By: Mauricio Jaramillo Jassir
Associate Professor of the Faculty of International, Political and Urban Studies
I enjoy reading analysts or authors with whom I disagree because we usually learn from antagonism. This week I came across a column by Cristina Carrizosa Calle published in El Espectador; well written, serious and with a common thread structured around two ideas with which I would like to disagree: that the left has become radicalized and that is why it has done poorly and that the center is in the best position to capitalize on the current situation. I think more columns like Carrizosa’s are necessary in which they talk about center, left and right in Colombia without any complexities. I do not agree with my colleague’s assessments, but I believe his definition of the center is correct. Far from denying the left and right dichotomy, Cristina recognizes them and she starts from the idea of a center that exists as a form of rearrangement based on moderation as opposed to populism and radicalization. These last two have been demonized largely because their real dimension is unknown and populism is often confused with demagoguery and radicalization with intransigence. Although it may seem true, the above is incorrect.
I will not delve into explanations about the proven compatibility between populism and democracy, nor the theses of Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe Margaret Canovan or Luciana Cadahia which, going beyond this compatibility, ensure that doses of populism – understood as a capacity for emancipatory mobilization around demands – are necessary for the deepening of democracy or in the words of Mouffe and Adela Cortina for its radicalization. That said, let me clarify that radicality is not synonymous with intransigence but with deepening. I understand the misleading synonymy radical-intransigent and populism-demagogy, however, I must clarify that it does not exist. Although the first are equated in the dictionary, the truth is that these are concepts that must be understood in the light of political ideas, not of the RAE or the Larousse whose encyclopedic use is legitimate for basic pedagogical purposes, but not in the present discussion. Radicality consists of the introduction of changes without delay. There can be radicalism with consensus, its essence consists in proposing actions of a non-postponable nature that do not allow for long or costly transitions. One may like it or not, but Petro’s government is far from being radical and the entire backbone of the social agenda (pensions, health, work, public services and education) is planned as a transition, in no way a change. drastic. What’s more, this long negotiation, which has delayed its implementation, has generated anxiety in various sectors that voted for the change and see how powerful segments of the establishment refuse to debate and continue stubbornly defending baseless commonplaces, including the press. It is not that they contradict the proposals of progressivism, it has been said in every possible way that their only purpose is to bury the social agenda of whoever obtained the greatest number of votes in the history of Colombia. Nobody says that the above represents a blank check, but with this unjustified warning they have ignored the result of the 2022 polls.
Demagoguery is rhetorical manipulation to convince at any price, especially through fallacies, while populism is mobilization for emancipatory purposes. They may coincide, but they do not need each other. In several hegemonic media there is no debate, only blatantly anti-progressive and demagogic information warfare. The embarrassing episode of Luis Carlos Vélez is not serious only because he ignores the definition of subsidy or pension, or his inability leads him to do pedagogy on pension reform with a classist example of a party that works because few people enter, that is, the elite. . He only needed to say that if a lot of people come in the sheath is perrated as they say in Bogotá. The truly unfortunate thing is that it became evident that the owner of the microphone does not lend it, dissent is impossible and the role of the rest of the “work table” is to reaffirm what their boss projects (including a former minister!). There is no dialogue, only an echo in which one sender is imposed and the rest of the voices fulfill a humiliating role and the undignified task of making us think about diversity. False, the message comes from one person, the rest agree and that’s it.
I will not review the intransigence of the center that has shown itself to be technocratic, yes, abusing inaccuracies in order to create panic in the face of the reforms. I limit myself to remembering that the most studious decided this week to swallow the indigestible thesis that there will be expropriation and nationalization of the pension and health system. The moderate and compromising center should remind people that, according to libertarians, authors of the expropriation line of argument, any tax is theft. That the center embraces such rhetoric only shows the level of argumentative poverty and desperation to grow electorally on the shoulders of alliances that are inconsistent from any ideological perspective.
The left is called to radicalization to remember that it obtained the largest vote in history, a representative bench and the ability to convene in unfavorable circumstances in every sense. It has fewer resources, the center has moved to the right and the hegemonic media is beginning to play the role that corresponds to the opposition. They want us to believe that, the more animosity towards progressivism, the more even-handed the media is, they forget that independence is not only with respect to the government in power, but also from the establishment. In the current circumstances, it is convenient for a radical left without complexes to advance a social agenda that was stuck during years of neoliberal governments that never had a counterweight, since the opposition did not enjoy guarantees and they became accustomed to controlling everything. The time has come to break that unfriendly monopoly based on the marketing motto of “building on what has been built.” The phrase so in vogue is a sneaky defense of a classist order and the supposed need to negotiate with the anti-rights, reactionary and authoritarian sectors, about the enjoyment of guarantees and achievements recognized by the constitution.
