¿Qué modificó el Congreso para la formación de bancadas mixtas?

También se detalla quienes no podrán integrar una nueva bancada. Conoce los detalles.

Tras la declaratorio del TC de inconstitucional la “Ley Antitránsfuga”, el Congreso hizo las modificaciones en su reglamento para la formación de bancadas, creando la figura de bancadas mixtas.

Hoy en Normas Legales, de El Peruano, se detalla el cambio, en el que se indica la modificación en los numerales 4 y 5 del artículo 37 en el reglamento, indicando que:

“Cada grupo parlamentario aprueba su reglamento interno, el que deberá respetar las garantías del debido procedimiento y contener los derechos y deberes de sus integrantes. este reglamento es aprobado por mayoría del número legal de sus miembros y obliga a todos ellos, al ser presentado ante el Consejo Directivo”, sostiene.

Respecto al retiro de un congresista de la bancada dice, que “el congresista que considere que ha sido expulsado de manera irregular de su grupo parlamentario, podrá accionar en primera instancia ante la Junta de Portavoces y en segunda y definitiva instancia ante el Consejo Directivo, agotando la instancia parlamentaria”.

Asimismo, señala que, si la sanción es revocada o anulada, podrá optar por regresar a su grupo parlamentario, adherirse a otro, o pasar a integrar el grupo parlamentario mixto.

Según la modificación del reglamente, el grupo parlamentario mixto tiene los mismos derechos y atribuciones que corresponden al grupo parlamentario integrado por el menor número de congresistas formado al inicio del período parlamentario, asimismo, en cuanto a la aplicación de los principios de proporcionalidad y pluralismo.

Sin bancada

De la misma forma, la modificación del reglamento sostiene que, no pueden constituir nuevo grupo parlamentario ni adherirse a otro, los congresistas que renuncien, sean separados o hayan sido expulsados del grupo parlamentario por el que fueron elegidos, salvo el caso de alianzas electorales conforme a ley, que hayan decidido disolverse, en cuyo caso podrán conformar grupo parlamentario.

Precisan que, dicha prohibición no resulta aplicable a los congresistas que renuncien al grupo parlamentario, por vulneración a las garantías del debido procedimiento o a los derechos contenidos en el reglamento interno del grupo parlamentario, pudiendo recurrir para tales efectos, en primera instancia ante el grupo parlamentario y en segunda y definitiva instancia ante el Consejo Directivo.

En: gestion

Ver ademas: TC declara inconstitucional ley antitránsfuga y congresistas podrán cambiar de bancada

En vivo: Situación en Venezuela 6 de Agosto

Ver: Levantamiento militar en Venezuela: 2 muertos y 7 detenidos. El chavista Diosdado Cabello y el ministro de Defensa calificaron de “terrorista” el acto liderado por el capitán Juan Caguaripano contra el Fuerte Paramacay de Carabobo.

Venezuela military base attacked as video shows men in uniform claiming start of coup

How bosses are (literally) like dictators

Americans think they live in a democracy. But their workplaces are small tyrannies.

Some Amazon warehouse workers have complained about being pushed beyond their abilities by their bosses. Boston Globe / Getty

Updated by  Jul 17, 2017, 8:20am EDT

Consider some facts about how American employers control their workers. Amazon prohibits employees from exchanging casual remarks while on duty, calling this “time theft.” Apple inspects the personal belongings of its retail workers, some of whom lose up to a half-hour of unpaid time every day as they wait in line to be searched. Tyson prevents its poultry workers from using the bathroom. Some have been forced to urinate on themselves while their supervisors mock them.

About half of US employees have been subject to suspicionless drug screening by their employers. Millions are pressured by their employers to support particular political causes or candidates. Soon employers will be empowered to withhold contraception coveragefrom their employees’ health insurance. They already have the right to penalize workers for failure to exercise and diet, by charging them higher health insurance premiums.

How should we understand these sweeping powers that employers have to regulate their employees’ lives, both on and off duty? Most people don’t use the term in this context, but wherever some have the authority to issue orders to others, backed by sanctions, in some domain of life, that authority is a government

We usually assume that “government” refers to state authorities. Yet the state is only one kind of government. Every organization needs some way to govern itself — to designate who has authority to make decisions concerning its affairs, what their powers are, and what consequences they may mete out to those beneath them in the organizational chart who fail to do their part in carrying out the organization’s decisions.

Managers in private firms can impose, for almost any reason, sanctions including job loss, demotion, pay cuts, worse hours, worse conditions, and harassment. The top managers of firms are therefore the heads of little governments, who rule their workers while they are at work — and often even when they are off duty.

Every government has a constitution, which determines whether it is a democracy, a dictatorship, or something else. In a democracy like the United States, the government is “public.” This means it is properly the business of the governed: transparent to them and servant to their interests. They have a voice and the power to hold rulers accountable.

Not every government is public in this way. When King Louis XIV of France said, “L’etat, c’est moi,” he meant that his government was his business alone, something he kept private from those he governed. They weren’t entitled to know how he operated it, had no standing to insist he take their interests into account in his decisions, and no right to hold him accountable for his actions.

Over time, national governments have become “public,” but in the US workplace governments remain resolutely “private”

Like Louis XIV’s government, the typical American workplace is kept private from those it governs. Managers often conceal decisions of vital interest to their workers. Often, they don’t even give advance notice of firm closures and layoffs. They are free to sacrifice workers’ dignity in dominating and humiliating their subordinates. Most employer harassment of workers is perfectly legal, as long as bosses mete it out on an equal-opportunity basis. (Walmart and Amazon managers are notorious for berating and belittling their workers.) And workers have virtually no power to hold their bosses accountable for such abuses: They can’t fire their bosses, and can’t sue them for mistreatment except in a very narrow range of cases, mostly having to do with discrimination.

Why are workers subject to private government? The state has set the default terms of the constitution of workplace government through its employment laws. The most important source of employers’ power is the default rule of employment at will. Unless the parties have otherwise agreed, employers are free to fire workers for almost any or no reason. This amounts to an effective grant of power to employers to rule the lives of their employees in almost any respect — not just on the job but off duty as well. And they have exercised that power.

Scotts, the lawn care company, fired an employee for smoking off duty. After Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) notified Lakeland Bank that an employee had complained he wasn’t holding town hall meetings, the bank intimidated her into resigning. San Diego Christian College fired a teacher for having premarital sex — and hired her fiancé to fill her post. Bosses are dictators, and workers are their subjects.

American public discourse doesn’t give us helpful ways to talk about the dictatorial rule of employers. Instead, we talk as if workers aren’t ruled by their bosses. We are told that unregulated markets make us free, and that the only threat to our liberties is the state. We are told that in the market, all transactions are voluntary. We are told that since workers freely enter and exit the labor contract, they are perfectly free under it. We prize our skepticism about “government,” without extending our critique to workplace dictatorship.

The earliest champions of free markets envisioned a world of self-employment

Why do we talk like this? The answer takes us back to free market ideas developed before the Industrial Revolution. In 17th- and 18th-century Britain, big merchants got the state to grant them monopolies over trade in particular goods, forcing small craftsmen to submit to their regulations. A handful of aristocratic families enjoyed a monopoly on land, due to primogeniture and entail, which barred the breakup and sale of any part of large estates. Farmers could rent their land only on short-term leases, which forced them to bow and scrape before their landlords, in a condition of subordination not much different from servants, who lived in their masters’ households and had to obey their rules.

The problem was that the state had rigged the rules of the market in favor of the rich. Confronted with this economic situation, many people argued that free markets would promote equality and workers’ interests by enabling them to go into business for themselves and thereby escapesubordination to the owners of capital.

No wonder some of the early advocates of free markets in 17th-century England were called “Levellers.” These radicals, who emerged during the English civil war, wanted to abolish the monopolies held by the big merchants and aristocrats. They saw the prospects of greater equality that might come from opening up to ordinary workers opportunities for manufacture, trade, and farming one’s own land.

Marchers in Burford, England, celebrate the “levellers,” who sought to overthrow monopolies in the 17th century. Tim Graham / Getty

In the 18th century, Adam Smith was the greatest advocate for the view that replacing monopolies, primogeniture, entail, and involuntary servitude with free markets would enable laborers to work on their own behalf. His key assumption was that incentives were more powerful than economies of scale. When workers get to keep all of the fruits of their labor, as they do when self-employed, they will work much harder and more efficiently than if they are employed by a master, who takes a cut of what they produce. Indolent aristocratic landowners can’t compete with yeoman farmers without laws preventing land sales. Free markets in land, labor, and commerce will therefore lead to the triumph of the most efficient producer, the self-employed worker, and the demise of the idle, stupid, rent-seeking rentier.

Smith and his contemporaries looked across the Atlantic and saw that America appeared to be realizing these hopes — although only for white men. The great majority of the free population in the Revolutionary period was self-employed, as either a yeoman farmer or an independent artisan or merchant.

In the United States, Thomas Paine was the great promoter of this vision. Indeed, his views on political economy sound as if they could have been ripped out of the GOP Freedom Caucus playbook. Paine argued that individuals can solve nearly all of their problems on their own, without state meddling. A good government does nothing more than secure individuals in “peace and safety” in the free pursuit of their occupations, with the lowest possible tax burden. Taxation is theft. People living off government pay are social parasites. Government is the chief cause of poverty. Paine was a lifelong advocate of commerce, free trade, and free markets. He called for hard money and fiscal responsibility.

Paine was the hero of labor radicals for decades after his death in 1809, because they shared his hope that free markets would yield an economy almost entirely composed of small proprietors. An economy of small proprietors offers a plausible model of a free society of equals: each individual personally independent, none taking orders from anyone else, everyone middle class.

Abraham Lincoln built on the vision of Smith and Paine, which helped to shape the two key planks of the Republican Party platform: opposition to the extension of slavery in the territories, and the Homestead Act. Slavery, after all, enabled masters to accumulate vast tracts of land, squeezing out small farmers and forcing them into wage labor. Prohibiting the extension of slavery into the territories and giving away small plots of land to anyone who would work it would realize a society of equals in which no one is ever consigned to wage labor for life. Lincoln, who helped create the political party that now defends the interests of business, never wavered from the proposition that true free labor meant freedom from wage labor.

The Industrial Revolution, however — well underway by Lincoln’s time — ultimately dashed the hopes of joining free markets with independent labor in a society of equals. Smith’s prediction — that economies of scale would be less important than the incentive effects of enabling workers to reap all the fruits of their labor — was defeated by industrial technologies that required massive accumulations of capital. The US, with its access to territories seized from Native Americans, was able to stave off the bankruptcy of self-employed farmers and other small proprietors for far longer than Europe. But industrialization, population growth, the closure of the frontier, and railroad monopolies doomed the sole proprietorship to the margins of the economy, even in North America.

The Industrial Revolution gave employers new powers over workers, but economists failed to adjust their vocabulary — or their analyses

The Smith-Paine-Lincoln libertarian vision was rendered largely irrelevant by industrialization, which created a new model of wage labor, with large companies taking the place of large landowners. Yet strangely, many people persist in using Smith’s and Paine’s rhetoric to describe the world we live in today. We are told that our choice is between free markets and state control — but most adults live their working lives under a third thing entirely: private government. A vision of what egalitarians hoped market society would deliver before the Industrial Revolution — a world without private workplace government, with producers interacting only through markets and the state — has been blindly carried over to the modern economy by libertarians and their pro-business fellow travelers.

There is a condition called hemiagnosia, whose sufferers cannot perceive one half of their bodies. A large class of libertarian-leaning thinkers and politicians, with considerable public following, resemble patients with this condition: They cannot perceive half of the economy — the half that takes place beyond the market, after the employment contract is accepted, where workers are subject to private, arbitrary, unaccountable government.

What can we do about this? Americans are used to complaining about how government regulation restricts our freedom. So we should recognize that such complaints apply, with at least as much force, to private governments of the workplace. For while the punishments employers can impose for disobedience aren’t as severe as those available to the state, the scope of employers’ authority over workers is more sweeping and exacting, its power more arbitrary and unaccountable. Therefore, it is high time we considered remedies for reining in the private government of the workplace similar to those we have long insisted should apply to the state.

Three types of remedy are of special importance. First, recall a key demand the United States made of communist dictatorships during the Cold War: Let dissenters leave. Although workers are formally free to leave their workplace dictatorships, they often pay a steep price. Nearly one-fifth of American workers labor under noncompete clauses. This means they can’t work in the same industry if they quit or are fired.

And it’s not just engineers and other “knowledge economy” workers who are restricted in this way: Even some minimum wage workers are forced to sign noncompetes. Workers who must leave their human capital behind are not truly free to quit. Every state should follow California’s example and ban noncompete clauses from work contracts.

We should clarify the rights that workers possess, and then defend them

Second, consider that if the state imposed surveillance and regulations on us in anything like the way that private employers do, we would rightly protest that our constitutional rights were being violated. American workers have few such rights against their bosses, and the rights they have are very weakly enforced. We should strengthen the constitutional rights that workers have against their employers, and rigorously enforce the ones the law already purports to recognize.

A Manchester clothes mill, 1909. This is not the world Adam Smith envisioned when he championed free markets. Topical Press Agency / Getty

Among the most important of these rights are to freedom of speech and association. This means employers shouldn’t be able to regulate workers’ off-duty speech and association, or informal non-harassing talk during breaks or on duty, if it does not unduly interfere with job performance. Nor should they be able to prevent workers from supporting the candidate of their choice.

Third, we should make the government of the workplace more public (in the sense that political scientists use the term). Workers need a real voice in how they are governed — not just the right to complain without getting fired, but an organized way to insist that their interests have weight in decisions about how work is organized.

One way to do this would be to strengthen the rights of labor unions to organize. Labor unions are a vital tool for checking abusive and exploitative employers. However, due to lax enforcement of laws protecting the right to organize and discuss workplace complaints, many workers are fired for these activities. And many workers shy away from unionization, because they prefer a collaborative to an adversarial relationship to their employer.

Yet even when employers are decent, workers could still use a voice. In many of the rich states of Europe, they already have one, even if they don’t belong to a union. It’s called “co-determination” — a system of joint workplace governance by workers and managers, which automatically applies to firms with more than a few dozen employees. Under co-determination, workers elect representatives to a works council, which participates in decision-making concerning hours, layoffs, plant closures, workplace conditions, and processes. Workers in publicly traded firms also elect some members of the board of directors of the firm.

Against these proposals, libertarian and neoliberal economists theorize that workers somehow suffer from provisions that would secure their dignity, autonomy, and voice at work. That’s because the efficiency of firms would, in theory, drop — along with profits, and therefore wages — if managers did not have maximum control of their workforce. These thinkers insist that employers already compensate workers for any “oppressive” conditions that may exist by offering higher wages. Workers are therefore free to make the trade-off between wages and workplace freedom when they seek a job.

This theory supposes, unrealistically, that entry-level workers already know how well they will be treated when they apply for jobs at different workplaces, and that low-paid workers have ready access to decent working conditions in the first place. It’s telling that the same workers who suffer the worst working conditions also suffer from massive wage theft. One study estimates that employers failed to pay $50 billion in legally mandated wages in one year. Two-thirds of workers in low-wage industries suffered wage theft, costing them nearly 15 percent of their total earnings. This is three times the amount of all other thefts in the United States.

If employers have such contempt for their employees that they steal their wages, how likely is it that they are making it up to them with better working conditions?

It’s also easy to theorize that workers are better off under employer dictatorship, because managers supposedly know best to govern the workplace efficiently. But if efficiency means that workers are forced to pee in their pants, why shouldn’t they have a say in whether such “efficiency” is worthwhile? The long history of American workers’ struggles to get the right to use the bathroom at work — something long enjoyed by our European counterparts — says enough about economists’ stunted notion of efficiency.

Meanwhile, our false rhetoric of workers’ “choice” continues to obscure the ways the state is handing ever more power to workplace dictators. The Trump administration’s Labor Department is working to roll back the Obama administration’s expansion of overtime pay. It is giving a free pass to federal contractors who have violated workplace safety and federal wage and hours laws. It has canceled the paycheck transparency rule, making it harder for women to know when they are being paid less for the same work as men.

Private government is arbitrary, unaccountable government. That’s what most Americans are subject to at work. The history of democracy is the history of turning governance from a private matter into a public one. It has been about making government public — answerable to the interests of citizens and not just the interests of their rulers. It’s time to apply the lessons we have learned from this history to the private government of the workplace. Workers deserve a voice not just on Capitol Hill but in Amazon warehouses, Silicon Valley technology companies, and meat-processing plants as well.

Elizabeth Anderson is the Arthur F. Thurnau Professor and John Dewey Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy and Women’s studies at the University of Michigan. She is the author of Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don’t Talk About It) (Princeton University Press, 2017).

In: vox

Supreme Court To Decide If Mexican Nationals May Sue For Border Shooting

The cellphone video is vivid. A border patrol agent aims his gun at an unarmed 15-year-old some 60 feet away, across the border with Mexico, and shoots him dead.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in a case testing whether the family of the dead boy can sue the agent for damages in the U.S.

Between 2005 and 2013, there were 42 such cross-border shootings, a dramatic increase over earlier times.

The shooting took place on the border between El Paso, Texas, and Juárez, Mexico.

The area is about 180 feet across. Eighty feet one way leads to a steep incline and an 18-foot fence on the U.S. side — part of the so-called border wall that has already been built. An almost equal distance the other way is another steep incline leading to a wall topped by a guardrail on the Mexican side.

In between is a the dry bed of the Rio Grande with an invisible line in the middle that separates the U.S. and Mexico. Overhead is a railroad bridge with huge columns supporting it, connecting the two countries.

In June 2010, Sergio Hernández and his friends were playing chicken, daring each other to run up the incline on the U.S. side and touch the fence, according briefs filed by lawyers for the Hernández family.

At some point U.S. border agent Jesus Mesa, patrolling the culvert, arrived on a bicycle, grabbed one of the kids at the fence on the U.S. side, and the others scampered away. Fifteen-year-old Sergio ran past Mesa and hid behind a pillar beneath the bridge on the Mexican side.

As the boy peeked out, Agent Mesa, 60 feet or so away on the U.S. side, drew his gun, aimed it at the boy, and fired three times, the last shot hitting the boy in the head.

Although agents quickly swarmed the scene, they are forbidden to cross the border. They did not offer medical aid, and soon left on their bikes, according to lawyers for the family.

A day after the shooting, the FBI’s El Paso office issued a press release asserting that agent Mesa fired his gun after being “surrounded” by suspected illegal aliens who “continued to throw rocks at him.”

Two days later, cell phone videos surfaced contradicting that account. In one video the boy’s small figure can be seen edging out from behind the column; Mesa fires, and the boy falls to the ground.

“The statement literally says he was surrounded by these boys, which is just objectively false,” says Bob Hilliard, who represents the family. Pointing to the cell phone video, he says it is “clear that nobody was near ” agent Mesa.

In one video, a woman’s voice is heard saying that some of the boys had been throwing rocks, but the video does not show that, and by the time the shooting takes place, nobody is surrounding agent Mesa.

The U.S. Department of Justice decided not to prosecute Mesa. Among other things, the department concluded that it did not have jurisdiction because the boy was not on U.S. soil when he was killed.

Mexico charged the agent with murder, but when the U.S. refused to extradite him, no prosecution could go forward.

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol did not discipline agent Mesa—a fact that critics, including high-ranking former agency officials, say reflects a pattern inside the agency.

The parents of the slain boy, however, have sued Mesa for damages, contending that the killing violated the U.S. Constitution by depriving Sergio Hernández of his life.

“I can’t believe that this is allowed to happen – that a border patrol agent is allowed to kill someone on the Mexican side, and nothing happens,” Sergio’s mother, Maria Guadalupe Güereca Betancour, says through an interpreter.

As the case comes to the Supreme Court, there has been no trial yet and no court finding of facts. Mesa continues to maintain that he shot the boy in self-defense after being surrounded by rock-throwing kids.

That’s a scenario that Mesa’s lawyers say is borne out by other videos from stationary cameras that have not been released to the public.

“It was clear that Agent Mesa was in an area that is wrought with narcotics trafficking and human trafficking,” asserts Randolph Ortega, who represents Mesa on behalf of the border patrol agents union. “And it’s clear that, in my opinion, he was defending himself.”

The only question before the Supreme Court centers on whether the Hernández family has the right to sue. A divided panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that no reasonable officer would have done what Agent Mesa did, and that therefore the family could sue.

However, the full court of appeals reversed that judgment, ruling that because the Hernández boy was standing on the Mexico side of the border and was a Mexican citizen with no ties to the United States, his family could not sue for a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, the appeals court said that even if the facts as alleged by the Hernández family are true, Mesa is entitled to qualified immunity, meaning he cannot be sued because there is no clearly established body of law barring his conduct.

Lawyers for the Hernández family counter that Supreme Court precedents establish a practical approach in determining whether there is a right to sue for the use of excessive force in circumstances like these. Lawyer Hilliard says yes, the boy was across the border when the shots were fired, but by just 60 feet.

“This is a domestic action by a domestic police officer standing in El Paso, Texas, who is to be constrained by this country’s constitution,” Hilliard contends. “There’s a U.S. Supreme Court case that says a law enforcement officer cannot seize an individual by shooting him dead, which is what happened in this case.”

Hilliard argues that if you follow the border patrol’s argument to its necessary conclusion, “it means that a law enforcement officer is immune to the Constitution when exercising deadly force across the border.

“He could stand on the border and target practice with the kids inside the culvert,” Hilliard warns.

But lawyer Ortega replies that’s not true, and asks how the court should draw the line.

“How far does it extend? Does it extend 40 feet? As far as the bullet can travel? All of Juárez, Mexico? All of (the state of) Chihuahua, Mexico? Where does the line end?”

Backed by the federal government, he suggests that a ruling in favor of the Hernández family would mean foreigners could sue over a drone attack.

Now it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide where to draw the line.

In: npr

Aerolínea Emirates adapta tripulaciones en vuelos a EE.UU. tras decreto de Trump

La compañía subrayó que “sigue realizando, como previsto, sus vuelos regulares a Estados Unidos” y que “ninguno de sus tripulantes se ha visto, hasta ahora, afectado” por la nueva reglamentación.

Dubái (AFP).- La compañía aérea Emirates de Dubái afirmó este lunes haber modificado las tripulaciones de sus vuelos con destino a Estados Unidos para adaptarse al decreto antiinmigración del presidente Donald Trump.

“La reciente modificación de las condiciones de entrada en Estados Unidos para los ciudadanos de siete países se aplica a todos los viajeros y miembros de la tripulación” en los vuelos hacia aeropuertos estadounidenses, afirmó la aerolínea en un comunicado.

“Hemos realizado los cambios necesarios en nuestras tripulaciones para adaptarnos a las (nuevas) exigencias” de la administración Trump, agregó Emirates, cuyos empleados son originarios de varios países, incluidos los afectados por el decreto de Trump.

La compañía subrayó que “sigue realizando, como previsto, sus vuelos regulares a Estados Unidos” y que “ninguno de sus tripulantes se ha visto, hasta ahora, afectado” por la nueva reglamentación.

Trump firmó el viernes un decreto que prohíbe durante tres meses la entrada en Estados Unidos de ciudadanos de siete países de mayoría musulmana: Irak, Irán, Libia, Somalia, Sudán, Siria y Yemen. Se exceptúan las personas en poder de visas diplomáticas y oficiales y aquellas que trabajen para organismos internacionales.

En: gestion

El régimen de periodistas del Duce

Periodista + poder = dictador. No necesariamente esta ecuación tendría que dar siempre tan tremendo resultado. Pero en el caso de Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) esa suma es, en efecto, de una precisión matemática.

Imagen: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1306648-el-regimen-de-periodistas-del-duce
Imagen: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1306648-el-regimen-de-periodistas-del-duce

El de Mussolini fue un régimen de periodistas que no sólo influiría fuertemente sobre futuros gobiernos derechistas en la manera de manipular a la prensa, sino también en administraciones de signo supuestamente progresista. Una influencia que, lamentablemente, aún no ha cesado y cuyos aires nos resultan desafortunadamente familiares. Es curioso: el fascismo goza de muy mala prensa, pero hasta algunos que se creen sus detractores no se cansan de practicarlo y no de manera tan solapada.

Hijo de padre izquierdista y madre católica, Benito -por Benito Juárez, el revolucionario mexicano- sufrirá sucesivas y sísmicas mutaciones políticas a lo largo del tiempo.

“Del anarquismo al socialismo, el nacionalismo extremo y, finalmente, el fascismo”, sintetiza el historiador Peter Neville en Mussolini , una biografía que presta atención a las circunstancias que pesaron en su formación. A pesar de haber trabajado como albañil y varias veces como maestro, el periodismo captó el centro de su atención muy recurrentemente como colaborador de periódicos socialistas, tarea que alternaba con sus incursiones como agitador y orador de causas siempre inflamadas. “La experiencia como periodista -señala Neville- sería invaluable en su carrera política.”

La inclinación hacia las letras efímeras -qué otra cosa es después de todo el periodismo- le venía por la sangre: si bien su padre fue herrero, en cierta época escribió un par de notas, en tanto que su hermano Arnaldo ( ghostwriter de ” il Duce “, en Mi autobiografía ) y su sobrino Vito se dedicaron de lleno al periodismo.

El mismo Benito tenía pasta para aporrear las máquinas de escribir y llegó a ser director del periódico Lucha de clases , de Forli, en 1909. En 1912, al borde de los 30 años, ya era editor de Avanti! y, dos años más tarde, fundaba Il Popolo d´Italia . “Mussolini -apunta Neville- produjo gran cantidad de escritos, y aunque están plagados de egotismo y dogmatismo, permiten comprender ciertos aspectos de su personalidad.”

La figura del dictador italiano viene a cuento porque en las últimas semanas se estrenó en la Argentina Vincere , el apreciado film de Marco Bellocchio que supo reflejar con dramatismo las tortuosas aristas de su compleja relación amorosa con Ida Dalser, a la que se propuso borrar del mapa en cuanto comenzó a incomodarlo. Y lo mismo con el hijo que ambos tuvieron, que llevaba su propio nombre. Mussolini prefirió, en cambio, inclinarse por otra mujer, Rachele Guidi, su esposa oficial, con quien tuvo tres hijos: Edda, Vittorio y Bruno.

Peleó en la Primera Guerra Mundial y tuvo un temprano cargo político (secretario de la Cámara de Trabajo de Trentino, en 1909). Fueron años de agitación y turbulencias que desembocaron en una voltereta ideológica que lo llevó de un extremo del arco político al otro, en 1921, cuando creó el Partido Fascista y resultó electo para ocupar una banca en el parlamento. Fue 1922 el año de su consagración, al ser designado primer ministro, y sus “camisas negras” marcharon sobre Roma.

Pronto contempló con agrado el crepitar de hogueras alimentadas con libros y con periódicos opositores.

El nuevo pontífice de la extrema ideología italiana sentenciaba por entonces en La Doctrina Fascista (Vallechi Editore Firenze, Florencia, 1935) que “todo permanece en el Estado y nada fuera de él”. ¿Y qué pensaba del periodismo? “La prensa es un elemento del régimen, una fuerza al servicio del Estado”, decretó.

Así, los que no supieron encolumnarse rápidamente fueron hostigados y presionados de distintas maneras, hasta que con la excusa de un atentado frustrado contra Mussolini, el Gran Consejo Fascista resolvió la suspensión, por tiempo indeterminado, de todas las publicaciones que no fueran totalmente favorables al régimen.

El silencio caracteriza a las dictaduras, pero en una dictadura encabezada por un ex periodista, rodeado de ex periodistas amigos, lo que imperó fue el parloteo, tan caro, por otra parte, a la idiosincrasia peninsular. Su menú era sencillo y no apto para estómagos delicados: malversación de la verdad, relectura constante de la historia y el presente en función de las necesidades del régimen en cada momento, aderezados por continuas consignas machacadas una y otra vez hasta el hartazgo para mantener en alto la “épica” discursiva del régimen.

“La prensa diaria -diagnostica Edward R. Tannenbaum en La experiencia fascista – fue el medio de comunicación más natural de los fascistas. En ninguna otra dictadura hubo tantos periodistas que hablaran tanto sobre tantas cosas. El Duce marcaba el tono del régimen con su continuo interés periodístico y este tono influía también en el Ministerio de Cultura Popular.”

Italiano hasta la médula, el fascismo lució siempre una exuberancia y desorden de los que careció el nazismo, su monolítico e implacable aliado.

“Goebbels y Rosenberg -agrega Tannenbaum- habían preparado listas negras de cientos de libros, obras teatrales, cuadros, películas y de sus creadores. En Italia, las listas negras y otras formas de control cultural no fueron tan amplias como en Alemania y nunca se cumplieron tan estrictamente. El régimen fascista permitió un limitado criticismo en cuestiones concretas, con una actitud política conocida posteriormente como «tolerancia represiva»”.

Mientras en Alemania un tercio de la prensa total fue absorbida por la maquinaria estatal; en Italia sólo lo fue en un diez por ciento. De todos modos, cualquier atisbo de crítica desapareció de la totalidad de la prensa después de 1926.

“La prensa más libre del mundo -se regodeaba Mussolini- es la prensa italiana. En otros países, los periódicos están a las órdenes de grupos plutócratas, de partidos, de individuos; en otras partes están reducidos a los bajos menesteres de la compra y venta de noticias excitantes, cuya lectura reiterada acaba por determinar en el público una especie de saturación estupefacta con síntomas de atonía e imbecibilidad; en otras partes, los diarios están reunidos en manos de poquísimos individuos, que consideran los periódicos como una verdadera industria, como la del hierro o la del acero. El periodismo italiano es libre porque sirve solamente a una causa y a un régimen; es libre porque dentro de las leyes puede ejercer y ejercita funciones de control, de crítica, de propulsión.”

En los tiempos en que el gran Consejo Fascista terminó destituyendo a Mussolini, en 1943, aquí en la Argentina los militares del Grupo de Oficiales Unidos (GOU), que habían desalojado del poder a los conservadores del “fraude patriótico” dieron precisas instrucciones para que la caída del Duce fuera suministrada con cautela por los diarios y los informativos de la radio.

La creación, el 21 de octubre de 1943, de la Subsecretaría de Informaciones y Prensa seguirá el modelo italiano al centralizar y coordinar la información oficial y organizará, por primera vez de manera sistemática y persistente, la propaganda estatal. Tres años más tarde, capitalizará ese esquema Juan Domingo Perón, quien, en 1939, enviado a Europa en misión de estudio, había asistido a cursos en Italia donde quedó muy impresionado con la experiencia fascista.

El 27 de marzo de 1945, un mes antes del fusilamiento de Mussolini por los partisanos y del suicidio de Hitler, en su búnker, cuando los soviéticos ya estaban a las puertas de Berlín, la dictadura militar argentina le declaraba la guerra al Eje, en reacción tardía. La semilla fascista, de todos modos, terminaría germinando nuevamente.


En: lanacion.com.ar