Pronunciation: \dī-ˈa-fə-nəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin diaphanus, from Greek diaphanēs, from diaphainein to show through, from dia- + phainein to show
Date: 1614
1 : characterized by such fineness of texture as to permit seeing through2 : characterized by extreme delicacy of form : ethereal 3 : insubstantial , vague
— di·aph·a·nous·ly adverb
— di·aph·a·nous·ness noun
To my readers: unfortunately this post was slightly late for class. My apologies; I did not realize that it was due today.
The word of the day is diaphanous. Ironically, the first thing that I thought of whenever I read this word was "democracy". This is because democracy is diaphanous in nature: it should be transparent and it is very delicate.
Democracy as a cultural item is an interesting debate, especially with how it relates to Latin America because of the relative unstable nature of many of the governments and the different interpretations of what democracy mean. On one hand, many if not most of the human rights abuses that occur in Latin America are heavily influenced by American imperialism, imperialism by a nation that claims to be democratic. On the other hand, the U.S. has been instrumental in freeing Latin America from the colonial intentions of Europe (even if we did usurp those intentions for our own benefit).
Readers of this blog are well aware of my tirades against imperialism and the "Great Northern Threat", so I shall attempt to leave my fiery rhetoric off of this post. Instead I would rather talk about the differences in the concepts of democracy between Bolivia and the U.S.
Here in the U.S., politics are rather stable, I do not need to point this out to my readers. Elections (mostly) are fraud-free, politicians are (somewhat) held accountable for their actions, and (knock-on-wood) we have never had a coup.
In Bolivia, things are slightly different. Democracy exists, as evidenced by the election of Evo Morales, but there is much unrest. For example, while I lived there 3 presidents stepped down from their posts due to popular demands (e.g., protesters threatened to burn down the capital building with President Goni inside). Riots and bloqueos (or blockades for our non-Spanish speaking brethren) are common, even normal. Political assassinations, while not of the frequency as during the dirty war, are not unheard of. While I lived there, our city was placed under a state of siege due to a price hike on privatized water.
One aspect of Bolivian democracy that makes it different from the U.S. is its use of multiple political parties. In a presidential election, the president elect usually receives less than 30% of the popular vote. He then forms a "ruling coalition" between themselves and other parties. The exception is Evo Morales who won with a pure 53% majority. This simple fact alone grants his government legitimacy; that and the fact that he is the first indigenous president of country that is over 80% indigenous.
With Evo's election Bolivian democracy can finally state that it is diaphanous: it is transparent in its actions, but still very fragile. It must be well taken care of, but in my opinion, Evo is doing a helluva job.
1 : characterized by such fineness of texture as to permit seeing through
— di·aph·a·nous·ly adverb
— di·aph·a·nous·ness noun
To my readers: unfortunately this post was slightly late for class. My apologies; I did not realize that it was due today.
The word of the day is diaphanous. Ironically, the first thing that I thought of whenever I read this word was "democracy". This is because democracy is diaphanous in nature: it should be transparent and it is very delicate.
Democracy as a cultural item is an interesting debate, especially with how it relates to Latin America because of the relative unstable nature of many of the governments and the different interpretations of what democracy mean. On one hand, many if not most of the human rights abuses that occur in Latin America are heavily influenced by American imperialism, imperialism by a nation that claims to be democratic. On the other hand, the U.S. has been instrumental in freeing Latin America from the colonial intentions of Europe (even if we did usurp those intentions for our own benefit).
Readers of this blog are well aware of my tirades against imperialism and the "Great Northern Threat", so I shall attempt to leave my fiery rhetoric off of this post. Instead I would rather talk about the differences in the concepts of democracy between Bolivia and the U.S.
Here in the U.S., politics are rather stable, I do not need to point this out to my readers. Elections (mostly) are fraud-free, politicians are (somewhat) held accountable for their actions, and (knock-on-wood) we have never had a coup.
In Bolivia, things are slightly different. Democracy exists, as evidenced by the election of Evo Morales, but there is much unrest. For example, while I lived there 3 presidents stepped down from their posts due to popular demands (e.g., protesters threatened to burn down the capital building with President Goni inside). Riots and bloqueos (or blockades for our non-Spanish speaking brethren) are common, even normal. Political assassinations, while not of the frequency as during the dirty war, are not unheard of. While I lived there, our city was placed under a state of siege due to a price hike on privatized water.
One aspect of Bolivian democracy that makes it different from the U.S. is its use of multiple political parties. In a presidential election, the president elect usually receives less than 30% of the popular vote. He then forms a "ruling coalition" between themselves and other parties. The exception is Evo Morales who won with a pure 53% majority. This simple fact alone grants his government legitimacy; that and the fact that he is the first indigenous president of country that is over 80% indigenous.
With Evo's election Bolivian democracy can finally state that it is diaphanous: it is transparent in its actions, but still very fragile. It must be well taken care of, but in my opinion, Evo is doing a helluva job.
You don't have to suppress your "fiery rhetoric" - this is your own blog, after all.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't have thought about diaphanous in a political sense, but this makes a lot of sense. Would you say that democracy is more diaphanous in the US or in Bolivia?
Both in a sense. The U.S.'s idea of democracy is diaphanous because of the fact that it is more or less transparent. Bolivia's democracy is diaphanous because it is very fragile.
ReplyDeleteMake sense?
This is a very interesting take on the word. I was wondering in what way the US government is transparent. I guess I always think of bureaucratic red tape and politics as usual, which are far from transparent.
ReplyDeleteWith the election of Morales, do you think Bolivia's democracy is becoming more transparent?
Although I see your point and can understand why you chose to relate this week's word with politics, I think that it is the complete opposite. I think democracy is not fragile, instead it is more of an intricate web. with several outlets; and as for transparent, I think NOT. Although we in the U.S. have a fair (for the most part) form of government, it is by no means transparent. The rules are clear but the loopholes ans outcomes say otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Paola - I see the US government as being far from transparent. The average American has no idea what really goes on behind closed doors, and politicians use campaign rhetoric to say one thing and mean/do another. They pull the wool right over our eyes, blinding us, in a sense, rather than allowing us to see through.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post, as always! :)
I agree with Nicole. You need to say it all. I believe that's the purpose of the blog and we don't all have to agree. I thought about writing about the same topic but in Puerto Rico. I have to agree with you on this one!
ReplyDelete