Of there the policy deficiency that we perceived in this " zeitgeist" Venezuelan, one that does not consist merely of the emptiness of an electoral campaign, but it extends until the dangerous land of the lack of policy. It is necessary to desambiguar the term. From the power one is not becoming political, this type of being able we saw already it more above does not conceive it. Who theoretically are against to him not they manage it to understand like an action specificity. Against a power of this type the policy only can come from a subject that is it and does that it like a specific rupture. To raise an assumption return to the democracy is not a rupture.
This would begin to impose a political battle, because if it stays in an evanescent territory the policy becomes unnecessary and the opresor regime will have gained the totality of the battle. The policy cannot remain in the sector shades of the historical-social process. The visibility is essential to its existence and to make of the dissent a specific modality of " su" to be, which means to raise face to the power with policy or the idetica construction of a substitution by means of a concrete supply of rupture between the apparatus of the State that is raised absolute and alleged to be the construction of something (in this case of the called evil socialism of the 21st century), on the one hand, and of the state of the social thing that must be in boiling protesting that substitution from a conceptual apparatus. Populism we have it absolutely clearly is a great denier of the policy, since the caudillo incarnates who it, or what is the same, the hero, is the unique one that is identified with the town absorbs, it and he becomes. And as the political exercise produces tension towards the changes, the caudillo will eternally stay in his fixed speech of which he is ending the powerful ones, which, will argue, is than sufficient more so that the future he enters by the door of the nation that anarchy. This way, the sky will be for good and the hell for those who is against to him, that is to say, the bad ones.
Hermet called " apartheid enrolled in corazones." A correct strategy battle would be to make that the elites do not monopolize the power, that are not owners of the candidates, that clear the institutions are not of its property prevailed and they only serve to preserve privileges. When the opposite becomes the power Populist consolidates and the policy obvious returns to shine by its absence. For me the imaginary construction of we and the certain perspective of their accomplishment are the key, but he is not this " zeitgeist" or the spirit of this time. From the confusion, the ambiguity, the reduction to inexact terms comes there. It is necessary to resort to a process of desambiguacin of this sad history.