Lopez Obrador, the fallacy and the revocation counseling
If we stick to the technical definitions “A fallacyAnd fallacy or parlogism an argument that appears valid and valid, but is in fact invalid and hides an error.” If we look at the arguments Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador On various issues, it turns out that our president is a sophist, and an example of this is his statements yesterday and before him about consulting Revocation of authorization March 2022.
Regarding the unconstitutionality lawsuit filed today, Thursday, by the parliamentary blocs PRI, PAN and PRD In the House of Representatives before the Supreme Court of Justice against changing the wording of the question regarding revocation of the mandate, the President of the Republic launched himself against the opposition coalition.
His main argument was that “conservatives” oppose such exercise as delegating because they despise citizens and thus reject this mechanism that gives them power through participatory democracy. Said as such, it appears powerful and leaves opponents as anti-democratic arguments.
But (here comes but) when reviewing the dispute between the fourth transformation government and the coalition PRI-PAN-PRD López Obrador’s fallacy and lie and the way he distorts a practice by definition makes democracy clear.
From the outset, the instrument of consultation on de-authorization has been distorted by its recall from authority and government, as it was originally meant to be used in extreme cases by society and the opposition in the face of the assumption of bad government. , for example, has occurred several times in California, United States.
But this consultation was promoted by Lopez Obrador, his government and his party! Where are the social groups that demand it? They are nowhere to be seen. The opposition had previously expressed its support for ending the period for which it was elected. Is there a campaign other than the one announced by the National Palace to demand consultations to cancel the mandate? Why do you do that? Is it a whim? No, it goes further than that.
Yesterday López Obrador said he wanted to amend the law to lower the minimum turnout (which is 40 percent of the register) so that the outcome of the consultation is binding, arguing that Yes Mexico invited citizens. Not going into a workout, they assert, once again reinforces confrontation and social tension from minors.
The obvious question is why participation in a related practice such as de-authorization counseling should be less than a minimum in a federal electoral process as required by law. constitution? But this is not the only question that arises: AMLO Reducing the minimum stake to use as strikes if a potential opponent wins? Is he betting on not being able to judge if he and Morena are defeated?
In fact, the president and 4 T They distorted and stripped society of what was intended to be an extension of its right to exercise participatory democracy. And that’s what’s really undemocratic, because what they want is to use it as a tool to certify AMLO’s exercise of governance and mobilization before the 2022 state and 2022 federal elections. 2024.
As we continue to dismantle sophistry bei It is worth remembering the original wording of the question, which was in principle simple and direct and only accepted yes or no as an answer:
“Do you agree that (name), President of the United Mexican States, will continue to hold the office until the end of his term?”
However, in the Senate, Morena took the step and led to the unconstitutional lawsuit that was filed in court last Thursday under two arguments. First, because it is not a direct question, there are two questions, and second because it is inductive because it suggests the answer:
“Do you agree to cancel his (name) term, President of the United Mexican States due to loss of confidence or his continuation in the Presidency of the Republic until the expiry of his term?” so induced or more.
In short, the president was not shy about using sophistry and misleading arguments, and he twisted the law through Morena to kidnap citizens a legitimate mechanism participatory democracy and use it as an electoral gimmick. This is not a democracy, it is Manipulation and tyranny.
“Award-winning zombie scholar. Music practitioner. Food expert. Troublemaker.”