December Solstice Traditions and Customs

 

 

 

What happens at the solstice?

The North Pole is tilted furthest away from the sun at the solstice. (Illustration not to scale)

The December solstice occurs when the sun reaches its most southerly declination of -23.5 degrees. In other words, it is when the North Pole is tilted 23.5 degrees away from the sun. Depending on the Gregorian calendar, the December solstice occurs annually on a day between December 20 and December 23. On this date, all places above a latitude of 66.5 degrees north (Arctic Polar Circle) are now in darkness, while locations below a latitude of 66.5 degrees south (Antarctic Polar Circle) receive 24 hours of daylight.
Use the Sunrise and Sunset calculator to find the number of daylight hours during the December solstice in cities worldwide.
The sun is directly overhead on the Tropic of Capricorn in the southern hemisphere during the December solstice. It also marks the longest day of the year in terms of daylight hours for those living south of the equator. Those living or travelling south from the Antarctic Circle towards the South Pole will see the midnight sun during this time of the year.
On the contrary, for an observer in the northern hemisphere, the December solstice marks the day of the year with the least hours of daylight. Those living or traveling north of the Arctic Circle towards the North Pole will not be able to see the sun during this time of the year.

Solstice’s influence on Christmas

 Yule is also known as Alban Arthan and was one of the “Lesser Sabbats” of the Wiccan year.

In modern times Christians all over the world celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ on Christmas, which falls on December 25. However, it is believed that this date was chosen to offset pagan celebrations of Saturnalia and Natalis Invicti. Some believe that celebrating the birth of the “true light of the world” was set in synchronization with the December solstice because from that point onwards, the days began to have more daylight in the northern hemisphere.

Christmas is also referred to as Yule, which may have derived from the Norse word jól, referring to the pre-Christian winter solstice festival. Yule is also known as Alban Arthan and was one of the “Lesser Sabbats” of the Wiccan year in a time when ancient believers celebrated the rebirth of the Sun God and days with more light. This took place annually around the time of the December solstice and lasted for 12 days. The Lesser Sabbats fall on the solstices and equinoxes.
The Feast of Juul was a pre-Christian festival observed in Scandinavia at the time of the December solstice. Fires were lit to symbolize the heat, light and life-giving properties of the returning sun. A Yule or Juul log was brought in and burned on the hearth in honor of the Scandinavian god Thor.
A piece of the log was kept as both a token of good luck and as kindling for the following year’s log. In England, Germany, France and other European countries, the Yule log was burned until nothing but ash remained. The ashes were then collected and either strewn on the fields as fertilizer every night until Twelfth Night or kept as a charm and or as medicine.
French peasants believed that if the ashes were kept under the bed, they would protect the house against thunder and lightning. The present-day custom of lighting a Yule log at Christmas is believed to have originated in the bonfires associated with the feast of Juul.

¿Qué tiene la Constitución de 1978 que no tuvieron las que la precedieron en la historia política española?

La Constitución de 1978 ha sido la primera en nuestra historia que una parte del país no impuso a la otra parte. Esa –la de la imposición del ganador– había sido nuestra triste historia colectiva hasta que la Constitución ahora en vigor rompió con el pasado. Un pasado –no debéis olvidarlo si queréis valorar justamente las virtudes y defectos del texto constitucional que hoy rige nuestra vida colectiva– que era, por utilizar una expresión propia de la época, el del trágala: los que se alzaban con el poder (fuera por medios legales: las elecciones; o por medios ilegales: los golpes de Estado, los pronunciamientos o las revoluciones) imponían a los perdedores sus reglas de juego, sus principios y valores –es decir, su Constitución–, que los perdedores debían tragarse (de ahí el trágala ) como quien se ve obligado a comerse a la fuerza un plato que le resulta más o menos repulsivo. Esa práctica de la imposición del ganador acabó convirtiéndose con el tiempo en una práctica política que, a fuerza de ser habitual, acabó pareciendo a todos, completamente natural: el ganador imponía su Constitución a los demás, que esperaban desde entonces su ocasión para imponer la suya por su cuenta, en cuanto cambiasen las tornas y alcanzasen el poder. La imagen que muchas veces hemos utilizado para explicar tal situación es la del péndulo de un reloj. Nuestra historia política y constitucional sería así una historia pendular, en la que el país habría venido oscilando de derecha a izquierda, y de izquierda a derecha, entre conservadurismo y progresismo, entre avance y retroceso, entre reacción y revolución. Lo cierto es, sin embargo, que en cuanto uno se acerca a esa realidad de nuestra historia con algo más de calma, resulta posible llegar a una conclusión que matiza un poco esa visión pendular de la evolución del constitucionalismo español. Y es que –fijaos– por debajo de esa historia marcada por los gritos opuestos de ¡Viva la Constitución! y ¡Muera la Constitución!, es decir, por debajo de esa sucesión constante de Constituciones y de períodos constituyentes de diferente signo político, de oscilaciones del péndulo de derecha a izquierda y viceversa, la verdad es que a lo largo de nuestra historia colectiva se fueron configurando todo un amplio conjunto de instituciones de poder, y de culturas y prácticas políticas, muy impermeables a las reformas democráticas que, con el tiempo, terminarán haciendo muy difícil la consolidación, a lo largo del siglo XIX, de un Estado constitucional digno de tal nombre; y, ya en el siglo XX, de un Estado democrático. Basta para comprobar hasta que punto las cosas sucedieron de ese modo con realizar una sencilla operación: sí, basta con hacer cuentas del tiempo en que, por seguir con esa imagen de la España pendular, el péndulo permaneció de un lado y no del otro. De los ciento sesenta y seis años transcurridos entre 1812 (cuando se aprobó nuestra primera Constitución: la de Cádiz) y 1978 (cuando se aprobó la que actualmente rige nuestra vida colectiva) España sufrió sesenta y dos años de negación radical del constitucionalismo (los del sexenio absolutista, la década ominosa, y las dictaduras de Miguel Primo de Rivera y Francisco Franco); y sobrevivió otros sesenta y ocho años de constitucionalismo cerrado y ficticio: los transcurridos mientras estuvieron vigentes el texto constitucional de los moderados (el de 1845) y el de los conservadores (el de 1876). En contraste contundente con esos largos ciento treinta años, bien poco significarán los algo más de treinta en los que, a trancas y barrancas, la vida política española estuvo marcada por Constituciones que, verdaderamente, podían recibir tal nombre: las de 1812, 1837 y 1869, durante el siglo XIX; y la de la II República española, aprobada esta última, en medio de una esperanza y una ilusión popular desconocidas hasta entonces, en 1931. Pero esa incapacidad a la que me vengo refiriendo no lo fue sólo para construir un régimen político plenamente democrático, capaz de reconocer la creciente pluralidad política, social, territorial, religiosa y cultural existente en España, sino también para imponer unas reglas de juego aceptadas por la inmensa mayoría de los españoles con la finalidad de dar una salida civil, y por tanto, civilizada, a la lucha de partidos a través de la cual se manifestaba (y, en ocasiones, se azuzaba) el enfrentamiento entre españoles. Esa doble incapacidad acabaría conduciendo finalmente al más terrible drama de nuestra historia común: a una guerra civil devastadora (la de 1936 a 1939), consecuencia directa de un levantamiento militar contra la II República española, guerra que iba a desembocar en una larga y terrible dictadura. Por eso cuando tras la muerte del dictador Francisco Franco España va recuperando poco a poco su libertad, todos los grandes problemas de nuestra experiencia colectiva estaban allí, como congelados, esperándonos, lo que nos obligó a afrontarlos de nuevo para tratar, ahora sí, de darles una solución definitiva. Ese intento es el que explica el sentido de nuestra actual Constitución, un texto de amplio consenso, es decir, de gran acuerdo entre todos los que participaron en su elaboración, con la que se trató de lograr un auténtico pacto nacional para la convivencia en paz y en libertad, mediante un método sencillo, pero no por ello menos meritorio: el consistente en no introducir en la Constitución ninguna norma, regla o principio que resultase absolutamente inaceptable para alguna de las fuerzas políticas que, en representación del pueblo español, redactaron su articulado. El consenso frente al trágala : ese fue el cambio que introdujo en la historia política española la Constitución de 1978, aprobada, primero, por la inmensa mayoría de los diputados y senadores que participaron en las Cortes Constituyentes; y, después, por la inmensa mayoría de los ciudadanos cuando, tras la aprobación por las Cortes Generales (que forman el Congreso de los Diputados y el Senado) fue sometida a referéndum nacional del pueblo español.
Zona joven del Congreso sobre la Constitución

Democracy

A democracy is a form of government in which the people, either directly or indirectly, take part in governing. The word democracy originates from Greek, and means rule of the people.

Distinctions
Democratic governments can be divided into different types, based on a number of different distinctions. The most important distinction is between direct democracy and indirect democracy. The latter type is the most common one. A direct democracy is a political system in which all citizens are allowed to influence policy by means of a direct vote, or referendum, on any particular issue. Indirect democracy is a term describing a means of governance by the people through elected representatives. A representative democracy is a system in which the people elect government officials who then make decisions on their behalf. This is often referred to as Republic, particularly in historical usages and in constitutional theory. Modern definitions of that term, however, refer to any State with an elective Head of State and most monarchies are representative democracies.  Essentially, a representative democracy is a form of indirect democracy in which leaders and representatives are democratically selected. A doctrine ofter known as Edmund Burke's Principle states that representatives should act upon their own conscience in the affairs of a representative democracy. There is also an expectation that such representatives should consider the views of their electors - particularly in the case of States with strong constituiency links. Some critics of representative democracy argue that party politics mean that representatives will be forced to follow the party line on issues, rather than either the will of their conscience or constituents.  Another form of indirect democracy is delegative democracy. In delegative democracy, delegates are selected and expected to act on the wishes of the constituency. In this form of democracy the constituency may recall the delegate at any time. One critique of delegative democracy is that it can be used to filter out the will of the base element if too many layers are added to the structure of decision making. One important issue in a democracy is the suffrage, or the franchise - that is the decision as to who ought to be entitled to vote. Recent example of how the "right to vote" changed over history is New Zealand, which was the first country to give women the right to vote (19 September 1893). In the Athenian democracy, slaves and women were prohibited from voting.  Another important concern in a democracy is the so-called "tyranny of the majority". In a pure democracy, a majority would be empowered to do anything it wanted to any unfavored minority. For example, in a pure democracy it is theoretically possible for a majority to vote that a certain religion should be illegalized, and its members punished with death. In some countries, their Constitution intentionally designs a representative rather than a direct democracy in part to avoid the danger of the tyranny of the majority. Some proponents of direct democracy argue that not all direct democracies need to be pure democracies. They argue that just as there is a special constitutional process for amending articles in the constitutions of traditional Republics, there could be a distinction between legislation which would be handled through direct democracy and the modification of constitutional rights which would have a more deliberative procedure there attached.

Direct and Representative Democracy.  Direct democracy becomes more and more difficult, and necessarily more closely approximates representative democracy, as the number of citizens grows. Historically, the most direct democracies would include the New England town meeting, and the political system of the ancient Greek city states.

 

We can view direct and indirect democracies as ideal types, with actual democracies approximating more closely to the one or the other. Some modern political entities are closest to direct democracies, such as Switzerland or some U.S. States, where frequent use is made of referenda, and means are provided for referenda to be initiated by petition instead of by members of the legislature or the government.

However, elections are not a sufficient condition for the existence of democracy, in fact elections can be used by totalitarian regimes or dictatorships to give a false sense of democracy. Some examples are 1960s right-wing military dicatorships in South America, left-wing totalitarian states like the USSR until 1991 or the more prominent III Reich, in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s.

Representative democracy is the most commonly used system of government in countries generally considered "democratic".

However, it should be noted that the definition used to classify countries as "democratic" was crafted by Europeans and is directly influenced by the dominating cultures in those countries; care should be taken when applying it to other cultures that are tribal in nature and do no have the same historical background as the current "democratic" countries.

 

Discussion on Direct Democracy

The traditional, and to many still compelling, objection to direct democracy as a form of government is that it is open to demagoguery. It is for this reason that the United States was established as, in the terminology used at the time , a "republic" rather than a "democracy". Thus Benjamin Franklin's famous answer, to the question as to what sort of government the "Founding Fathers" had established, was: "A Republic, if you can keep it."

 

Alternative Definition of 'Democracy'

There is another definition of democracy from that given above, though it is less commonly used. According to this definition, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy is referred to as a "republic". Using this definition, most western coutries' system of government is referred to as a "democratic-republic," rather than a democracy.

The words "democracy" and "republic" were wrongly used by some of the Founding Fathers of the United States. They argued that only a representative democracy (what they called a 'republic') could properly protect the rights of the individual; they used the word 'democracy' to refer to direct democracy, which they considered tyrannical.

From the time of old Greece up to now the definition of the word "democracy" has changed, according to most political scientists today (and most common English speakers) the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it be direct or representative. The term "republic" today commonly means, a politicial system with a head of state elected for a limited term, as opposed to a constitutional monarchy.

Note however that the older terms are still sometimes used in discussions of politicial theory, especially when considering the works of Aristotle or the American "Founding Fathers". This older terminology also has some popularity in conservative and Libertarian politics in the United States.