"to guarantee social rights that allow the weakest classes to overcome poverty. "

Why don't I like the sound of that?

AC, you many not like it b/c you may be one of the privileged classes that may have to give up some of your priveleges so that everyone could live better.

I hope that in this perfect constitution, the sufficient corruption and overseeing agencies are proposed so that the power of the president, parties and other political leaders are checked so that they don't arbitrarily can hire and spend as they see fit.

A perfect constitution would promote human rights for all, establish checks on power, ensure that the public is included in the decision making process, and that criminals - all levels - are brought to justice, which means Hippo, Diandino Pena, Alejandrina, and the other people who've lived off the sweat of the people will have to pay!

baldoria23,

Why is it when leftists or socialist think of helping the poor they automatically think of taking something from someone who has it and giving it to someone who does not. The problem here as in other latin cultures is that for so long there is definatly a class issue. If you have a job that pays better you are therefor a better person. Now the real issue is on that level the same people who attain that "status" refuse to help their own neighbor get ahead. Reform the labor laws, let competition run rampent in the streets and see who seeks out the best workers and pays them better. The ones who dont will close their doors. But the other issue is Latinos are famous for expecting change in the next hour not in six minutes or six months from now. Everytime ANY government decides to place more regulations on whatever, it slows it down until it eventually breaks. The DR system is broken because of that same thing.

He's right... all we lack is the political will ! ! !

He's right... all we lack is the political will ! ! !

Fellows:
I see this differently from most of u; I see a banker ( a guy who makes money out of thin air), proposing that the existing Constitution be scrapped, and a new one be drawn up. That's odd coming from a man who's on the long end of the stick. I question: What's in it for him if the Constitution is changed? Is there a hidden agenda behind this call for changing something that suppossedly isn't broken? Afterall, he's the head of the most properous "legal" bank in the country. Or, is he wanting they change it so that Leo Fdz-Reyna can run the whole magilla for a few decades, maybe? In essence, it just don't sound right for a banking tycoon to call for change in the way things are done. If the getting is good for your organization; Why would you want to flip the script. If he wanted to be philantropic, why not donate some of 'his' accumulated fontune to the less fortunate? This reminds me of an english expression, poppy-cock. Great photo-op, Viva Don Grullon!

blow the photo up zoom........He is saying " Trust me I am here to help you "

"ensure that the public is included in the decision making process,"

That is what cracks me up.
Liberals/Socialist always scream about the public not being heard.

I have news for you. They are. It is called elections. You voted for these guys. Just because the guy you voted for lost doesn't mean the people's voice hasn't been heard.

I agree w/ Arsenio.. Why would the head of a CORPORATION want to get involved in politics to the point where he would make recommendations to change a CONSTITUTION. (note how I have the two key words in CAPS) they simply dont go with one another..

If Mr. Grullon wants to promote social equality , he first needs to layoff the dubbies and white lines.. then build a few hospitals, social centers, beisbol parks, etc... in the poorest sections of the country... how is that for a start Mr. Grullon ? What better than making an immediate POSITIVE impact , rather than wishing for a "perfect constitution" ...

On a similar note. I have never heard of Brugal or Presidente (correct me if wrong) promote anything else other than their products and concerts ... Here we have 2 companies who have approx 75 - 85% of their respective markets, if not more, for as long as I can remember. But yet not a single significant contribution to the community has been made..

"then build a few hospitals, social centers, beisbol parks, etc"

Beisball Parks?
Yea. That is what the DR needs more places for kids to skip school to chase their foolish dream of being a Major League Ballplayer.

an ---- ALMOST ---- PERFECT CONTITUTION..
how can you know for certain that it is an "amost perfect" when there has never been a perfect one ?

there's a "foolish dream" for ya ...

AC - voting is the most powerful tool citizens have, but it is the one that communicates the least amount of information to the leaders. Plus, I think we all agree that the Dominican political system is a clientelist one, correct? (if you don't let me know and I'll send you a draft of my chapter on the 2008 election). Has anyone stopped to considered what are the implications of political clientelism on democratic accountability, transparency, and representation? Well, let me enlighten you.

Much of the literature on party-voter linkages is dominated by the “responsible party model” that presupposes that politics is the result of the interaction of parties which act as agents on behave of voters (principals), who provide parties with the authority to govern and act on their part or toward a common good. There are five essential traits of the model: first, voters have preferences and views over a range of issues. (Cont-)

Second, office-seeking parties or candidates bundle issues into political platforms or programs they promise to enact. Third, Voters then compare their views with the competing party platforms, and support the party with the programmatic basket most compatible with their views and preferences. Fourth, victorious parties, to the best of their abilities and available resources, work to realize their campaign promises and political program presented during the campaign. And lastly, “at the subsequent election, voters hold incumbents and opposition parties accountable for their performance during the electoral term, based upon their effort and performance.” These five characteristics of the “responsible party model” represents an ideal-type representative democracy in which programmatic appeals are formed by parties and presented to voters, voters can then elect representative that best represent their preferences, and finally, voters can monitor their elected representatives and (Cont)

either reward them by re-electing them or punish them by electing the opposition.

Despite wide use and support in political science literature, the “responsible party model” ignores patronage-based party-voter linkages that exist in many democracies. Political clientelism is the giving out of material benefits (money, jobs, food, favors, contracts, and so on) by political patrons (office holders, candidates, or local political brokers ) in exchange for the political support of the client (citizens who receive these benefits) in the form of political activism (attending campaign/party activities, voting, advertising party paraphernalia at home or vehicle). So the question is, does clientelist-inspired participation fit a democratic conception of political participation? To address this question lets determine if political clients are communicating any messages to political leaders about the issues or policies they support or oppose. (Cont.-)

Given that clientelist parties mobilize people by the direct exchange of private or club goods and not general policy promises that will benefit the entire economy or society, then it can be argued that clients are participating or supporting their political patrons for the material benefits not because they support the political program presented by the clientelist party. I contend that these voters are not providing their support as citizens who support a political program, but rather as clients who are mobilized in exchange for a bag of food, money, jobs, or promise of future benefits. Under clientelist exchanges clients are the “de facto democratic principals and delegate to politicians to maintain property rights and adopt policies that allow them to extract from clients,” not to adopt welfare improving or institutional reform policies that would benefit the entire electorate. (Cont-)

Thus, clientelist-inspired mobilization cannot be considered democratic political participation, but a sort of soc/econ transaction between patrons and clients, where patrons purchase the support of clients with material benefits, not programmatic appeals.

And What about democratic accountability? In a clientelist system, voters are not holding parties accountable for their performance, and instead are supporting political patrons who provide them with the highest payoff. Voters actually forgo the ability to pass judgment on party platforms or performance; they lose their ability to voice support or opposition for any type of policy change!

So, AC, when you put so much weight on voting as a legitimizing mechanism, we should look at the quality of the vote and at the party-voter linkages that mobilize voters to participate in politics.

Hi Baldoria...

It all sounds fine and dandy to me --
however what happend when the 5th characteristic:

“at the subsequent election, voters hold incumbents and opposition parties accountable for their performance during the electoral term, based upon their effort and performance.”

is repeated endlessly -- meaning the party which does not deliver is held accountable by electing a different party at the next election, however that party fails to deliver as well.
Then each party takes turns and play tag team with "THE PEOPLE" but never hear them..

My view is slightly different -- there should be an specific agenda, independent of any party in power. That agenda should be adhere to and followed by whoever is elected by the poeple. The agenda should be created by the people by way of votes. The people get to vote on what goes on the agenda; IE. schools, hospitals, economic/social assitance etc.. the programs stay inplace for yrs to come rather than being changed evry term

that's what we would have under under a more programmatic approach! That's we need to turn our backs on clientelist parties.

having a commette (comprised of public members elected evry 2 yrs ) serve as a watch-dog over goverment decisions. The government would be allowed to govern, however the oversight should make things more transparent..

Yes, more institutions to oversee the actions of our leaders and more inclusion of the public is what we need.

Plus, more laws that prevent political parties from employ clientelist appeals, and a media that is more independent and critical.

baldoria23;

I been told that -
----------------------what matters is not who you vote for, but who counts the vote.

Did you ever think of that premise? Ever heard of the Diebold in the USA?

Need strong institutions all-around. The issue in the DR is not vote counting, it's everything before- the clientelist networks. That's why the OAS is able to come to the DR praise the elections, but criticize the political discourse and the campaign tactics.

Baldoria, why in God's name are you wasting four paragraphs responding to anthonyc? the guy is a monchromatic reductionist , who sees things only in very limited parameters. to him it is all very simple: rich people are industrious, creative, well intentioned creatures, poor people are useless bums that litter his beautiful landscape. community centers are places will kids will go to goof off and miss school, all hoping to be baseball players. to him, the only areas wherein people should be allowed to have any kind of recreation are at the yacht club and the polo field. the guy is hopeless, mindless, useless, and virtueless.

Baldoria,

using your long winded logic the PRD should still be in Power!

thank you for the long winded, means you read it :-)

Well, not necessarily. incumbents have a HUGE advantage, but it's not absolute, ergo you would not see much turnover in Latin American politics. It's about the networks. The party with the better networks are able to mobilize more support. in 2004, the PRD was demoralized and divided - not everyone supported the PPHistas, ask Milagro, while the PLD was reinvigorated. Clientelist parties need to continuously invest in their networks, else they go to the other camp which offers more benefits.