It is legal for the Supreme Court (CSJN) to prevent the consultation of the population on matters that concern them, it is not legitimate for this attribution to be used to deprive the population of the right to participate in the form and decisions of its government. These two terms generally seem undifferentiated. Even in many cases, they become interchangeable or separated only by a hyphen; the politico-social. However, it is especially important to make a structural difference between them. Our hypothesis is that the political has more and more obstacles to approaching the social, and in turn, the social is defined by putting obstacles to the political in its approach. Politics seeks the interaction between individuals in order to agree on common goals and objectives that are beneficial to all. While political groups try to prioritise their personal objectives over those of other political groups, the possibility of achieving them depends on whether or not they succeed in convincing individuals, and these objectives do not violate the applicable regulation or law. Perhaps the answer requires first to distinguish the legal from the legitimate, the legal adheres to the law, is within a legal framework, limits us to what can or cannot be done from the point of view of the law. Legitimacy also means taking a correct, just, authentic, moral and ethical path. The legitimate is symbolized by what is achieved with justice, what is deserved, the legal can rather be symbolized by an official seal. The Privacy/Cookies Policy is a legal document that you can integrate into your website or app using iubenda solutions. Each policy and each translation of it requires the purchase of a license.
It is legal for the president to appoint a subordinate as secretary of the civil service and entrust him with the task of investigating, but it is not legitimate for this person to own an addiction condemned to disappear by a temporary illness, the dependency does not appear in the organic law of public administration. Its owner has the paranoid role of being both judge and party, and the legal framework for determining liability is extremely imperfect. To illustrate that I turn to football, we all remember the knockout phase of the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, where the Netherlands eliminated Mexico with a goal. The goal and the result of the match were legal, but the penalty that Robben caused was not legitimate, which is perhaps the reason why the pain and indignation continue in the subconscious of the Mexicans, they deceived us, but the result was not affected. Well, given the dilemma of distinguishing one thing from another on the public stage, I point out a few style paradoxes below. 4) Dislocation is the negative gap impossible to bridge, the non-removable gap that, with its openness, allows the unstable but effective encounter between “the social” and the “political”. “The political” and “the social” meet when an antagonism takes shape, which has a clear constitutive appearance that adapts as an authentic adversary. Suppose you have a problem that involves a conflict between your position and that of another person or two groups of people with conflicting positions. And although the legitimate is always the object of respect, the legal always imposes itself as the only and irrefutable truth, the historical truth. Although it hurts us in the greatest openness, who accept that it was not criminal and that we lost anyway. Let us hope that one day, the legal and the legitimate will converge in the actions of the government.
Legal means what is required and enforced by law. Politics is what comes from politics or from the debates or ideas that surround politics. What is political is not necessarily bound by the law, although a law may be the result or what is discussed. Anyone who breaks the law will be punished. You can break politics and suffer only disagreements. Breaking the law is illegal, but we`re not talking about breaking politics as if you were against politics. Social unrest, however powerful, never immediately and necessarily translates into “politics.” In this respect, the difference between “the social” and the “political” is crucial and cannot be confused, especially if mechanical and essentialist analyses are to be avoided. What we have argued here implies that we call as power all that, by its various means, preserves the indefinite reproduction of the social and prevents its ruptures from arising. And we refer to hegemony (this is our debate with Laclau and Mouffe) as the possibility that an articulated political construction succeeds in questioning the oligarchic order and evoking the antagonism that makes it possible to identify the adversary.
It is perfectly legal to add the qualifier of perfection in speeches and interviews as a code of protection or shield of impunity. So, if in fact their steps are taken in the field of law, because their behavior leaves us with the huge void that always opens up mistrust. An approach to problem solving is “legal”, which means that one of the parties (one of the parties) takes their case to a recognized court where the dispute can be heard and resolved in accordance with what is established, published and applied fairly. Legal principles that both parties know (presumably) in advance, so the outcome of the dispute is quite predictable in advance (usually, if not in its specific details). Most of these cases, of course, are resolved before a trial; But in any case, an unfavorable process that includes representation on both sides and a set of fair and well-known procedural rules in advance regulates who©wins this dispute. It is legal that the declarations of assets of state employees are not published, although it is not legitimate that the protection of their property contains sudden and inexplicable wealth. The legal is supposed to be non-partisan, with the Lady of Justice wearing a blindfold to show that she is blind to irrelevant things like race, religion, politics or money.