Acceso usuarios
Adrian Gurza Lavalle, Gisela Zaremberg
Este artículo propone repensar los alcances conceptuales del término intermediación política, para iluminar los horizontes del análisis de la política indirecta, cuya gama de posibilidades ha sido usualmente pensada como si estuviese confinada entre los extremos de la representación política electoral tradicional formal y el clientelismo como intermediación política informal. Se trata de ampliar el análisis de la representación política y de otras modalidades de intermediación política, desmarcando la reducción habitual de la primera a la pura representación electoral y de las segundas a mero clientelismo, sin prescindir, sin embargo, de ellos. Se realiza al final un breve ejercicio de análisis preliminar de casos de innovación democrática empíricos (consejos, foros, conferencias, interfaces gobierno-sociedad) para observar las capacidades analíticas de la nueva ampliación conceptual.
This paper proposes rethinking conceptual scopes of the term “political mediation”, in order to illustrate the analytical scope of indirect politics, whose range of possibilities has usually been thought of as if contained between the extremes of political representation and patronage. An analytical exercise is offered as one possible and tentative path to specify not only a vocabulary which is more sensitive to the demands of the present but to -in the words of Bunge- allow the initial reinterpretation of old symbols of our political vocabulary. To this end, in addition to a linguistic and conceptual journey of the term“intermediation”, three analytical dimensions of indirect policy are developed; thus facilitating dialogue with theories of representation, and leading to an analytical model that we call “cube of indirect politics”. We conclude with a brief case classification exercise intended to show the displacements produced by this model in understanding certain indirect political experiences.
