Neither lawyers, nor universities, nor civil servants, nor parliamentarians – we think – think about the Law more deeply.

Some are limited to observing the facts, leaving the forum, commenting on the topic to the client, complaining a little and adjusting to it; others quickly process proposals and decorate them with ideology; they spread the news of the legal system as a universal remedy from the outside and ask for a red letter. And others remain silent because they do not understand or because they have decided to stop thinking, aware of the risk of subjecting the Law to methodical doubt, which is, in essence, an exercise of reason. Yes, “exercising reason”, which is a human attribute and which is the task and responsibility of the elites who are now ashamed of it.

other factors

For many, it is better to grow than to think, to be silent than to speak.

It could be assumed that it is exclusively a “political issue” in the worst sense of the term, that is, related to the conjunctural perspective of being on the right or the left, in the government or in the opposition, and about appropriating the can. One could think that this question is written into the understanding of democracy from electoralism. But no, “thinking about law” goes further, it goes through systematic criticism of public and private, goes through the challenge of being or not being a Republic, and implies the purification of the “state of law and justice”. “, and save the vision of the contrast: that of the “Rule of Law”.

Presidential debate: other issues

It is about going along the path of institutions that, for better or worse, channeled the legal system and marked the routes that should correct the aspirations of citizens. It is necessary to rigorously and truthfully determine if and why the main concepts that were the basis of the construction of legality prevailed or if they were replaced by other ideological or conjunctural pillars.

It is about going along the path of institutions that, for better or worse, channeled the legal system and marked the routes…

It is a question of understanding, under the respect of logic, which is the mother of legality, whether the “new law” has a support in this fiction of the sovereignty of the people and whether the sovereignty of the state has limitations in the task of legislation and in others, or if there are none.

Handpicked candidates and governments without transparency

It is a matter of understanding whether the concept of a person has changed, whether it has been supplanted by the idea of ​​a “citizen” or a community, that is, who is the subject that limits the power and whether there are spaces exempt from the interference of the State government, if privacy is an attribute that corresponds to the individual or consists of permissions that was gracefully betrayed by the government.

The challenge is that you have to go to the bottom. This means transcending branches charged with conjunctural interest, political blindness and moving on. The challenge is to stop being processors of interests and advantages and to overcome the tasks that condition universities in the role of educating quiet and compliant managers, perhaps successful, but subject to the situation. It is about promoting the training of lawyers, critical people marked by reflection and integrity. (OR)