For many analysts, the polarization in Latin America divides politics between leftists and rightists. This frankly has no basis in reality. Because except in Colombia, where left and right have Gustavo Petro and Alvaro Uribe as referents who, in addition to being politically savvy, are educated and excellent strategists, in the rest of Latin America the right lacks referents. And the leaders of that political persuasion, except in the case of Lacalle Pou, lack charisma, long-term vision and skills to build coalitions.
The left, on the other hand, has developed a narrative that reaches the hearts of the people because it shows a way out of poverty even when it is false- and explains (slyly) the reasons for poverty in simple, direct and clear language. This narrative has been decanted over many decades following the advice of Antonio Gramsci. On the right, in contrast, it lacks an attractive narrative that focuses political efforts on a single point of gravitation: freedom and its ability to unleash the creative spirit of human beings, thus creating the path of development. Hence, the struggle for power today is between factions on the left.
The relative political success of the left is about to end thanks to the destructive efforts of the regimes in Venezuela; Nicaragua, Argentina; and Mexico. In these nations, the destruction of wealth, jobs and, in general, well-being for the lower-income segments of the population is only comparable to that which occurs as a result of a war or a natural disaster.
And the peoples of Latin America are witnessing these catastrophes live and direct. That is why the immune systems of civil society are being activated to shore up institutions that put a stop to the destructive impetus of one of the most dangerous strains of the socialist virus. We are seeing this development daily in Peru, where civil society monitors all of Castillo’s movements. We saw it in Bolivia when the people rejected Evo Morales’ attempted fraud. In Chile it is becoming present in the inclination of a silent majority to reject the constitutional monstrosity that will soon go to a plebiscite and of course it is present in Costa Rica where the new president must respect the division of powers in his reform plans.
In short, it seems that the destructive work of one of the strains of Latin American socialism has its Nemesis. The avenger will be organized civil society beyond the political parties whose responsibility in the regional predicament is enormous. Because the leftist political parties have supported and continue to support leaders who suffer from the Daniel Ortega syndrome that represents the resurrection of Latin American caudillismo in which power is not to sow freedom and prosperity but to enrich oneself personally; destroy adversaries and perpetuate themselves in power forever. Few are the leaders of the Latin American left who have rebelled against this evil to favor the Joaquin Villalobos syndrome. The former commander of the FMLN in El Salvador negotiated peace with the right-wing forces; established rules of the game to achieve disarmament and peace and submitted to them. He was the only leader of a guerrilla group to admit responsibility for human rights violations before the Truth Commission established in El Salvados as a result of the peace accords that Villalobos had negotiated. Once peace was established and his movement grouped into a political party, Villalobos submitted to the verdict of the Truth Commission, retiring to the University of Oxford and creating an NGO that has been advising states that want to end an armed conflict for 30 years. Villalobos took up arms against injustice, putting his own life in danger. And one wonders how many of the current leftist leaders of Latin America have had that courage? When I came to the conclusion that this was not the path, he preferred to dedicate himself to building democracy. In the current Latin American circumstances, only the Villalobist left will see the light of the next century. Because he understands that freedom is above justice.
*Internationalist. Master in Economic Development. Member of the United States Council on Foreign Relations.
“The opinions published here are the sole responsibility of their author.”
