ladimir Turiansky W, born in 1927, is a historic Communist leader, with active participation in the party leadership and the labor movement. He joined the union leadership of UTE at various times between 1962 and 1973. He was vice president of the CNT from its founding until he was imprisoned by the military dictatorship. Was a member of the legislature dissolved the coup. He was imprisoned between 1975 and 1985. Agent has no profile of the CIA.
In April, he published the book Turiansky Uruguayan Communists in recent history, 1955-1991 . The work has been received with the coldness that often falls on most of the books that question the official story that the Uruguayan left has built upon itself, with too many accomplices in academia and the press. According to this version of recent decades, each one of the scourges that Uruguay was in the recent past, the Tupamaros, Communists and the Broad Front in general are always placed as victims, not as actors, never as stewards. Fall " of democracy? Victims. "Political Violence? Victims. "Dictatorship? Victims. "Act expire? Victims.
Turiansky is more honest.
His book surprised when he speaks, for example, the government of Oscar red Gestido (1901-1967), who took office on March 1, 1967 and died in December, beleaguered and distressed by a country that sped toward the abyss.
youth and much of the press today are good that unsustainable phrase popularized the writer Mario Benedetti, who said that Uruguay, before the arrival of the Broad Front to power in 2004, had "174 years of right-wing governments ".
Turiansky, however, writes that "the general gesture was not exactly the man the right sectors aspired to the presidency of the Republic."
Account: "A little before it took office, a delegation of the CNT was interviewed at his home in the street Gabriel Pereira Pocitos. It was a simple house, that gesture is not left as president (he did not want to move to the official residence of Smith Street, and all that denoted that there, at home, lived the President, was perhaps the presence of a police officer at the door). Very kindly, was his wife who gave him coffee in the delegation, and there he spoke at length about the future government and their attitude towards the workers. " There
"it became clear that the new government would focus on policy dialogue with the workers."
In June 1967, and the stifling political and economic crisis in Uruguay, President Gestido, recalls the book, he changed his cabinet (covering a wide political spectrum) and decided to bet all the chips of his presidency a single line: progressivism.
"Begin and the so-called '100 days' Gestido government. The reasoning was remarkably critical official the positions of the IMF, and relations with this organization, which lobbies shamelessly become tense, "recalls Turiansky. What attitude
took the Uruguayan left with a president who wanted to pursue a progressive agenda of national development and opposed to the IMF? How does the Communist Party, trade unions and the left in general to that attempt progressive?
With a wild wave of strikes and stoppages that lasted for months: in the press, in the joint venture in the port, the remaining public enterprises, etc, etc. Turiansky the government has asked the unions for a truce, time to stabilize the direction of country in its new orientation, promoting domestic industry and away from the IMF prescriptions. The union, however, it is not granted and stepped up their siege. (The MLN, meanwhile, attempted torpedoing democracy revolution.)
Finally, after months of mounting crisis and political instability, Gestido was forced to abandon a course where no one supported it. Then decreed emergency security measures and he changed his cabinet, this time appealing to the support of the right. I had tried to govern to the left, but the fire had left the country. Turiansky
wondered if the presidency of gesture and its political situation was "properly examined by the Uruguayan left by the trade union movement, by popular organizations "
And answers:" Honestly, we would not be properly assessed change that occurred between June and September 1967 and what should done about it. Is that to the left, to the Latin American left was the "Hour of the Furnaces'. Are the months of Che's Bolivian guerrilla, and for a large sector of the left, especially for young people, it's time to take up arms. Forgetting Che's own recommendations, years earlier, in his speech at the auditorium of the University .... "
The book by former trade unionist and communist leader has another moment of great self-criticism: the prelude to the coup.
Turiansky recalls the support of the Communist Party to press 4 and 7 of the Armed Forces, issued in February 1973, when in fact started the process of institutional breakdown by ignoring the military the authority of the legitimate powers of the country.
But Turiansky believes that, even then, could save democracy, what did not happen because "there were no roads and confluence unit that would have been necessary."
The Communists then fought
institutions "It seems clear that it required a shift that placed the agenda defense of democratic freedoms and the Parliament premises become popular sovereignty, under threat from the executive and military commanders, "he admits today Turiansky. But "the left did not make a turn that was necessary."
also regrets that in the event of Labor Day 1973, the trade union movement did not defend democracy against the growing threat of a coup. "On May 1 should have been a great popular mobilization in defense of democratic freedoms under threat ..."
He concludes: "A balance of the period required to examine in self some decisions, some assessments, some statements. "
The Frente Amplio is usually explained the recent history according to the theory of the three demons all the evils that occurred in the country are the responsibility of the military (Demon 1) of the Colorado Party (Demon 2) or the National Party (demon 3). Turiansky comes to admit that the faults are much more dispersed. Beyond
successes and mistakes (self-critical and missing, such as the process that led to the Limitation Act), the book is a contribution to a better understanding of recent history. Its greatest value is that Turiansky are encouraged to challenge acts and decisions that involve personally.
is the opposite of what make other players in those years: those who cling to covenants ominous silence, and those who have twisted the story in an effort to be considered heroes that never were.
article Haberkorn
Porhibida reproduced without permission of the author
el.informante.blog @ gmail.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment