceptical that inequality is a problem in itself. But even they have an interest in mitigating it, for if it continues to rise, momentum for change will build and may lead to a political outcome that serves nobody’s interests. Communism may be past reviving, but there are plenty of other bad ideas out there.
Hence the need for a True Progressive agenda. Here is our suggestion, which steals ideas from both left and right to tackle inequality in three ways that do not harm growth.
Compete, target and reform
The priority should be a Rooseveltian attack on monopolies and vested interests, be they state-owned enterprises in China or big banks on Wall Street. The emerging world, in particular, needs to introduce greater transparency in government contracts and effective anti-trust law. It is no coincidence that the world’s richest man, Carlos Slim, made his money in Mexican telecoms, an industry where competitive pressures were low and prices were sky-high. In the rich world there is also plenty of opening up to do. Only a fraction of the European Union’s economy is a genuine single market. School reform and introducing choice is crucial: no Wall Street financier has done as much damage to American social mobility as the teachers’ unions have. Getting rid of distortions, such as labour laws in Europe or the remnants of China’s hukou system of household registration, would also make a huge difference.
Next, target government spending on the poor and the young. In the emerging world too much cash goes to universal fuel subsidies that disproportionately favour the wealthy (in Asia) and unaffordable pensions that favour the relatively affluent (in Latin America). But the biggest target for reform is the welfare states of the rich world. Given their ageing societies, governments cannot hope to spend less on the elderly, but they can reduce the pace of increase—for instance, by raising retirement ages more dramatically and means-testing the goodies on offer. Some of the cash could go into education. The first Progressive era led to the introduction of publicly financed secondary schools; this time round the target should be pre-school education, as well as more retraining for the jobless.
Last, reform taxes: not to punish the rich but to raise money more efficiently and progressively. In poorer economies, where tax avoidance is rife, the focus should be on lower rates and better enforcement. In rich ones the main gains should come from eliminating deductions that particularly benefit the wealthy (such as America’s mortgage-interest deduction); narrowing the gap between tax rates on wages and capital income; and relying more on efficient taxes that are paid disproportionately by the rich, such as some property taxes.
Different parts of this agenda are already being embraced in different countries. Latin America has invested in schools and pioneered conditional cash transfers for the very poor; it is the only region where inequality in most countries has been falling. India and Indonesia are considering scaling back fuel subsidies. More generally, as they build their welfare states, Asian countries are determined to avoid the West’s extravagance. In the rich world Scandinavia is the most inventive region. Sweden has overhauled its admittedly huge welfare state and has a universal school-voucher system. Britain too is reforming schools and simplifying welfare. In America Mr Romney says he wants to means-test Medicare and cut tax deductions, though he is short on details. Meanwhile, Mr Obama, a Democrat, has invoked Theodore Roosevelt, and Ed Miliband, leader of Britain’s Labour Party, is now trying to wrap himself in Benjamin Disraeli’s “One Nation” Tory cloak.
Such cross-dressing is a sign of change, but politicians have a long way to go. The right’s instinct is too often to make government smaller, rather than better. The supposedly egalitarian left’s failure is more fundamental. Across the rich world, welfare states are running out of money, growth is slowing and inequality is rising—and yet the left’s only answer is higher tax rates on wealth-creators. Messrs Obama, Miliband and Hollande need to come up with something that promises both fairness and progress. Otherwise, everyone will pay.
BY THE end of the 19th century, the first age of globalisation and a spate of new inventions had transformed the world economy. But the “Gilded Age” was also a famously unequal one, with America’s robber barons and Europe’s “Downton Abbey” classes amassing huge wealth: the concept of “conspicuous consumption” dates back to 1899. The rising gap between rich and poor (and the fear of socialist revolution) spawned a wave of reforms, from Theodore Roosevelt’s trust-busting to Lloyd George’s People’s Budget. Governments promoted competition, introduced progressive taxation and wove the first threads of a social safety net. The aim of this new “Progressive era”, as it was known in America, was to make society fairer without reducing its entrepreneurial vim.
Modern politics needs to undergo a similar reinvention—to come up with ways of mitigating inequality without hurting economic growth. That dilemma is already at the centre of political debate, but it mostly produces heat, not light. Thus, on America’s campaign trail, the left attacks Mitt Romney as a robber baron and the right derides Barack Obama as a class warrior. In some European countries politicians have simply given in to the mob: witness François Hollande’s proposed 75% income-tax rate. In much of the emerging world leaders would rather sweep the issue of inequality under the carpet: witness China’s nervous embarrassment about the excesses of Ferrari-driving princelings, or India’s refusal to tackle corruption.
At the core, there is a failure of ideas. The right is still not convinced that inequality matters. The left’s default position is to raise income-tax rates for the wealthy and to increase spending still further—unwise when sluggish economies need to attract entrepreneurs and when governments, already far bigger than Roosevelt or Lloyd George could have imagined, are overburdened with promises of future largesse. A far more dramatic rethink is needed: call it True Progressivism.
To have or to have not
Does inequality really need to be tackled? The twin forces of globalisation and technical innovation have actually narrowed inequality globally, as poorer countries catch up with richer ones. But within many countries income gaps have widened. More than two-thirds of the world’s people live in countries where income disparities have risen since 1980, often to a startling degree. In America the share of national income going to the top 0.01% (some 16,000 families) has risen from just over 1% in 1980 to almost 5% now—an even bigger slice than the top 0.01% got in the Gilded Age.
It is also true that some measure of inequality is good for an economy. It sharpens incentives to work hard and take risks; it rewards the talented innovators who drive economic progress. Free-traders have always accepted that the more global a market, the greater the rewards will be for the winners. But as our special report this week argues, inequality has reached a stage where it can be inefficient and bad for growth.
That is most obvious in the emerging world. In China credit is siphoned to state-owned enterprises and well-connected insiders; the elite also gain from a string of monopolies. In Russia the oligarchs’ wealth has even less to do with entrepreneurialism. In India, too often, the same is true.
In the rich world the cronyism is better-hidden. One reason why Wall Street accounts for a disproportionate share of the wealthy is the implicit subsidy given to too-big-to-fail banks. From doctors to lawyers, many high-paying professions are full of unnecessary restrictive practices. And then there is the most unfair transfer of all—misdirected welfare spending. Social spending is often less about helping the poor than giving goodies to the relatively wealthy. In America the housing subsidy to the richest fifth (through mortgage-interest relief) is four times the amount spent on public housing for the poorest fifth.
Even the sort of inequality produced by meritocracy can hurt growth. If income gaps get wide enough, they can lead to less equality of opportunity, especially in education. Social mobility in America, contrary to conventional wisdom, is lower than in most European countries. The gap in test scores between rich and poor American children is roughly 30-40% wider than it was 25 years ago. And by some measures class mobility is even stickier in China than in America.
Some of those at the top of the pile will remain sceptical that inequality is a problem in itself. But even they have an interest in mitigating it, for if it continues to rise, momentum for change will build and may lead to a political outcome that serves nobody’s interests. Communism may be past reviving, but there are plenty of other bad ideas out there.
Hence the need for a True Progressive agenda. Here is our suggestion, which steals ideas from both left and right to tackle inequality in three ways that do not harm growth.
Compete, target and reform
The priority should be a Rooseveltian attack on monopolies and vested interests, be they state-owned enterprises in China or big banks on Wall Street. The emerging world, in particular, needs to introduce greater transparency in government contracts and effective anti-trust law. It is no coincidence that the world’s richest man, Carlos Slim, made his money in Mexican telecoms, an industry where competitive pressures were low and prices were sky-high. In the rich world there is also plenty of opening up to do. Only a fraction of the European Union’s economy is a genuine single market. School reform and introducing choice is crucial: no Wall Street financier has done as much damage to American social mobility as the teachers’ unions have. Getting rid of distortions, such as labour laws in Europe or the remnants of China’s hukou system of household registration, would also make a huge difference.
Next, target government spending on the poor and the young. In the emerging world too much cash goes to universal fuel subsidies that disproportionately favour the wealthy (in Asia) and unaffordable pensions that favour the relatively affluent (in Latin America). But the biggest target for reform is the welfare states of the rich world. Given their ageing societies, governments cannot hope to spend less on the elderly, but they can reduce the pace of increase—for instance, by raising retirement ages more dramatically and means-testing the goodies on offer. Some of the cash could go into education. The first Progressive era led to the introduction of publicly financed secondary schools; this time round the target should be pre-school education, as well as more retraining for the jobless.
Last, reform taxes: not to punish the rich but to raise money more efficiently and progressively. In poorer economies, where tax avoidance is rife, the focus should be on lower rates and better enforcement. In rich ones the main gains should come from eliminating deductions that particularly benefit the wealthy (such as America’s mortgage-interest deduction); narrowing the gap between tax rates on wages and capital income; and relying more on efficient taxes that are paid disproportionately by the rich, such as some property taxes.
Different parts of this agenda are already being embraced in different countries. Latin America has invested in schools and pioneered conditional cash transfers for the very poor; it is the only region where inequality in most countries has been falling. India and Indonesia are considering scaling back fuel subsidies. More generally, as they build their welfare states, Asian countries are determined to avoid the West’s extravagance. In the rich world Scandinavia is the most inventive region. Sweden has overhauled its admittedly huge welfare state and has a universal school-voucher system. Britain too is reforming schools and simplifying welfare. In America Mr Romney says he wants to means-test Medicare and cut tax deductions, though he is short on details. Meanwhile, Mr Obama, a Democrat, has invoked Theodore Roosevelt, and Ed Miliband, leader of Britain’s Labour Party, is now trying to wrap himself in Benjamin Disraeli’s “One Nation” Tory cloak.
Such cross-dressing is a sign of change, but politicians have a long way to go. The right’s instinct is too often to make government smaller, rather than better. The supposedly egalitarian left’s failure is more fundamental. Across the rich world, welfare states are running out of money, growth is slowing and inequality is rising—and yet the left’s only answer is higher tax rates on wealth-creators. Messrs Obama, Miliband and Hollande need to come up with something that promises both fairness and progress. Otherwise, everyone will pay.
sábado, octubre 06, 2012
Colusión
Para una dictadura de izquierda esto es inevitable
Me quisieron impedir llegar al juicio a Ángel Carromero. Alrededor de las cinco de la tarde del 4 de octubre, un amplio operativo a las afueras de la ciudad de Bayamo detuvo el auto en que viajábamos mi esposo y yo, junto a un amigo. “Ustedes quieren boicotear al tribunal”, nos dijo un hombre vestido completamente de verdeolivo, para inmediatamente proceder a detenernos. El operativo tenía las dimensiones de un arresto hecho contra una banda de narcotraficantes o de la captura de un prolijo asesino en serie. Pero en lugar de tan amenazantes personas, solo había tres individuos que deseaban participar de oyentes en un proceso judicial, asomarse al interior de la sala de un tribunal. Le habíamos creído al periódico Granma cuando publicó que el juicio era oral y público. Pero ya saben, Granma miente.
No obstante, al arrestarme, en realidad me estaban regalando experimentar periodísticamente el otro lado de la historia. Vivir en la piel de Ángel Carromero cómo se estructura la presión alrededor de un detenido. Saber en carne propia los intríngulis de un Departamento de Instrucción del Ministerio del Interior. Lo primero fueron tres mujeres uniformadas que me rodearon y me quitaron el móvil. Hasta allí era una situación confusa, agresiva, pero todavía no tenía visos de violencia. Después, esas mismas fornidas señoras me introdujeron en un cuarto e intentaron desnudarme. Pero hay una porción de uno mismo que nadie puede arrancarnos. No sé, quizás la última hoja de parra a la que nos aferramos cuando se vive bajo un sistema que lo sabe todo sobre nuestras vidas. En un mal y contradictorio verso quedaría como “podrás tener mi alma… mi cuerpo no”. Así que me resistí y pagué las consecuencias.
Después de ese momento de máxima tensión le llega el turno al policía "bueno”. Alguien que se me presenta diciendo que lleva el mismo apellido que yo –como si eso sirviera de algo- y que le gusta “dialogar”. Pero la trampa es tan conocida, se ha repetido tanto, que no caigo. Me imagino de inmediato a Carromero sometido a la misma tensión de amenaza y “buen talante”… difícil sobrellevar algo así por largo tiempo. En mi caso, recuerdo haber tomado aliento y después de una larga diatriba contra la ilegalidad de mi arresto me quedé repitiendo por más de tres horas una sola frase “Exijo que me dejen hacer una llamada telefónica, es mi derecho”. Necesitaba una certeza y la reiteración me la daba. El estribillo me hacía sentirme fuerte frente a personas que han estudiado en la academia los diversos métodos para ablandar la voluntad humana. Una obsesión era todo lo que me urgía para enfrentarlos. Y me obsesioné.
Por un rato parecía que había sido en vano mi insistente cantaleta, pero después de la una de la madrugada me permitieron hacer la llamada. Unas pocas frases con mi padre, a través de una línea evidentemente pinchada y ya todo quedaba dicho. Podía entonces entrar en la otra etapa de mi resistencia. La llamé “hibernación”, porque cuando se nombra algo es como sistematizarlo, creérselo. Me negué a comer, a beber cualquier líquido; me negué al examen médico de varios doctores que trajeron a revisarme. Me negué a colaborar con mis captores y se los dije. No podía despegar de mi mente el desvalimiento de Carromero en más de dos meses lidiando con aquellos lobos que alternaban con el papel de oveja.
Una buena parte del tiempo toda mi actividad la filmaba una cámara que un sudoroso paparazzi manejaba. No sé si algún día pondrán alguna de esas tomas en la televisión oficial, pero organicé mis ideas y mi voz para que no pudieran ser transmitidas menoscabando mis convicciones. O les mantienen el audio original con mi demanda, o tienen que repetir la chapuza de sobreponerle la voz de un locutor. Traté de hacerles lo más difícil posible la edición posterior de aquel material.
Solo hice un pedido en 30 horas de detención: necesito ir al baño. Yo estaría preparada para llevar la batalla hasta el final, pero mi vejiga no. Después me llevaron a un calabozo-suite. Había pasado horas en otro que tenía una rara mezcla de barrotes y cortinas, con un terrible calor. Así que llegar al salón más amplio, con televisor y varias sillas, que desembocaba en una habitación con una cama realmente apetecible fue un golpe muy bajo. Solo de mirar el estampado de las cortinas, tuve el presentimiento que era el mismo lugar donde habían hecho la primera grabación que circuló en Internet de las declaraciones de Ángel Carromero.
Aquello no era una habitación, era un set. Lo supe de inmediato. Así que me negué a acostarme sobre la sobrecama recién tendida y a poner mi cabeza sobre las tentadoras almohadas. Me fui a una silla en un rincón y me acurruqué. Dos mujeres vestidas de militar me vigilaban todo el tiempo. Yo estaba viviendo el deja vú de otro, el recuerdo del escenario en el que transcurrieron los primeros días de detención para Carromero. Ya lo sabía y era duro. Una dureza que no estaba en el golpe o en la tortura, sino en la convicción de que no se podía confiar en nada de lo que ocurría dentro de esas paredes. El agua podía no ser agua, la cama más bien parecía una trampa y el doctor solícito estaba más cerca del soplón que del galeno. Lo único que quedaba era sumergirse en los abismos del “yo”, cerrar las compuertas con el afuera y eso hice. La fase “hibernación” derivó en un letargo auto provocado. Ya no pronuncié una palabra más.
Para cuando me dijeron que me “iban a trasladar hacia La Habana”, me costó despegar los párpados y mi lengua parecía salirse de la boca por los efectos de la prolongada sed. Sin embargo, yo sentía que los había vencido. En un último gesto, uno de mis captores tendió su mano para ayudarme a subir al microbús donde también estaba mi esposo. “No acepto cortesía de represores”, lo fulminé. Y volví a tener un último pensamiento para el joven español que vio torcerse su vida aquel 22 de julio, que tuvo que bregar entre todos aquellos engaños.
Al llegar a casa supe de los otros detenidos y de que la propia familia de Oswaldo Payá no pudo entrar a la sala penal. También del pedido de siete años hecho por el fiscal contra Ángel Carromero y de la condición de “concluso para sentencia” en que quedó el juicio de este viernes. Lo mío era solo un tropezón, el gran drama sigue siendo la muerte de dos hombres y el encierro de otro.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)