Before the theories of gravitation were formulated in the way we know today, there were already observations and ideas about the dynamics of the heavenly bodies. It’s already known that the weight of a body in vacuo influences the others around it. On the legal framework, the attraction force is also a source of research: a strong and dense law has enough attraction to generate orbits to the normative systems around it, in a major or minor scale. However, the point, in the legal scope, is not the force or the weight, but who should orbit around what.
When dealing with heavenly bodies wandering in space, we can remember of the societies and communities that compose the humanity. Every set of rules should be attractive enough to make the individuals orbitate around it. However, as conflicts between these systems are common, it’s necessary to determinate new orbit centers. Bringing this theory to the globalization era, where is possible to cross the world in a phew hours, or obtain any kind of information instantly, the conflicts became even more frequent.
Even inside of a politically delimitated territory, no matter how small, there is cultural plurality. Therefore, is inconceivable the diversity that can be found in a hole continent.
Taking the Latin America in specific, it’s possible to observe a hole network of different cultures and people. The formation of the continent was largely after the colonization period, when a lot of new cultural habits were introduced in the native perspective. The continent was dimiated by the Treaty of Tordesillas, and this did not influenced only the language spoken in the two parts, but also generated completely original nations and stories.
Currently, we live on the globalization context, that dissolves the physical borders through the tecnology, bringing up the exchange of not only capital and investments, but also cultures and traditions. But this generates an issue: a country that has enough tecnology and resources to spread it’s culture will overlap the others. It was always like that, even in the ancient times, but today the global standardization became a real threat. And what’s the problem?
The immediate issue is the identity losses: people situated in different cultures suddenly want the same things, things that are dissoant from their reality. It’s not wrong to adopt a lifestyle that is different, but only when it’s spontaneous, and not imposed. When there is imposition, the human being gives up it’s major gift, that is to observe the world by it’s own perceptions and extract it’s own conclusions. Therefore, there will be an impoverishment of the manking as a rational being.
This impoverishment ends up outsourcing the human wills and establishing a point of convergence, a new center orbit center, focusing on the ones who overlaped the others. When there is a total centralization, it becomes impossible to comprehend a nation by it’s singularities, but only by it’s proximity to the orbit center. The next step is the individual concept, the indiosyncrasies will be regulated by this central force. This is dangerous, because the diversity, in all it’s aspects, is what brought the human race here.
In this matter, Constitutional Right seems to have contrary effect of diversity, which is to standardize. It is not like that, because it is necessary to understand the function of a Constitution: give political unity and legal order to the state, once it and its power cannot be presupposed (or preexisting), being able to exist only when it reduces in a political unity the multiplicity of interests under its power. This unity of multiplicities is a motion, which will never be concluded, once it is constant search object: stems from a historical factual process ignorant to the static and abstract legal entity. This way, unity should be understood as enabled acting with functional disposition, which gives conditions of accepting e fulfilling binding decisions, creating the “state” (COELHO, 1998).
Unity does not mean necessarily a general harmony and fully elimination of differences, without which it would be impossible, once it is the conflict that mitigates rigidity and allows historical change, being suitable to contexts. At the same time, conflict should not be and object itself, since it would cause extinction of political unity (COELHO, 1998).
In addition, why is it necessary both conflict and political unity? We cannot ignore the fact that democratic contemporary state is not anymore the sole leader of policy area, since it was reduced to a part of modern society, whose economic and social conflicts are part of formation of political unity and state’s will, behooving its pacification to confront dynamic scenarios (COELHO, 1998).
The immediate function, shortly, would be give power and unity to resolve present matters. Under the Latin America, therefor, an Integrator Constitution for all countries would have the goal of protecting them from other economic blocks, not only from a financial point of view, but also from a cultural aspect to be preserved as well.
Since the 19th century there were defenders of a Latin-American integration between newly independent nations. In defense of “Pan-Americanism”, there was Simón Bolívar (1783-1830), who assembled some Latin-American countries (Mexico, Guatemala, Peru and former Gran Colombia) in the Congress of Panama (1826), owing the elimination of trade barriers in Latin America and, through this, enable mutual economic development for its nations. The initiative, however, failed because it compromised the interests of local elites, which profited from customs taxes (NOGUEIRA, 2010)
There is a similar initiative of Latin America’s integration in Brazilian Constitution of 1988: “The Federative Republic of Brazil shall seek the economic integration, political, social and cultural development of the people of Latin America, viewing the formation of a Latin American community of nations”. Thereby, there were different attempts of integration, but with no success due to political and economic instability of each area, as well to pressures of external economic blocks. However, there are many initiatives for unity, opposing to the increasing overlapping. It is noticeable the rising loss of cultural identity and the imposition of customs from other countries, putting our diversity in danger.
Lastly, we conclude that promoting a referendum and from it create an Integrating Constitution to unite Latin America would not have just the goal of standardizing and having economic benefits. It should be noted that integration is the main goal, not destroy local rules and impose rules considered best. The main target is to clarify the gravitational axis that we belong. Maintain the difference is to ensure liberty while rational beings, in other words, ensure plurality and rational thinking, not making people mere consumers of canned food.
VICENTINO, Cláudio. História para esnino médio: história geral e do Brasil: volume único/Cláudio Vicentino, Gianpaolo Dorigo. São Paulo: Scipione, 2001.
RAMALHO JÚNIOR, Francisco. Os fundamentos da física/Francisco Ramalho Junior, Nicolau Gilberto Ferraro, Paulo Antônio de Toledo Soares. 8. ed. rev. e ampl. São Paulo: Moderna, 2003.
CANOTILHO, J. J. Gomes (José Joaquim). Direito Constitucional e teoria da constituição/ J. J. Gomes Canotilho. Coimbra: Almedina, 1998.
COELHO, Inocêncio Mártires. Konrad Hesse/Peter Häberle: um retorno aos fatores reais de poder. In: Revista de Informação Legislativa. Ano 35, n° 138 – Brasília: Senado Federal, abr./jun. de 1998.
Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil from October 5, 1988, article 4, Sole Paragraph.
NOGUEIRA, Fausto Henrique Gomes / CAPELLARI, Marcos Alexandre. História: Ser Protagonista. 1st Edition, São Paulo: Edições SM Ltda. 2010.