The State is something that must be learned. The average citizen makes countless assumptions about its nature, function and performance. A comprehensive approach requires, in addition to its study in the descriptive and theoretical dimensions, that of its application, that is, the practical dimension, which constitutes its condition of possibility. This can be achieved in two ways: observation and its exercise. If it is to be observed, it must be done with an objective and critical sense; when it is exercised, maximum use must be made of the experiences it offers and that prevent us from forming a Platonic idea of it, that is, one that is removed from the reality it implies.
The question comes to mind regarding the package of measures recently approved by the National Congress, regarding which a thousand and one conjectures are being made, both from the perspective of its conception and its need, as well as its purposes and usefulness. Opinionated of all ancestry and varied barely concealable designs, they rack their brains trying to weave positions for and against the law. It would seem that we inhabit a Babel where, the more one speaks, the less one understands. The fundamental reason is that there is an absence of knowledge of the State as a political, social and historical construction.
One sees only the fact of having brought, articulated, a draft law conceived by the Minister of Finance and Economy to Congress. As if this were not necessary to explore alternatives, to seek the assistance of the sectors directly concerned with the suffering of a greater tax burden, in short, in plain terms, the negotiations that are necessary when removing or altering a status quo. And the sciences of the State are not the occult sciences, their manifestations are presided over by realism that many insist on ignoring with learned innocence.
As a result, nothing achieved has been the product of an apotropaic rite; it is, yes, the result of more than one agreement, no matter how overwhelming the congressional majority available to the Government. And, even within that majority there are representations of various interests. No president has, as some neophytes claim, the members of a Congress just because they are members of his party. The most experienced ones can surely imagine the agreements I refer to. But, the vast majority believes that it was an easy task and, even more, doubts the convenience of the law, all because they do not know the State. Money was needed, and it was found. It is pure reality.
