On the Nature and Malfunctioning of Constitutions

Posted on March 26, 2026 by Guillermo Calvo Mahé

Constitutions are inherently conservative antidemocratic instruments, attempts by the polity of a given time to control the decisions and practices of their progeny. At their best, they are conservative in the sense, not of the policies they promote but rather, in the sense that they reject the opinions of any given period as absolute, instead insisting that they reflect the past (i.e., tradition), the present (seeking resolution to current tensions) and the future, although with reference to the future they tend less to respect than to bind. Those burdened with the task of constitutional control (i.e., interpretation, implementation and enforcement) are purportedly bound by the constitution’s dictates based on earlier experiences (experiences perhaps not only no longer relevant but conceivably now proven wrong) while trying to resolve current tensions. Not an enviable task.

In constitutional terms, the English common law did not recognize the authority of the past over the present insisting that no parliament or institution could bind another but it concurrently had to deal with the inherited Roman concepts of stare decises and res judicata, both demanding adherence to prior decisions, albeit binding on the judiciary but not the legislature. Napoleon Bonaparte, based on libertarian and egalitarian instincts, rejected both stare decises and res judicata, insisting that judges be bound by broad legislatively enacted legal concepts embodied and logically organized into codes[1] which they were required to apply to the facts, using their own judgment and logic, to arrive at conclusions tailor made for the specific issues involved without regard for either the past or the future. On the other hand, he insisted that judicial decisions be brief, limited to one sentence if possible, a dictate made ludicrous through us of the word “whereas” (in French, considérant) to link innumerable pages-long clauses to contextualize and explain the nature of and reasoning for a decision.

The constitution of the Republic of Colombia (where I now live after a lifetime in the United States), like the constitution of the Republic of India (also known as Bharat), is an extremely long tapestry of contradictory and unattainable premises and promises, albeit beautifully phrased and full of idealistic platitudes, in the case of Colombia, with four different supreme judicial bodies, each of which seems to take turns contradicting the others, and as elsewhere, each dominated by political rather than legal priorities. To me they are both most useful as harbingers of the uselessness of constitutions incomprehensible to the people they are meant to govern, interpretable, if at all, only by purported experts frequently incapable of agreeing with each other. As several of my students in classes on constitutional theory and on comparative politics have noted, a constitution, to really serve its purpose, ought to at least be comprehensible to people of average intelligence and education, even if it is, in practice, rarely really followed (as is much too frequently the case)[2].

Today, many, perhaps most, maybe even all constitutions are more like revered religious relics treasured by atheists because of their historical, cultural and monetary value than because of their intrinsic meaning. Hence, in the United States of America for example, the meaning of the Constitution’s premises and pronouncements not only vary over time as it purportedly somehow seeks to remain relevant for resolution of legal and political tensions reflecting changing societal contexts, but even more so with respect to the immediate goals and aspirations of the political party that most recently appointed the membership of the judiciary, the judiciary which, in the United States, through usurpation[3], acquired the power and responsibility for constitutional control. Hence, members of the United States Supreme Court may well change their constitutional interpretations based on whether or not the party that appointed them controls one or the other, or both of the other purportedly coequal branches of government. Consequently, existential issues like states’ rights versus federal supremacy alternate in focus and importance, as does strict construction versus organic interpretation.

In the United States, the study and practice of “constitutional law” does not involve development of a profound understanding of hypotheses and theories involving the nature and roles of constitutions, their elements and how they should function in order to approximate the common welfare but rather, a tortured study of the history of Supreme Court decisions and how to best misinterpret them to support desired quotidian results. That leads to ludicrous decisions (sometimes resulting in equitable results) such as that in the famous (and now infamous) case of Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), where the court at the time discovered a penumbra of privacy emanating from perceived implied constitutional rights that created a right to an abortion, something none of the creators of the Bill of Rights would have supported, although they probably would have agreed that such a right probably existed based on the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution (the forgotten amendments) which provide that the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of all human rights and sought (unsuccessfully) to restrict federal power to only what is explicitly stated in the Constitution. Specifically, the 9^th Amendment protects rights not specifically listed while the 10^th reserves all other powers for the states “or the people”. Roe v Wade is only one of the more egregious instances of poor constitutional scholarship by those charged with constitutional control. Other examples are myriad, especially those that virtually destroyed the constitutional concept of federalism on which the United States was based, at least what was left of it after the Civil War and the Wilson era constitutional amendments (the 16^th through 19^th amendments), through expansion of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with Indian tribes, coupled with the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause, which establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties constitute the “supreme law of the land”, albeit theoretically only in the areas covered by the twenty-seven specifically designated (“enumerated”) areas were power is withdrawn from the States and transferred by the Constitution to the federal government (Article I, Section 8).

Thus, while it is true that in theory constitutions are inherently conservative, antidemocratic instruments, in the case of the United States of America, the meaning of the constitution adopted in 1787 and implemented in 1788, at any given point in time, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder, except, perhaps, for its organic functions, i.e., those that specify the institutions created for federal governance. But even there, such functions, organization and modes of operation have proven not that difficult to manipulate, e.g., voting rights, apportionment, electoral districts, gerrymandering, prohibitions against convergence of legislative, executive and judicial powers[4], etc. The result is, as I once wrote[5], a motley constitution, one court jesters (actually, wielders of considerable power both as advisors and as spies) might well be proud to call their own.

And unfortunately, in that respect, the United States Constitution is not unique.

_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved. Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.

[1] An ancient perspective reflected notably in the codes of Hammurabi and Justinian, millennia apart.

[2] Interestingly, there are those, frequently highly intelligent comedians of a libertarian bent, who find dysfunctionality the best form of governance given, as Will Rogers once stated quoting Judge Gideon John Tucker that “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session”, thus a functional constitution may be the most dangerous kind and the type most to be avoided. It is sad to consider that the eminent Judge Tucker and Mr. Rogers may well have had a point.

[3] See, e.g., Calvo Mahé, Guillermo et. al. (Jiménez Ramírez, Milton Cesar, editor, 2020): “Capítulo I. Evolución del control de constitucionalidad en los estados unidos.”; El control de la constitucionalidad en episodios: acerca del control constitucional como límite al poder; Universidad de Caldas, Facultad de ciencias jurídicas y sociales; Bogotá.

[4] A prohibition made ludicrous in the case of administrative agencies which combine all three functions in a revolving door scheme where regulators and the regulated constantly trade places.

[5] Calvo Mahé, Guillermo (2023): “Motley Constitutionalism: a labyrinthine aphorism”; Medium, July 30, 2023 available at https://guillermo-calvo-mahe.medium.com/motley-constitutionalism-a-labyrinthine-aphorism-9270c689f12d.

Some Brief but Important Reflections on Pending Decisions Concerning Electoral Processes

Posted on March 24, 2026 by Guillermo Calvo Mahé

Two issues seem very relevant to me as another hyperbolically intense and polarized electoral cycle approaches, both, to some extent, being currently considered by the United States’ utterly politicized Supreme Court (Michael Watson, Mississippi Secretary of State, Petitioner v. Republican National Committee, et al., Docket Number: No. 24-1260, U.S. Supreme Court), much more a politburo than an impartial arbiter of legal disputes. They involve the electoral cycle and mail-in-ballots.

Election days are by necessity arbitrary. Electoral periods, what we have today, involve a temporal range culminating in an end date and they are also arbitrary, but more complex. To me, an “informed” electorate may be the most essential factor for a functional democracy, excluding aspects related to electoral corruption (which has always been present). An informed electorate requires that the voters have access to all relevant information before making their decisions. That argues against a temporal range with early voting, especially when the temporal range is broad because political parties and advocacy groups are desperate to have votes frozen in time at the earliest possible moment so that voters do not continue to receive information that might impact their vote in manners adverse to the interests of such groups although, of course, such impact would not always impact them negatively. To me, therefore, early voting is more democratically counterproductive than is receipt of mail-in-ballots postmarked on the final “end date” but received a reasonably short period thereafter.

Mail-in-ballots involve a different, albeit related issue, and that is that they facilitate electoral corruption, and not limited to the casting of ballots by ineligible voters or the casting of ballots by a voter in multiple jurisdictions. They facilitate the creation of a market for purchased votes, for example, by facilitating the purchase of a signed ballot, filled in or vacant, from a voter who either needs the cash or sees voting as a profit making opportunity, a world-wide phenomenon probably as old as the first election, and not limited to mail-in-ballots, but certainly facilitated by them. On the other hand, there is certainly justification for use of mail-in-ballots where nearby polling stations are not available, for example, where voters reside abroad, or for use by voters whose mobility is restricted because they are incapacitated.

The foregoing issues merit serious reflection and better solutions than those available today (or as proposed in the hyperbolically denominated “Save Act”[1]), understanding that neither electoral ignorance nor electoral corruption are likely to ever be eliminated but that they can certainly be minimized. Unfortunately, such solutions would require non-politicized arbiters without personal interests in the results and that mechanism is non-existent in the good old USA. Or actually, anywhere else. Less disinterested arbiters than the United States’ major political parties, the Democrats and the GOP, however, are difficult to imagine. Consider for example their oscillating positions on the gerrymandering issue. And they are the ones on whom, along with the nine political appointees to the Supreme Court, we are left to rely.
_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved. Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

[1] The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act (H.R. 8281/H.R. 22).

Reflections on Tyranny, Democracy, Rights and Sovereignty

Posted on March 12, 2026 by Guillermo Calvo Mahé

It’s interesting and indeed important in this age where verity is an anachronism to reflect on the intellectual pillars on which seventeenth and eighteenth century political philosophers ruminated as they wove the fundaments on which they hoped “western” society might to be based. They were not concerned with democracy at all. Indeed, most disdained it as mob rule, but they were very concerned with avoidance of tyranny. Not “tyranny” in the classical Greek sense of attainment of power by nontraditional means, Greek tyrants were among the most effective and populist leaders, but in the sense of abuse of power by an oligarch. They realized, I believe, that rule of one man (a subject) by another (a sovereign) inevitably involves the appropriation, for benign or malign purposes, of the subject’s sovereignty (i.e., his or her autonomy) and they were most concerned with at least limiting the extent to which such bequeathed, stolen or otherwise acquired individual sovereignty would be subjugated. In this, Thomas Hobbes was more sanguine than was the kinder and more idealistic John Locke but as history has demonstrated, Hobbes was more perceptive.

In the opinion of John Locke and perhaps also Thomas Hobbes, in a primordial, perhaps metaphorical past, individuals, theretofore fully vested of their individual sovereignty, surrendered it in exchange for a social system that provided some semblance of security and predictability because in a world where everyone was sovereign, no one was secure, the concept of private property could not exist, and though the strongest might rule, the weak, collectively or while the strong slumbered, could dispose of them. Hobbes believed that individuals surrendered the totality of their individual sovereignty to a single individual, an autocrat, or to a group of individuals, an oligarchy, in exchange for promised personal safety and for “boons” from the sovereign which resembled rights, but could be modified, suspended or eliminated at the sovereign’s whim, so long as the sovereign provided security.

John Locke’s perspective was very different in that not all aspects of individual sovereignty were surrendered and the aspects retained were inviolable “rights”. Further, that the surrender of the portion of individual sovereignty not retained was based on a social contract and thus, the surrender was conditioned on the sovereign’s compliance with the terms pursuant to which it had attained its authority, which included guarantees of security, but much more, especially respect for the aspects of sovereignty not surrendered.

Because “rights” were the purported residue of individual sovereignty, not granted but retained, they could not be conditioned, even when the conditions were benign, made sense and were necessary. Consequently, if what seems a right is subject to any condition, it is no longer a right but a boon granted by one who has attained sovereignty over another or others, and the best that might be hoped for is a quasicontractual arrangement where the sovereign agrees to be bound by rules giving the subject limited means to enforce the boon granted. Limited means because, as we see today in the United States, sovereigns tend to avoid or ignore the promises made to their subjects whenever the whim strikes them. Thomas Hobbes did not believe in the concept of rights (other than as a primordial myth). Because he believed that the totality of individual sovereignty had been surrendered to a central authority in exchange for security and for the grant of boons that sort of smelled like rights, he believed that mankind’s hope lay in enlightened sovereigns.

Today, “rights” appear everywhere, enumerated in countless constitutions and referenced constantly in treaties, legislation and political debates, indeed, they have morphed into diverse purported generations each expanding their purported scope. But no so-called-right is unconditional and despite constant references to guarantees, no such right is consistently enforced. Given that rights are purportedly self-enforcing, not having been granted but retained, it seems clear, at least to the author, that in reality, no rights, as understood by John Locke exist. Rather, there are aspirational concepts towards which decent governments should seek to evolve, and what exists currently is solely the conception described by David Hume in his criticism of Locke as conventional, utility-based, and established human conditional agreements meant to maintain social order and property, essential, artificial rules that allow people to coexist peacefully, which may or may not be honored..

John Locke naively believed in rights and argued articulately in their favor albeit, as David Hume eventually pointed out, his logic was premise free, i.e., rather than articulated, his premises were purportedly self-evident. However, clever politicians including those who betrayed their oaths of loyalty to the British monarchy in the latter half of the eighteenth century in order to appropriate the British monarch’s sovereignty for themselves, found Locke’s arguments useful, if perhaps not quite credible. They were, after all, pragmatically practical men interested in practical results rather than the idealists that history portrays. Indeed, their actions (think of Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence and slavery) with respect to their purported reformulation of John Locke’s conclusions were laced with hypocrisy. That always has been the case and not just among the so-called Founding Fathers nor limited to the republic they founded.

Still, the Founding Fathers, like the political philosophers who preceded and followed them, were concerned with the issue of tyranny, at least with tyranny that impacted them directly and, in order to minimize tyranny, the founders of the United Colonies’ eventual republic sought to constitutionally disperse sovereignty in two ways: first by placing temporal limits on the human beings who might be charged with its employment and second, by fragmenting sovereignty into separate groupings of political power, thus avoiding “dictatorship” [1]. In this regard it is worth noting that the concept of dictatorship ought not to be considered a pejorative but rather, merely the result of un-fragmented sovereignty, i.e., when all political power was concentrated in one person or institution (the traditional segmentation of political power being, legislative, executive and judicial, to which should have been added a fourth, supervision and control over the other three to avoid usurpation[2]).

That democracy was not important at to the Founding Fathers seems obvious in the institutional structures they established through the Constitution promulgated in 1787 and set into full force in 1788:

The Senate was selected, not by the People but by the States.

The membership of the House of Representatives was not based on population but on a complex system comprised in part of population, in another part based on equal numerical representation of the states, and in a third part by treating persons locked into involuntary servitude (slavery) as 3/5ths of a person, however, the right to vote was restricted in such manner as the states might determine so that, as in ancient Athens, less than ten percent of the population originally enjoyed the “franchise” (right to vote).

The President was to be elected by designees of the states selected as they saw fit to serve in an organization that never actually met, the Electoral College. And the federal Judiciary was to be selected for life by agreement between the president and the Senate.

No trace of democracy anywhere.

That system has somewhat morphed into a semblance of democracy by expansion of the right to vote, usurping functions originally assigned to the states, but not on a one person one vote basis as residents in smaller states exercise disproportional electoral power in the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.

Democracy should however be a majoritarian concept and that requires popular participation. Unfortunately, unlike the ancient Athenians and Romans where political participation (at least by those eligible to participate) was deemed a duty, in the United States participation in the political process is deemed a sort of right and, consequently, rarely if ever do enough eligible voters participate in the electoral process to make attainment of a real majority (more than 50% of the eligible electorate) possible. Hence electoral decisions are made by relatively small pluralities, usually less than 30% of the eligible electorate and that 30% is comprised of or controlled by elites with little or no interest in the common welfare (as opposed to their own privileges).

Perhaps more relevant is the reality that while the illusion of democracy seems to have evolved over time, the reality has not. Elected officials for the most part (with fairly are exceptions) answer not to their constituents but to those who fund their political campaigns. Institutionally, political power is purportedly concentrated in two privileged political parties supposedly in a relationship of collaborative opposition but today and for the past half century at least, both of those groupings are economically dominated by a purportedly private organization dedicated to imposing the will of a foreign country on the citizenry[3]. As a result, the residents of that foreign country, well, at least the residents who are members of that country’s official religion, obtain, at the expense of United States tax payers, massive social programs unavailable in the United States (e.g., subsidized housing, free healthcare and education, etc.), massive funding for its armed forces, the use of the armed forces of the United States for its own quest for lebensraum and, use of the veto power of the United States in the United Nations (as directed by that foreign government). In addition to the foregoing, the purported rights constitutionally guaranteed to the citizens of the United States are quickly becoming inapplicable if they are detrimental to the goals, aspirations or interests of that foreign state. Consequently, a foreign state, without temporal limitations such as are involved in terms of political office or limitations based on fragmentation of sovereignty has imposed a de facto tyrannical dictatorship over the United States, which it uses to impose its will over the Middle East. Its ambitions however may well spread to other regions in the not too distant future.

Ironic but perhaps, something that was predictable as far back as 1787. Indeed, George Washington, the first president of the United States under the Constitution of 1787 seems to have foreseen the possibility now existent in his farewell address. The address was in the form of a letter entitled “The Address of General Washington to the People of America on His Declining the Presidency of the United States” published in Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser on September 19, 1796, about ten weeks before the newly appointed members of the Electoral College were to cast their votes in 1796. In that address he sternly warned against the situation which the country finds itself in today, one that has been continually evolving since at least 1916. Wikipedia, not the most reliable source but a useful one from time to time, describes the segment of George Washington’s Farewell Address dedicated to foreign sovereigns as follows (footnotes omitted)[4]:

Washington dedicates a large part of his farewell address to discussing foreign relations and the dangers of permanent alliances between the United States and foreign nations, which he views as foreign entanglements. He advocates a policy of good faith and justice towards all nations, again making reference to proper behavior based upon religious doctrine and morality. He urges the American people to avoid long-term friendly relations or rivalries with any nation, arguing that attachments with or animosity toward other nations will only cloud the government’s judgment in its foreign policy. He argues that longstanding poor relations will only lead to unnecessary wars due to a tendency to blow minor offenses out of proportion when committed by nations viewed as enemies of the United States. He continues this argument by claiming that alliances are likely to draw the United States into wars that have no justification and no benefit to the country beyond simply defending the favored nation. Alliances, he warns, often lead to poor relations with nations who feel that they are not being treated as well as America’s allies, and threaten to influence the American government into making decisions based upon the will of their allies instead of the will of the American people.

….

Washington makes an extended reference to the dangers of foreign nations who will seek to influence the American people and government; nations who may be considered friendly as well as nations considered enemies will equally try to influence the government to do their will. “Real patriots”, he warns, who “resist the intrigues” of foreign nations may find themselves “suspected and odious” in the eyes of others, yet he urges the people to stand firm against such influences all the same. He portrays those who attempt to further such foreign interests as becoming the “tools and dupes” of those nations, stealing the applause and praise of their country away from the “real patriots” while actually working to “surrender” American interests to foreign nations.

Washington goes on to urge the American people to take advantage of their isolated position in the world, and to avoid attachments and entanglements in foreign affairs, especially those of Europe, which he argues have little or nothing to do with the interests of America. He argues that it makes no sense for the American people to become embroiled in European affairs when their isolated position and unity allow them to remain neutral and focus on their own affairs. He argues that the country should avoid permanent alliances with all foreign nations, although temporary alliances during times of extreme danger may be necessary. He states that current treaties should be honored but not extended.

Washington wraps up his foreign policy stance by advocating free trade with all nations, arguing that trade links should be established naturally and the role of the government should be limited to ensuring stable trade, defending the rights of American merchants and any provisions necessary to ensure the conventional rules of trade.

Obviously, as in the case of President Dwight David Eisenhower’s farewell address, President Washington’s foresight has been utterly ignored. Thus, while the postulations of the sixteenth and seventeenth century philosophers who sought to provide future generations with guidance with respect to the avoidance of tyranny to some extent impacted the Founding Fathers in the formulation of the Constitution of 1787, the results have proven singularly unsuccessful and have instead, resulted in the domination of three hundred and fifty million residents of the United States by ten million European Immigrants to the Middle East who have managed to leverage widespread control over economics, communication, entertainment and finance into total control over the … well, … seemingly everything. Pretty much the definition of tyranny.

So, … In retrospect, reflecting on tyranny, democracy, rights and sovereignty, we have never had democracy or rights although for a while, to an extent, we managed to minimize tyranny, but whatever sovereignty we once had, or though we had, is now illusory as well. Ironically, the efforts of the Founding Fathers to sunder Britain’s American colonies from British sovereignty in a manner minimizing the risks of tyranny have only resulted in subjugation to the tyranny of another foreign sovereign.

At least for now.
_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved. Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

[1] A dictatorship is the most efficient form of government but more likely to lead to tyranny than fragmented sovereignty although, as can be seen today, the scheme of governance the Founding Fathers established on their second attempt, in 1787, can fairly easily be converted into a dictatorship when all elements of such fragmentation are reunited under one person, or one political group, as frequently occurs and as is the case in the United States today.

[2] Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers did not provide for an arbiter between the three traditional powers, although the concept was considered at the Constitutional Convention, and several proposed solutions rejected. Instead, they appeared to assume that such function could be attained through granting the executive a power to veto legislation, for whatever reason, subject to override, and also the power to pardon. They were, unfortunately mistaken as that power was quickly usurped by the Judiciary in a decision worthy of Machiavelli, the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) where John Marshall, the recently appointed n Chief Justice of the United States provided his detested cousin, President Thomas Jefferson with a pyrrhic victory by deciding in his favor, but based on the dubious theory that the Judiciary was the arbiter of constitutional authority. Theretofore, that function had been assumed to lie in the legislative branch (as it did in the United Kingdom) or in the executive as implied at the Constitutional Convention, although a number of colonies in their own systems of governance had been drifting towards the concept of judicial review under their own constitutions. See generally, Calvo Mahé, Guillermo et. al. (Jiménez Ramírez, Milton Cesar, editor, 2020): “Capítulo I. Evolución del control de constitucionalidad en los estados unidos.”; El control de la constitucionalidad en episodios: acerca del control constitucional como límite al poder; Universidad de Caldas, Facultad de ciencias jurídicas y sociales; Bogotá.

[3] The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

[4] George Washington’s Farewell Address; Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington’s_Farewell_Address. Last edited on 23 February 2026, at 19:06 (UTC), accessed, March 10, 2026.

Democracy and Comparative Electoral Systems

Posted on March 8, 2026 by Guillermo Calvo Mahé

Today, March 8, 2026 is an interesting day because of the confluence of diverse factors. It is “Women’s Day” in many places, originally “Working Women’s Day” but the concept has been expanded internationally as it has become recognized that unpaid domestic labor is as worthy of recognition as any other kind of labor. But today is also Daylight Savings Time Day, at least in the United States of America where millions of people woke to find that they’re bodies believe that it is an hour later than everything around them seems to be occurring. Finally, it is the first in a series of election days in the Republic of Colombia this year. Today the members of Congress are elected and primaries are held for contested presidential candidacies. Which brings me, admittedly in a roundabout way, to the continuing debate in the United States concerning who should be permitted to vote and how.

In Colombia, voting requires photo identification via a national identity card updated constantly to electronically indicate not only citizenship, but voting residency. At the designated polls (voting is in person), one is also fingerprinted and required to provide a signature. The individual voting locations are maintained electronically in the National Registry and one can find one’s polling place and room through the Internet. The identity cards, denominated “cedulas”, are easily available to everyone, in fact, they’re required and used for commercial transactions, transport, etc. They are issued by the National Registry which verifies citizenship as well as basic personal data including height and blood type. Elections are easy, quick, and with results posted the same day. All of the foregoing is very different than the incoherently complex, inefficient and insecure system in the United States where the concept of a national identification card has been anathema to conservatives and libertarians in the past but, ironically, at present, it is liberals who seem to oppose required voting identification while conservatives insist on photo identification that includes proof of citizenship and support federal legislation denominated the “Save Act” to make such requirements applicable nationally.

The Save Act sounds logical but has a major problem. Because the United States is a federation, elections occur at the state, county and special district rather than national level, even in elections for Congress and the Presidential Electoral College (there are no real presidential elections) thus, appropriate identification would require supplemental systems that verify not only national citizenship, but state and local domicile. No current form of identification meets those requirements which would require a constantly updated national citizen database similar to what exists in Colombia and most other countries, a database heretofore opposed by the conservatives who now insist on what, without it, would be a dysfunctional Save Act. So, unlike most of the world, the United States is engaged in an easily resolvable but transcendentally important ludicrous political debate, politicized in order to polarize the electorate. Perhaps instead of Make America Great Again, the United States electorate needs to concentrate on just Make America Functional.

While the electoral process in the Republic of Colombia is fair, efficient and relatively secure, there are significant issues that render it deficient in terms of democracy, a universal problem. Most of all, the electoral system is geared to empower political parties instead of voters, hence, it is political parties rather than the citizenry that is the subject of political rights and related political power. As in most of the non-English speaking world, Colombian legislative elections are proportional so that the legislature more or less represents most of the political forces in the country. If, for example, a political party only receives ten percent of the vote, it still receives ten percent of the membership in the legislature, unlike the English speaking world (the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) where it would be completely frozen out. This is accomplished in Colombia and elsewhere because instead of using individual electoral districts where only one legislator is chosen, a system of multi-legislator districts is used. The most efficient such system is the one used in the Republic of Ireland for elections to the lower house of Parliament where the voter places all of the candidates in the district in order of preference allocating to each a voting value. Thus, the individual voter’s personal list can be comprised of candidates from diverse political parties. For example, if the district were to have ten candidates, the one listed first would receive a voting value of ten and the one listed tenth would receive a voting value of one. If a candidate is not listed, the voting value would be zero. The candidates elected in that ten legislator district would be the ten who accumulated the most voting value points and might well include candidates who received no first or second place votes.

In Colombia and other places, the list system is perverted because the lists are predetermined by the political parties and in many instances, the order of candidates, which determines who will be elected, is frozen. In other hybrid systems voters get to either vote for the whole list or to indicate a preference for a single candidate, with the order of candidates in the list reprioritized based on the number of votes received by individual candidates. In the Republic of Colombia, the political parties determine whether the lists will be closed, the former option, or open, the latter. Closed lists are sometimes justified as necessary in order to assure gender balance in the results with candidates listed in alternating gender.

The principal practical problem with the legislative electoral system in the Republic of Colombia in the open system is that the names of candidates do not appear on the ballot, rather, only the names of the political parties or movements sponsoring the list and a series of numbers representing the individual candidates, thus, voters have to arrive at the polls with the number of the candidate they favor memorized. Because voters frequently forget the specific numbers, they instead opt to vote only for the party. This issue is easily resolvable by either placing the names of candidates on the ballot or providing a guide at the polling station that voters can consult to find the number allocated to their preferred candidate but as usually occurs, solutions are plentiful but the will to implement them, for manipulative reasons, is absent. The other major problem is that although the electoral districts are multi legislator districts, voters can only vote for one candidate thus, for example, the Department of Caldas is entitled to five members in the House of Representatives, voters can only vote for one and in doing so, automatically vote for that candidates sponsoring political party or political movement.

Another practical problem in Colombia is that the political party system is in great incoherent ideologically. With political parties forming local electoral alliances of convenience. Thus, in one Department a list may be jointly sponsored by the Liberal Party, Conservative Party, the Party of National Unity and the Radical Change Party, in another Department the party configuration may be very different, excluding some of the members or replacing or supplementing them with others, or even, presenting a unique list without alliances with other parties. The consequence is that the policies advocated by different parties can be inconsistent in different parts of the country but, since promised policies are, as in most parts of the world, rarely honored, the impact is more theoretical than practical.

Legislative electoral systems in the English speaking world, the first past the post systems as they are commonly known, are the least democratic, i.e., candidates receiving less than half of the vote are elected based on a plurality, and a plurality means that the candidate was opposed by most of the voters who fragmented their votes. Such issue could be tempered, if not resolved, through required runoff systems, but that would still disenfranchise a majority of the electorate. Smaller political parties have no legislative representation at all, and hence, are not likely to ever evolve into major parties, especially as voters are urged by the media not to waste their votes on smaller political parties.

The proportional list systems have their own problems except, perhaps, in systems such as exist in the Republic of Ireland, but given the political power provided to political parties by systemic deficiencies, the likelihood of change to improve the functionality of legislative democracy, other than through constitutional reform directly through the electorate, is unlikely. Democracy is thus, unfortunately, more of a useful illusion than a realistic system of governance, almost everywhere. Of course, that leaves open for future analysis the value of an effective democratic electoral system given the laziness, ignorance, emotionality, prejudices and naiveté of so many voters.

Further exponent sayeth naught other than: Happy Women’s Day and Happy Daylight Savings Day!

_____

On the GOP’s Save Act and Critical Related Issues

Posted on February 19, 2026 by Guillermo Calvo Mahé

Opposition to the so called Save Act (H.R.22 – 119th Congress, 2025-2026) by Democrats based on their current arguments concerning threats to democracy seems stupid, nonsensical and counterproductive (to the glee of the GOP). The requirement for photo identification verifying citizenship and right to vote as a prerequisite to voting is something common all over the world, something usually accompanied by required signature and fingerprint verification. In the United States the issue is a bit more complicated because of states’ rights under our federal system and the historical aversion to a national identification card and because of the transient nature of United States society with voting at federal, state and local levels predicated not only on citizenship but on residency. Thus it would seem that appropriately reliable verification documentation would be required at each such level depending on the election involved. A problem, true, but not an irresolvable problem given available technology. However, it could well require implementation of a national identification smart card, centrally updated; not an insurmountable obstacle as credit card companies make clear on a quotidian basis. Mail in voting, the other serious wedge issue, clearly facilitates electoral fraud and just as clearly, makes voting easier. But safeguards can be added to minimize its deficiencies. In addition to the danger of facilitating electoral fraud, mail in voting has been abused in order to “lock in” votes before relevant issues come to light by providing for early voting, but that too can be regulated in order to minimize its abuse, rather than eliminated. Wise Democrats would be much better off electorally by resolving the deficiencies noted rather than by focusing on hyperbolic platitudes.

Still, constitutional arguments based on federalism and states’ rights do have merit. The Constitution vests decisions concerning electoral qualifications and related issues in the states but provides Congress a role should it elect to exercise it, something which Congress has done from time to time albeit not coherently, that is because Congress has limited its role to issues involving “federal elections” and the only real federal election is that “virtual” election taken when state departments of state submit the results of state level elections for electors to the Electoral College (which never, in fact, meets) to the United States Congress for tabulation and consideration. All other elections involving the national government are taken at the state level. The House of Representatives is elected through state district elections in districts established and supervised by the states, the same being true with respect to the Electoral College and, of course, despite the ill-considered and antidemocratic 17^th Amendment to the Constitution, election of Senators is also done on a state basis. The members of the Supreme Court are not elected at all but rather appointed through agreement between the Senate and the president. The issue however is, or ought to be, more complex. The truth is that a constitutional amendment related to a number of electoral issues is desperately required.

Issues that need to be dealt with constitutionally include:

Financing of electoral campaigns which should, in all probability, be limited to eligible voters in the electoral districts involved, excluding thereby corporate and related entities (e.g., unions, political action committees, etc.). The Supreme Court’s abhorrent Citizens United decision also needs to be obliterated.

The use of the national census for purposes of determining state representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College needs to be clarified so that for those purposes, only citizens are counted. Not even permanent residents should be counted although for other purposes the census should include everyone resident in a state, regardless of their nationality or electoral status.

The issue of birthright citizenship, poorly dealt with in the 14^th amendment, should be clarified. As interpreted by the Supreme Court, it has been seriously abused and is a goad to illegal immigration. Mr. Trump is not always wrong.

The status of undocumented immigrants for diverse purposes should also be dealt with, perhaps creating national standards in order to avoid forum shopping.

Those issues each require serious consideration involving a much more fundamental issue as well. The United States Constitution adopted in 1789 and implemented in 1791 envisioned a federal state comprised of purportedly sovereign states. Really, a fragmentation of sovereignty predicated on the concept of enumerated powers dealt with both in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and in its 9^th and 10^th amendments. However, as I noted quite a while ago in an article entitled Motley Constitutionalism: a Labyrinthine Aphorism, the concept of federalism has been drastically and negatively impacted since shortly after adoption of the Constitution; first, by John Marshall’s usurpation of constitutional control in the case of Marbury v. Madison, then by the usurpation of issues involving secession, supremacy of legislation and related factors by the federal government as a result of the Civil War of 1861-65 and through the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th amendments imposed following the Civil War (justifiable though they were), then, in the series of Wilson administration constitutional amendments that shattered state power, especially the 16^th (taxation), 17^th (representation through the Senate), 18^th (state police power) and 19^th (state control of the right to vote) and finally, by Supreme Court decisions ostensibly based on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution during the middle of the 20^th century. The foregoing constitutional proposals would further the trend away from federalism and towards a unitary state, as would consistent proposals to do away with the Electoral College in favor of direct, popular election of the president.

Those damned two sides to every issue can be utterly frustrating. However, there is also a third side. The truth is that a broad and serious discussion concerning the federal nature of the Republic is very much past due, a nature that has become largely illusory as chip by chip its federal foundation has become eroded. The reality is that the original concept, first of a confederation of independent states, sort of like the United Nations, and then of a hybrid between a confederation and a unitary state (a federation) has in practice perhaps become obsolete as the United States has “sort of” become one nation rather than a conglomeration of regions, although, politically, it has become divided between urban and rural areas with totally different voting perspectives and an utterly polarized citizenry. That discussion should have been undertaken before each and every decision impacting federalism but apparently the topic and its strategic aspects were ignored in favor of the interests of the moment, pretty much in the same manner as the Save Act is being currently considered: ironically, a legislative act proposed by traditional proponents of states’ rights and opposed by traditional proponents of a powerful central government.

Perhaps it’s way past time for a profound discussion concerning the nature and deficiencies of the Constitution adopted in 1789, two-hundred-and-thirty-seven years ago, and so patched up that it resembles the “motley of ill-matched patches” worn by ancient court jesters. Like the Bible and other sacred treatises, the current Constitution is honored and revered, oaths taken to preserve and defend it, but not really followed.

Perhaps it’s time for a new constitutional convention, one led by serious technocrats and academics rather than politicians, a constitution to then be presented directly for approval or rejection, in whole or in part, by the citizenry it will be meant to govern. A constitution to effectively, efficiently and equitable harmonize our society in order to really attain the common welfare. But the sad truth is that neither major political party is interested in the foregoing as it would eliminate too many of the useful wedge issues through which we are each manipulated, divided and controlled.
_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved. Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

A Very Brief Primer on Policy Related Ideologies

Posted on February 9, 2026 by Guillermo Calvo Mahé

Political ideologies are not policy specific, rather, they are based on how the decision making process should function:

Conservatism in the context of democracy is based on the premise that democracy is not temporally static but has three components, past, present and future, all of which must be considered when engaging in fundamental decisions thus change has to be considered from all three perspectives, respect for tradition, dealing with current needs but considering impact on future generations.

Liberalism is more present oriented, problems should be promptly addressed and resolved, notwithstanding tradition, but taking impact on future generations into account.

Socialism is based on the realization that we have two distinct and sometimes incompatible natures, the individual and the collective, and that tensions between them should be resolved taking both into account, when possible, but when the conflict cannot be resolved, the interests of the collective should prevail. A concept illustrated by the fictional Star Trek Vulcan, Spock when he would proclaim that the goof of the many outweighed the good of the few, and as a corollary, of the one.

Libertarianism has components similar to socialism but the primacy when conflict is irreconcilable is in favor of the individual rather than the collective, thus, the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. It is the foundational pillar for the antidemocratic concept of “individual rights” such as were championed in the United States’ Bill of Rights.

“Left” and “Right” are incoherently variable terms with reference to the foregoing, as are the concepts of statist (in favor of power vested in the state) and anti-statists, as they tend to change based on what political group controls the state and at what level or the goals of political policies being considered.

These four aspects of decision making need not always be in conflict and wise policy makers should take all three into account. Unfortunately, most current policy makers are not wise and are dedicated primarily to the perspective that the many exist to serve the few and must be controlled by any means possible, while making it seem that the many, rather than the few, are the decision makers, when the truth is the obverse, and that generalized individual liberty is an impediment to such control.
_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved. Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Clara Eugenia López Obregón – Porque la apoyo para la presidencia de Colombia

Posted on October 24, 2025 by Guillermo Calvo Mahé

Introducción:

Este comentario, que trata con la precandidatura de la senadora y anterior alcaldesa de Bogotá, Clara Eugenia López Obregón, refleja mi opinión positiva sobre ella, posición que he tenido desde ya muchos años. La verdad, posición que asumí desde que volví a Colombia en el 2007 después de una vida en los EE.UU. Desde su participación en los debates presidenciales de 2014 he creído que ella era la mejor opción presidencial para Colombia y por muchas razones, aunque admiro mucho al presidente Petro y también a dos de los otros actuales precandidatos presidenciales del Pacto Histórico, Iván Cepeda y Carolina Corcho.

Clara parece especial por razones complicadas, incluso quizás incoherentes en ciertos aspectos. De lo que entiendo, de joven, durante los años 70, fue amiga y quizás novia de Álvaro Uribe Vélez, era durante el tiempo cuando él entonces señor Uribe supuestamente era liberal. El mismo Álvaro Uribe Vélez quien hoy en día es el mayor oponente de lo que ella ahora apoya, pero yo aspiro que, basado en ese pasado, las relaciones de ella con la derecha colombiana (odio las frases ultraderecha y ultra izquierda que solo son peyorativas) podrían ser positivas o por lo menos cordiales, aun habiendo sido ella por ya muchos años definitivamente de izquierda. Creo que por su experiencia y forma de ser podría lograr una relación política cordial con quienes piensan diferente sin ser media tibia como el señor Fajardo o amarga como el senador Robledo y eso mucho necesitamos en Colombia para minimizar la polarización política, cívica y cultural en la cual nos encontramos. Ademas, por su extensa trayectoria política, creo que tiene relaciones, si no siempre excelentes, por lo menos adecuadas, con muchos políticos tradicionales que sin denegar su asociación con brechas morales y éticas con respecto al abuso del poder para su propio beneficio, siguen esenciales para lograr reformas importantes, como lastimosamente ha descubierto (o debe haber descubierto) el Presidente Petro. Lo anterior, en mi opinión, la hace la mejor candidata para lograr el éxito no solo en las próximas elecciones, ampliando en forma importante el anticipado “Frente Amplio”, pero en la gobernanza esencial que necesitaría lograr si su campaña fuera exitosa. Pero, ademas de esos temas pragmáticos, creo que es la persona más preparada que tenemos en Colombia para enfrentar y resolver en forma positiva los numerosos retos que nos enfrentan. A diferencia con otros precandidatos nobles y sinceros, Clara es multidimensional en su experiencia, conocimiento y enfoque.

Biografía

Entonces, echémosle una mirada, aunque superficial, a su trayectoria cívica y política. Datos extensos y específicos al respecto no serán difíciles encontrar. De acuerdo a Wikipedia, una fuente de poca confianza con respecto a muchas cosas pero, en este caso, pareciéndose neutral, ella quedó huérfana muy joven pero fue “adoptada política y familiarmente” por el líder político liberal Alfonso López Michelsen, presidente de Colombia entre 1974 y 1978 y el primo de su padre. Ella estudió economía en la Universidad de Harvard y, posteriormente, se licenció en derecho en la Universidad de los Andes. En la actualidad, es candidata a doctorado en derecho tributario y financiero en la Universidad de Salamanca.

Durante su estadía en Harvard, se involucró activamente en protestas en contra de la incursión de los Estados Unidos en Vietnam e inicio un cambio filosófico desde sus raíces en el progresismo liberal hacia la izquierda, llegando a entender realidades sobre esa potencia del norte que por tanto tiempo nos ha dominado con desprecio, y que tanto daño nos ha hecho, algo que en los últimos días el señor Trump ha hecho más claro que nunca. Por eso, a diferencia de mucha de la clase política en la cual nació, ella no ha vendido sus valores y su persona por los beneficios económicos personales con los cuales la oligarquía estadounidense compra la lealtad de tantos líderes en nuestro continente.

Regresó a Colombia en 1974 aceptando un cargo en la Secretaría Económica de la presidencia de Colombia, presidencia ocupada en ese tiempo por su mentor, el liberal Alfonso López Michelsen, movimiento en el cual inicialmente milito pero que abandonó en forma permanente en 1979, al parecer, reaccionando en forma muy inesperada con respecto a una disputa entre los expresidentes López Michelsen y Carlos Lleras Restrepo, irónicamente tomando el lado ideológico a favor de Lleras Restrepo y su pupilo Luis Carlos Galán Sarmiento. Por lo tanto, se inscribió en el Nuevo Liberalismo, movimiento fundado por Galán y el exalcalde de Neiva, Rodrigo Lara Bonilla.

Como militante en el Nuevo Liberalismo fue elegida concejal y eventualmente presidenta del concejo distrital en Bogotá, eso durante los años 80 y, posteriormente, fue elegida contralora distrital de Bogotá. En el Nuevo Liberalismo apoyó la candidatura presidencial de Carlos Galán en 1982 (no obstante la posición contraria de su anterior benefactor y mentor Alfonso López) pero en 1986 cambio su perspectiva y afiliación política, moviéndose más hacia la izquierda política y salió del Nuevo Liberalismo para afiliarse con la Unión Patriótica desde la cual, en oposición a la candidatura presidencial de Galán en 1986, apoyó a Jaime Pardo Leal quien quedó en tercer lugar en esa contienda antes de ser asesinado en 1987. En 1988, por primero vez, se lanzó como candidata a la alcaldía de Bogotá bajo la bandera de la Unión Patriótica, elección que fue impactada en forma irónica por el secuestro del candidato que resultó exitoso, quizás por haber sido secuestrado y liberado, el candidato conservador y conocido periodista, Andrés Pastrana Arango, apoyado por su padre, el expresidente Misael Pastrana.

1990 fue un año desastroso para la izquierda colombiana y, en realidad, para toda Colombia. Bernardo Jaramillo Ossa, el candidato de la Unión Patriótica apoyado por Clara para la presidencia fue asesinado en abril de 1990, después del asesinato de Luis Carlos Galán en agosto de 1989 y antes del asesinato de Carlos Pizarro, también en abril de 1990. Traumatizada políticamente, como se encontraba gran parte del país, Clara se alejó de la política por casi una década, dedicándose a la academia y respaldando a las ambiciones políticas de su esposo, Carlos Romero, como concejal. En 2002 volvió a involucrarse en temas de gobernanza cuando fue nombrada Auditora General de Colombia por el entonces presidente, su viejo pretendiente, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, función que ejerció por tres años hasta que se vio obligada a denunciar ante la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Colombia la posible infiltración de organizaciones armadas ilegales de extrema derecha en el Estado Colombiano, eso después de que Salvatore Mancuso, el exjefe máximo de la Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, dio a conocer que al menos el 35% de los miembros del actual Congreso de la Republica eran aliados suyos. Esa denuncia de Clara dio inicio al proceso investigativo que adelantaría el supremo tribunal, y que derivaría en un proceso judicial que desató un escándalo político en Colombia conocido como la Parapolítica.

Encontrándose ya estigmatizada por el “uribismo” decidió volver a involucrarse en la contienda electoral apoyando la nueva conglomeración política de izquierda, el Polo Democrático Alternativo, partido por el cual aspiró a la Cámara de Representantes en 2006, perdiendo curul por poco más de cien votos. Por un tiempo después de esa campaña considero una nueva campaña para la alcaldía de Bogotá pero decidió apoyar la candidatura de Samuel Moreno Rojas quien, como a tantos otros, la engaño por un tiempo con respecto a su falta de ética, algo demostrada por su rol en el denominado Carrusel de la contratación y que resulto en su destitución como alcalde. Para Clara eso fue una gran decepción pero, a la vez, una gran oportunidad de aprendizaje.

Como importante asesora en la campaña de Samuel Moreno Rojas Clara fue designada como Secretaria de Gobierno en la nueva administración municipal bogotana lo cual requirió que su esposo, Carlos Romero, renunciara a su escaño en el Concejo de Bogotá. Como Secretaria de Gobierno, llego a denunciar el caso de “falsos positivos” en la supuesta guerra uribista en contra de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (las FARC) y otros movimientos insurgentes, caso en el cual, para recibir “comisiones” por cada insurgente “eliminado”, táctica sugerida por los gobiernos de George W. Bush y Barak Obama en los EE.UU., miembros de las fuerzas públicas colombianas capturaban a jóvenes inocentes, disfrazándolos de insurgentes para entregar sus cadáveres en cambio recompensas. En específico, la investigación en la cual participo Clara trató con 19 jóvenes que figuraban desaparecidos y que fueron ingresados por el ejército a medicina legal en la ciudad de Ocaña, Norte de Santander, como muertos en combate. El resultante escandalo a nivel nacional e internacional culminó con la destitución de 27 oficiales del ejército por su involucramiento en el asesinato de más de tres mil jóvenes inocentes en diversas regiones de Colombia.

Clara ocupó la Secretaría Distrital de Gobierno hasta el 10 de marzo de 2010, fecha en la que fue escogida como fórmula vicepresidencial de Gustavo Petro para las elecciones presidenciales de 2010 en las que alcanzaron más de un millón trescientos mil votos, pero no resultaron elegidos. Tras la renuncia de Jaime Dussán Calderón a la presidencia del Polo Democrático, el Comité Ejecutivo del partido la proclamó unánimemente como nueva presidenta de esa colectividad, cargo que asumió en abril de 2010. Renuncio a ese cargo temporalmente en junio de 2011 porque, habiendo brotado el escándalo de la corrupción de la administración municipal y la resultante destitución de Samuel Moreno Rojas como alcalde, ella fue escogida el 8 de junio de 2011 por el entonces presidente de la Republica, Manuel Santos, para remplazar a Moreno como alcaldesa encargada, un reto que parecía desagradable e imposible y con desastrosas implicaciones para un futuro político. Bogotá se encontraba política y económicamente ahogada, después de tres años, solo el 15% del presupuesto se había ejecutado y la confianza de los bogotanos en su gobierno era solo del 7%. Pero Clara y su equipo lograron milagros. Aunque solo se esperaba que mantuviera el cargo por solo tres meses, se amplió su periodo hasta el primero de enero de 2012 y su rendimiento fue inesperadamente excelente, tan productivo como el de Moreno había sido desastroso. En su discurso de posesión prometió que defendería el patrimonio de los ciudadanos rechazando la privatización de la Empresa de Telecomunicaciones de Bogotá ETB, pero también preservando para los ciudadanos en su conjunto los otros bienes distritales. Dirigiéndose al escándalo del denominado carrusel de contratación municipal, prometió transparencia en la firma de contratos y licitaciones. De acuerdo a la encuesta Gallup, entro a su cargo en un ambiente de desconfianza total con una aprobación minúscula para salió de su cargo apoyada por el 76% de los ciudadanos, la más amplia aprobación registrada hasta entonces para la alcaldía de Bogotá. Entre sus numerosos logros se destacaron el plan decenal de agua que por primera vez otorgó de manera gratuita el mínimo vital a las familias más pobres de la capital, el subsidio al transporte público para las personas con discapacidad y sus cuidadores y la expedición de decreto de participación incidente de los ciudadanos en la confección de los planes y programas del gobierno de la ciudad. Cuando entro a su cargo, después de tres años solo se había ejecutado el 15% del presupuesto municipal autorizado, cuando lo entrego, se había ejecutado, en solo ocho meses, el 95%.[1]

Luego de su rol como salvadora de Bogotá, Clara volvió a las contiendas electorales primero, como la candidata del Polo Democrático para la presidencia de Colombia en las elecciones del 2014 donde obtuvo casi dos millones de votos y ocupó la cuarta posición, y luego, como candidata a la Alcaldía de Bogotá en representación del Polo Democrático, la Unión Patriótica y el Movimiento Alternativo Indígena y Social (MAIS).

No fue exitosa en esa elección pero el 25 de abril de 2016, Clara fue designada por el presidente Juan Manuel Santos, a quien había apoyado en segunda, como Ministra de Trabajo, cargo que ocupó hasta el 5 de mayo de 2017 cuando renuncio para participar en las elecciones presidenciales de 2018. Desde el 20 de julio de 2022 ha sido senadora de la Republica. Además de lo anterior, ha sido profesora de la Universidad del Rosario y Universidad de los Andes.

De nuevo, precandidata a la presidencia

En 2025, Clara confirmó su precandidatura presidencial para las elecciones de 2026 postulándose a través de la coalición política “Unitarios” conformado por cerca de 15 partidos que se presenta como un complemento fraterno al Pacto Histórico. La meta de su campaña es participar en la consulta del “Frente Amplio” en marzo de 2026. En esa consulta se enfrentarían precandidatos como Roy Barreras, Camilo Romero y la figura que finalmente designe el Pacto Histórico (probablemente o Carolina Corcho o Iván Cepeda), su objetivo siendo la continuación de la transformación iniciada por Gustavo Petro.

En lo personal, no soy miembro del partido político Colombia Humana o del nuevo partido unificado, el Pacto Histórico, aunque a ambos los he asesorado y creo en sus ideales. No soy “petrista” aunque conozco y apoyo a Gustavo Petro porque esa frase huele demasiadamente al caudillismo en el cual ni él ni yo creemos. Para mí, como analista político, me es importante ser independiente de organizaciones políticas donde la ética insiste que cada miembro debe acatar a las decisiones colectivas. Estoy muy de acuerdo con las políticas que la administración actual ha propuesto y por las cuales ha luchado, aunque sin el éxito que merecen, pero me ha preocupado la falta de dirección política personal por parte del presidente, algo que me parece esencial en negociaciones directas con la oposición y hasta con aliados, roles que han asumido diversas personas en formas algo incoherentes. No obstante esa observación, entiendo que dada la histórica corrupción de nuestros líderes políticos, burócratas, empresarios y medios de comunicación, lograr los cambios transcendentales requeridos para crear la sociedad justa, eficiente e igualitaria que merecemos los colombianos es un tema muy complicado y, en última instancia, parece requerir intervención ciudadana por medio de una nueva constituyente, algo con el cual el presidente Petro y Clara están de acuerdo. Mi perspectiva con respecto a la constitución colombiana es mucho más drástica que la de ellos, algo sobre cual circulé hace un tiempo un artículo “Porque Colombia ha requerido un nuevo Constituyente desde el 1991”. Yo creo que los defectos constitucionales son tan profundos que requieren una revisión total de la Constitución de 1991, una constitución larguísima, llena de promesas incumplibles e instituciones incoherentes y en la cual, en importantes partes, los sujetos no son los ciudadanos sino los partidos políticos. Como ejemplo de lo último solo hay que entender que la prohibición a lo doble militancia les prohíbe a los supuestos representantes del Pueblo votar su conciencia, en vez, siendo legalmente forzados a votar como deciden sus partidos. En base de lo último, las reformas esenciales propuestas por el actual gobierno para eliminar corrupción y lograr sistemas de salud, pensión, medicina, trabajo, tributo, etc., justos y eficientes han sido derrotadas.

No obstante esa perspectiva compartida sobre la necesidad de una reforma constitucional, no estoy de acuerdo con la manera en la cual Clara cree que se debe implementar una constituyente, eso siendo por medio de democracia directa utilizando tecnologías novedosas para coordinar los esfuerzos. Pero eso es lo único con lo cual no estoy de acuerdo en las propuestas de Clara. Me encantaria si fuera posible pero coordinar treinta millones de participantes me parece una tarea imposible, en especial cunado trata con temas tan complicados que requieren conocimiento supremamente complejo sobre derecho, teorías constitucionales, economía, política comparada e historia.

Entonces, ¿por qué no los otros dos precandidatos que también mucho admiro?

Carolina Corcho es una brillante y ética persona con experiencia en temas cívicos y profundo conocimiento sobre el disfuncional sistema de salud colombiana pero carece de experiencia electoral y ejecutiva y todavía es algo unidimensional en su experticia. Ademas, creo que para ella sería difícil interactuar en forma eficiente con fuerzas políticas y económicas opositoras a las reformas en las cuales ella, como Clara, como Iván Cepeda y como el presidente Petro creen. Iván Cepeda ha sido entre los mejores legisladores de nuestro país con impecable trayectoria en la lucha contra la corrupción y por la paz, lo admiro enormemente y lo quiero. Pero carece de experiencia administrativa y ejecutiva y el uribismo y sus aliados son sus enemigos mortales, lo odian aún más que odian al presidente Petro, entonces gobernar en forma exitosa sería difícil, quizás imposible.

Eso deja a Clara que lo tiene todo, la experiencia tanto electoral como administrativa habiendo sido ministra, alcaldesa y senadora, ella tiene los ideales que admiro, los cuales comparte con Carolina e Iván y con el presidente y, tiene la posibilidad de interactuar en forma positiva con diversas corrientes políticas para crear una coalición amplia capaz de implementar importantes reformas. Como Carolina e Iván, es brillante y ética y progresista, pero con mayor capacidad de unirnos y de minimizar la polarización que tan horriblemente nos infecta.

Por eso la apoyo.[1]

[1] Por la necesidad de circular esta reflexión en forma expedita, no se ha logrado revisarla en temas de estilo, etc., por lo cual se solicita disculpas.

_______

Guillermo Calvo Mahé es escritor, comentarista, analista político y académico residente en la República de Colombia. Aspira ser poeta y filósofo empírico y a veces se lo cree. Hasta el 2017 coordinaba los programas de Ciencia Política, Gobierno y Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. En la actualidad, participa en entrevistas radiales y televisadas, foros, seminarios y congresos cívicos y edita y publica la revista virtual, The Inannite Review disponible en Substack.com/. Tiene títulos académicos en ciencias políticas (del Citadel, la universidad militar de la Carolina del Sur), derecho (de la St. John’s University en la ciudad de Nueva York), estudios jurídicos internacionales (de la facultad posgrado de derecho de la New York University) y estudios posgrado de lingüística y traducción (del Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos de la Universidad de la Florida). Sin embargo, también es fascinado por la mitología, la religión, la física, la astronomía y las matemáticas, especialmente en lo relacionado con lo cuántico y la cosmogonía. Puede ser contactado en guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com y gran parte de su escritura está disponible a través de su blog en https://guillermocalvo.com/.

[1] Datos obtenidos desde el artículo sobre Clara López disponible en Wikipedia (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clara_L%C3%B3pez) revisado el 18 de octubre de 2015.

Reflexiones sobre la decisión en el juicio contra el expresidente Álvaro Uribe Vélez

Posted on July 29, 2025 by Guillermo Calvo Mahé

28 de julio, 2025, Manizales

La justicia colombiana ha encontrado culpable de delitos penales a quien ha sido el hombre más poderoso del país, el ex presidente Álvaro Uribe Vélez. La decisión me sorprendió porque la justicia en Colombia tradicionalmente ha ignorado abusos del poder por parte de su clase dirigente pero, a la vez, la decisión duele porque, por correcta que sea, muy probable es que nos dividirá aún más como pueblo.

Un víctima de la injusticia tan común en Colombia, mi amigo Luis Fernando Rosas Londoño, un hombre talentoso, inteligente y honrado quien fue injustamente privado de sus derechos políticos y de su libertad, lleva tiempo rogándoles a los dirigentes políticos de nuestros partidos que para sanarnos como pueblo, para realmente lograr la paz, necesitamos una amnistía general, algo que, irónicamente, entiendo fue rechazado por el ex presidente Uribe. Luis Fernando no lo propone por su propio beneficio. Lo hace teniendo en cuenta las personas inocentes que han sido castigados en procesos jurídicos injustos y, a la vez, entendiendo que con tantos pecados por todos lados de nuestra política, se necesita “reformatear nuestro disco duro” e iniciar de nuevo.

No obstante lo anterior, reconozco que aunque el concepto de un perdon general es importante para re-direccionarnos hacia un futuro más civil y más decente, la corrupción, sea política, económica, académica o militar, etcétera, la corrupción que infecta a nuestra sociedad en forma tan profunda se tiene que minimizar, entendiéndose que acabar con ella es improbable, si no imposible; entendiendo que en un sistema político funcional, la violación de responsabilidades públicas tiene que ser el mayor delito con los castigos más serios.

Entonces, en este instante, nos encontramos en una situación, a la vez tan positiva como amarga. Una situación probablemente sin solución. No estoy feliz que el expresidente Uribe se haya encontrado culpable de violar leyes esenciales para el funcionamiento de nuestro sistema legal, pero estoy aún más triste que él nos ha puesto en la situación en la cual nos encontramos, que él ha violado sus más sagrados juramentos. Y me entristece profundamente que, en toda probabilidad, el expresidente Uribe insistirá, o en forma directa o indirecta, que sus seguidores rechacen la decisión en su contra no obstante el impacto que tenga esa reacción con respecto al bienestar popular. Espero que, en forma directa o indirecta, el expresidente Uribe insistirá en que sus seguidores organicen protestas y manifestaciones masivas en las cuales la violencia será probable.

Claro que es posible que si el expresidente es tan noble como creen sus seguidores, pondrá el bienestar de nuestro pueblo por encima de sus intereses personales. Él podría, sin admitir o negar las acusaciones en su contra (que ahora son sentencia), aceptarlas y pedirles a sus seguidores que también acepten la decisión jurídica existente. Y quizás, para minimizar la polarización, si el presidente Gustavo Petro también es tan noble como creen sus seguidores, él podría otorgarle al ex presidente Uribe clemencia en forma de un perdon ejecutivo, no en forma de algún tipo de negocio extrajudicial, pero como una ofrenda de paz para todos los colombianos en la cual, las horribles brechas entre nosotros se puedan realmente empezar a sanar y la desconfianza que nos ha dividido por tanto tiempo impidiendo las reformas esenciales en nuestras políticas públicas que urgentemente necesitamos, se pueda remplazar con un espíritu de colaboración.

No veo lo último probable pero hoy, por medio de nuestras reacciones con respecto a este juicio, se podría crear una oportunidad casi única para reconocer que los colombianos todos somos hermanos, no obstante nuestras diferencias de opinión, y que ya es tiempo que rechacemos el ejemplo mítico de Caín y Abel en favor del ejemplo de ese antiguo nazareno que tantos colombianos supuestamente aman.

Ya pronto veremos que va a ocurrir.

Temo que será lo peor pero, a la vez, aspiro que en eso yo esté equivocado. Yo salí de Colombia, como tantos otros, a los seis años, salí no en forma voluntaria pero por una decisión de mis padres basada en la violencia en la cual se encontraba nuestro país. Pero nunca olvidé que yo era y siempre seré colombiano, y que desde ese país hacia el norte que tanto daño nos ha hecho, me era muy difícil entender cómo, en un pueblo como el nuestro, un pueblo lleno de lo mejor que puede brindar la naturaleza, nos encontrábamos tan infelices el uno contra el otro. Y que muchos de los mejores ciudadanos nuestros, los más educados y los más nobles, huían en un flujo permanente hacia el norte donde eran despreciados e insultados, doctores trabajando como meseros.

Desde lejos era fácil percibir que unidos, aunque con diferencias en temas de creencias y opiniones, seriamos entre los pueblos más exitosos del mundo. En parte, para ayudar a lograr eso, fue que siempre quise volver a mi patria, algo que logré en el 2007, ese año tan especial en el cual nuestro pueblo, en masivas manifestaciones, demostró que estaba harto con nuestros eternos conflictos internos. Al volver, tuve el privilegio de trabajar por una década en la Universidad Autónoma de Manizales con estudiantes de diversas perspectivas políticas, pero unidos en el respeto por sus diferencias mientras dedicados a superarlas para lograr el bienestar común, estudiantes enamorados con su pueblo, estudiantes que ya están ascendiendo las laderas de las responsabilidades políticas y en la gran mayoría de los casos, haciéndolo en forma ética y eficiente. Esos ex estudiantes míos y otros jóvenes que he conocido me hacen pensar que la Colombia que merecemos no solo es posible sino probable, probable si evitamos seguir enmarañados en las mallas del pasado.

Hoy, haremos importantes decisiones, quizás existenciales, como individuos pero también como pueblo. El desastre del juicio en el cual se encuentra el expresidente Uribe no es ocasión para sentirnos o vencedores o vencidos, no es ocasión para ser felices o sentirnos heridos. Es una ocasión excepcional para reflexionar y mirar hacia el futuro, recordando la regla de oro: tratando a los demás como quisiéramos que otros nos trataran. Entonces, como tantas veces decimos en ocasiones más positivas, “que viva Colombia” y “que vivan los colombianos”, … todos.

_______

Guillermo Calvo Mahé es escritor, comentarista, analista político y académico residente en la República de Colombia. Aspira ser poeta y a veces se lo cree. Hasta el 2017 coordinaba los programas de Ciencia Política, Gobierno y Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. En la actualidad, participa en entrevistas radiales y televisadas, foros, seminarios y congresos cívicos y edita y publica la revista virtual, The Inannite Review disponible en Substack.com/. Tiene títulos académicos en ciencias políticas (del Citadel, la universidad militar de la Carolina del Sur), derecho (de la St. John’s University en la ciudad de Nueva York), estudios jurídicos internacionales (de la facultad posgrado de derecho de la New York University) y estudios posgrado de lingüística y traducción (del Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos de la Universidad de la Florida). Sin embargo, también es fascinado por la mitología, la religión, la física, la astronomía y las matemáticas, especialmente en lo relacionado con lo cuántico y la cosmogonía. Puede ser contactado en guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com y gran parte de su escritura está disponible a través de su blog en https://guillermocalvo.com/.

The Great Shell Game: Illusion and Delusion — “Pick a Card, Any Card”

Posted on July 22, 2025 by Guillermo Calvo Mahé

On July 21, 2005, Patrick Lawrence wrote a commentary concerning Gaza, income inequality, Israel and politics entitled “Sun Valley vs. Queensbridge”. It was published in Consortium News, one of the very few still reliable independent sources of information (Volume 30, Number 202 —Tuesday, July 22, 2025). To a great extent the article dealt with the cataclysmic victory of Zohran Mamdani in the recent New York City Democratic Party mayoral primary, apparently as unexpected as the purported victory of the mythic David over the equally mythic Goliath over three millennia ago. The article brought to mind, at least for me, how deluded, confused and manipulated most of the United States’ electorate has always been and the panic which the awakening of even a portion of that electorate is generating among the corrupt elite who has maintained us politically and economically enslaved since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. A sign I for one view as positive.

To many of my friends, especially among well-educated and intelligent fundamentalist Christians (as well as to many among some of my Jewish friends), Mr. Mamdani poses an existential threat because he is a vocal critic of the abuses of what passes for capitalism (but is in reality kleptocracy) as well as because he vocally opposes the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people orchestrated by American and Israeli Zionists. He is thus, in their perception, a “communist” anti-Semite. Those “buzz” terms are essential in order to deflect from factual analysis of his beliefs, beliefs which coincide with the premises underlying the economic and civic philosophy of the “messiah” who my Christian friends claim to worship and adore. Ironic, but that pavlovian reaction had been carefully crafted using behaviorist psychology long before B.F. Skinner invented that art form. It is essential in order to secure the counterintuitive support of decent people for indecent realities and for policies that are clearly against their own interests, policies such as universal healthcare and universal education at all levels and a real social safety net, something artfully crafted by the kleptocrats who rule us.

The foregoing has led me to reflect on the strange distortion of terminology that the kleptocratic corporate media has imposed on us. For example: “antisemitism” now means opposition to mass murder, torture, rape as a political tool, ethnic cleansing, organized mass theft and genocide. And “communism”? Well, that now apparently means daring to support mercy, equity, meritocracy, economic justice and the golden rule, but especially, the economic doctrines espoused by that certain Palestinian who, two millennia ago, taught that hoarded wealth was the surest route to perdition. You may well have heard some of the sayings attributed to him in the Christian gospels, “that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a hoarder of wealth to enter into the kingdom of heaven” and promising that “the meek shall inherit the earth”. Evidently horrible ideas.

Mr. Lawrence´s article, for some reason, also made me reflect on another hysterical current campaign, one again attributable to the kleptocratic elites who control us, in this case, through their so called Democratic Party (the kleptocracy of course controls both the Democratic and Republican parties). In this ancillary campaign, massively hypocritical outrage is being expressed at the association of Jeffrey Epstein which took place prior to 2003[1] with Donald Trump, ignoring Mr. Epstein’s similar association with myriads of Democratic Party heroes. It seems designed specifically to distract from the real scandal associated with the late Mr. Epstein, that being his role as an agent of the Israeli Mossad in which he used and abused under age men and women to obtain compromising material on leaders in politics, industry, commerce, etc., all apparently in order to blackmail them into supporting Israeli goals, a role which led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and millions of innocent people in the Middle East and elsewhere through perpetual wars whose primary goal has been the implementation of the Zionist final solution to the Palestinian problem and the creation of the “Greater Israel” to which Zionists aspire. Indeed, the Democratic Party’s orchestrated outrage seems designed to deflect consideration of related, recently declassified information concerning probable Mossad involvement in the assassination of United States President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (ironically a Democratic Party hero) as well as concerning likely Mossad involvement with the destruction of New York’s World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. That same campaign, of course, also deflects attention from the genocide that has been perpetrated on the Palestinian people by Israel during the past seventy-five years, genocide affected with the full cooperation of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany as well as with the tacit assistance of the Middle East dictatorships such countries established and maintained following the Second World War. You know, the war purportedly fought to eliminate the threats to human rights posed by the Nazis and their allies.

Not that Mr. Trump does not deserve serious criticism but, that the foregoing criticism is directed at his amorous misadventures during the past century rather than his current support for Zionist genocide or his increasingly incoherent international economic policies or the betrayal of his promises not to perpetuate the cycle of endless wars and foreign military interventions in which the United States has been engaged during the past century, is not only ludicrous, but is blatantly malevolent. Then again, the Democratic Party is at least as guilty as Mr. Trump with respect to much of the foregoing so, … birds of a feather, … in every respect.

Caveat:

I am not a fan of Mr. Trump, who, for personal reasons, I dislike.
I am not a believer in any organized religion and find the Abrahamic religions especially disturbing and, inter se, incoherent. Especially given that of the three Abrahamic branches, Islam is the most reviled while being the closest to both of the others. Indeed, it is the bridge between them.
I am bitterly opposed to most political parties, both in the United States and abroad, finding that they are the embodiment of the “factionalism” rather than statesmanship that, in the Federalist Papers, James Madison promised would not occur.
As a historian, I am not a respecter of the collection of fallacies peddled to all of us as history but designed, not to elucidate, but to keep us deluded.

As I write this I am completing my seventy-ninth year on our planet, most of them depressed by how consistently we devolve into the people we would least like to see staring back at us from our mirrors. Nonetheless, it seems that hope is not yet altogether extinguished, especially when people like Mr. Mamdani continue to appear from time to time, although admittedly, usually only briefly and all too often all to quickly converted into that against which they once railed.

But, back to Mr. Mamdani who has become the focus of hate, fear and despair from followers of Mr. Trump and especially from traditionalists in the Democratic Party. He is, at least for now, perhaps a sign that, paraphrasing the articulate albeit hypocritical Abraham Lincoln:

“Perhaps the kleptocracy cannot fool all of us all of the time.”

Fortunately for the kleptocracy, because he is a naturalized rather than native born United States citizen, Mr. Mamdani can never become president. But, then again, perhaps sometime soon, someone who shares his values will appear on the national stage and, unlike Mr. Trump, will not so quickly betray the principles he promised to sustain.
_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2025; all rights reserved. Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.

[1] Mr. Trump purportedly ended his fifteen-year friendship with Mr. Epstein that year, barring him from Mar o Lago because of an incident involving unwanted advances towards the fourteen-year-old daughter of another of Mr. Trump’s acquaintances.

Tangled Political Realities as November 2024 Approaches

Posted on July 12, 2024 by Guillermo Calvo Mahé

In terms of political organizations, the concepts of “conservative”, “liberal”, “progressive”, “left”, right” and “center” no longer have any real meaning. Their meaning and context have been vacuumed, distorted and destroyed by those in charge of perpetrating and perpetuating lies and disinformation, the corporate media, faux historians, controlled academia and those who control the Internet (including both social media and search engines where algorithms rule). Such terms are now merely tools to polarize us, to divide us and to make us easier to control.

Two relevant opposing concepts do however exist: state-ism and populism.

Statists include an ironic amalgam of those who honestly believe that current governments are beneficent and the answer to all our social, economic and political problems with cynical deep state operatives who see the state as the ideal tool to control us and through such control, to extract ever increasing profits for the billionaire class. The latter is comprised of moles buried throughout the bureaucracy, the judiciary and the media who assure that government works to perpetuate the worst among us in power while keeping the bulk of us safely divided.

Populists are an amalgam from diverse, frequently opposing sociopolitical perspectives who share a belief that the institutions of government have been perverted and thus oppose them. In general, they share beliefs in real democracy and real liberty but acknowledge that such concepts do not currently exist. Populists comprise the vast majority but have permitted statist to maintain them divided into opposing camps based on the fake labels listed above, i.e.: “conservative”, “liberal”, “progressive”, “left”, right” and “center”, which populists take seriously. The labels are institutionally fake but contextually relevant. The differences exist for populists but the reality is that far more unites each sector of the populist political spectrum than that which divides them. Something that statists seek to obfuscate at all costs because, should populists attain their common interests and often complimentary goals, the statist empire could be destroyed and the dreams of equity, relative equality, justice and peaceful coexistence might become realities.

Statists use divisive emotions to maintain dictatorial control: what were once known as “wedge issues” which keep populists at each others’ throats. Issues like abortion and gun control and immigration, and they distort sociocultural divisions like gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality and religion keeping real problems festering because as long as they remain unresolved, populists can be kept from uniting. And, of course, the most cynical and thus most effective statists in the United States are today found in the Democratic Party and among the traditionalist wing of the Republican Party, and in the United Kingdom, in the once populist Labour Party and in the Conservative Party, in each case, merely virtually identical two-headed-Hydrae.

In the meantime, Hillary Clinton and her groupies try to re-seize control of the Democratic Party from a dazed and confused Joe Biden so that she can have one more chance to be the first female president while the Obama camp keeps pulling tangled strings behind the scenes to deflect her aspirations but is itself confused as to whether Michele or “AG” (his real name is Eric but he can’t let us forget he was once the Attorney General) Holder should replace their inept current figurehead, and Donald Trump keeps smirking and holding massive rallies while we ignore that three decent people are seeking to lead us out of the Deep State wilderness: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Jill Stein and Cornell West, PhD.

And the rich keep getting richer, the poor, poorer, the economic center keeps shrinking and people keep dying massively in elective and genocidal wars while defense industry dividends soar and the corporate media shouts:

“Nothing here to see! Move along!!! Turn the page!!! Or else!!!”

_______

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, the Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.

	patrick reen on Humans: The Aberrant Spec…
	Dominique on On Gratifying Self-Delusions
	destinyinquisitively… on On Gratifying Self-Delusions
	destinyinquisitively… on On the GOP’s Save Act and Crit…
	destinyinquisitively… on On the Reality of Donald Trump…

Guillermo Calvo Mahé

Author, Academic, Political Analyst, Political Commentator, Poet, Linguist

Category Archives: Essays

On the Nature and Malfunctioning of Constitutions

Some Brief but Important Reflections on Pending Decisions Concerning Electoral Processes

Reflections on Tyranny, Democracy, Rights and Sovereignty

Democracy and Comparative Electoral Systems

On the GOP’s Save Act and Critical Related Issues

A Very Brief Primer on Policy Related Ideologies

Clara Eugenia López Obregón – Porque la apoyo para la presidencia de Colombia

Reflexiones sobre la decisión en el juicio contra el expresidente Álvaro Uribe Vélez

The Great Shell Game: Illusion and Delusion — “Pick a Card, Any Card”

Tangled Political Realities as November 2024 Approaches

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: