Toma nota.../Take note...

Two outstanding personalities, G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, were the most prominent disseminators of the ideas of Distributism. They were the main advocates of the Catholic’s Social Doctrine of Subsidiarity as expounded by Pope Leo XIII in Rerum novarum (1891), a doctrine that would be re-stated, re-confirmed and reinforced by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno (1931) and by Pope John Paul II in Centesimus annus (1991). As such, it is important, first and foremost to see Distributism as a derivative of the Principle of Subsidiarity. This principle is clearly described in the Church's Social Doctrine Compendium (186-187) according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.” In other words, it states that the rights of small communities should not be violated or usurped by the intervention of larger communities or the state. This principle applies to Distributism on account that property ownership is a fundamental right and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible, including the idea of cooperativism. In a way, distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to the well being of human life as a whole. The Video that follows took place at the Acton Institute on february 18th with an interesting debate for and against this principle and this doctrine.

A Gentleman’s Debate – Distributism vs. Free Markets with Jay Richards and Joseph Pearce

For us, the publishers and staff of this magazine, Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation (decision making) of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. While etymological roots imply that any democracy would rely on the participation of its citizens (the Greek demos and kratos combine to suggest that "the people rule"), traditional representative democracies tend to limit citizen participation to voting, leaving actual governance to politicians. Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a political group to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities.

Representative democracy is not generally considered participatory but it tends to evolve by adopting participatory mechanisms and tools.

Participatory vs representative democracy

by Tina Trumbach

The recent focus on District Councils has raised for us the central difference between two forms of democracy – participatory and representative.

District Councils can be seen as a form of participatory, or direct, democracy that brings greater decision making power directly to the people themselves.

Participatory democracy can be defined as a form of government which emphasises the broad participation of constituents in political systems and which creates opportunities for all members of a population to make contributions to decision-making.

Participatory democracy tends to advocate more direct forms of citizen participation and greater political representation than traditional representative democracy.

Representative democracy is the predominant form of democracy, and is founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people. All modern Western-style democracies are types of representative democracies – including the USA and the United Kingdom.

Los abajo firmantes, latinoamericanos y diversos en nuestras adhesiones, profesiones e intereses, pero unidos por una aspiración común de libertad, democracia, equidad y bienestar en todo el hemisferio, nos dirigimos a nuestros conciudadanos y gobiernos, especialmente a los de Cuba, para expresar lo siguiente:

Celebramos el creciente proceso de normalización en las relaciones cubano-estadounidense y la disposición de otros estados democráticos para incrementar su interacción con las autoridades de La Habana.  Vemos en este proceso una oportunidad para estimular una mayor inserción de Cuba en el mundo y mejorar las condiciones de vida de sus ciudadanos.

A la vez, condenamos la sistemática y continuada violación de los derechos humanos en la isla; la persistencia de un modelo político centrado en el control de un partido único; la represión abierta contra quienes se aparten de las líneas oficiales, y la persistente discriminación de los cubanos frente a los extranjeros, en ámbitos que van desde los derechos económicos hasta el acceso libre a las comunicaciones y la información.

Ha llegado la hora de un acto de reciprocidad ante el mundo democrático, pero, sobre todo, como deber ineludible ante su propio pueblo, el régimen encabezado por el Presidente Raúl Castro emprenda un verdadero proceso de apertura política y social y escuche las iniciativas de cambio de sus ciudadanos, mientras reactiva los tímidos cambios económicos anunciados con entusiasmo, pero paralizados en medio de la rigidez, el temor y la burocracia.

Ha llegado la hora de que Cuba se abra a su propio pueblo.

El acuerdo, anunciado en los negociadores del gobierno y las FARC en La Habana el 15 de diciembre de 2015, establece un nuevo Tribunal para la Paz que se ocuparía de juzgar a los graves delitos cometidos durante el conflicto armado.  Los responsables de los delitos cometidos de lesa humanidad y los graves crímenes de guerra que cooperen con el nuevo sistema judicial y confiesen esos actos recibirán una pena máxima de ocho años en “condiciones especiales” que supondrán la “restricción efectiva de la libertad”.