IDENTIDADES 1 ENGLISH IDENTIDADES 3 ENGLISH | Page 51

we do not include the viewpoints of communists
in our constitutional debate. Yet, the following
question remains: how do we guarantee that constitutional change acknowledges rights and a
State of Law if those who principally deny this
need participate in the process?
The answer depends on how much participation
and pressure the citizenry generates. If all we
manage to do is get a small, reduced group from
proactive, civil society to participate, we will not
be able to avoid that any changes that occur end
up leaving things just the same. Yet, if we manage
to create a critical mass of citizens that participates and identifies with the process, this would
create a strong possibility of neutralizing the regime’s anti-democratic push throughout the
whole procedure.
A moral debate also emerged from our debate.
For many, starting with the 1976 Constitution
would mean supporting and legitimating a government and certain groups that have not only destroyed the country, but have also done so while
mocking their own laws.
The only way to make those who support the regime understand the value of laws and the respect
they deserve is showing them other options with
which they have had no experience. That way,
they will be able to compare and come to comprehend their value, precisely because they have
been ideated and crafted by people and groups
within a conceptual framework far from the matrix they have defended for more than 50 years.
In any event, there is an obvious willingness on
the part of at least some of the citizenry and civil
society to negotiate when it is suggested we start
with the 1976 Constitution, if the government initiates a process of political transition.
Nevertheless, the majority believes that democratic law must be created with a new spirit that
does not poison the process and prohibits those
who have always opposed democracy from appearing to be the guarantors of that very same democracy.
The idea that the way to avoid theft is giving the
thief control of the purse cannot be applied to constitutional matters.

There is yet another topic that came to light in the
constitutional debate: self-respect as the best
guarantee for the consistency, fulfillment and efficiency of whatever project is undertaken. This
leads to another question: who guarantees respect
for that which has been denied for decades? Not
even the current Constitution, itself, has been respected.
The best way to ensure that constitutional reforms
be respected by those who crafted the 1976 Constitution is to see if they respect their own creation, the current Constitution. Unfortunately, the
government does not.
Legally, what is most important is that there are
judicial guarantees, instruments and incentives
that eventually become cultural habits regarding
respect and fulfillment of the law. The government has failed in this respect.
New Constitutionalism
The debates over a new Constitution generated
the deepest and most [