Politically, we are experiencing a moment of hegemonic polarization. With a government that is making progress with legal instruments long desired by other Liberal governments and today determined to make Milleism a reality. The presentation of a centralist and anti-law budget, an openly pro-business labor reform and money laundering that allows the use of undeclared funds without sanctions are just examples of the new order that is to be established.
All this is happening as the United States rolls out its new national security strategy, a Trumpian update of the Monroe Doctrine. It criticizes globalism, free trade, dependence on international organizations and reorients foreign policy towards strategic nationalism. Its central goals include the defense of sovereignty, border control and the primacy of the nation state. It also claims principles such as “peace through strength,” natural resource guarantees, cultural soft power, civic patriotism, a reindustrialization agenda, greater energy production, deregulation, and investment in science. As we can see, the big problem is making up for lost ground against China.
From Argentina’s perspective, the dilemma is how to position ourselves on these definitions. Should we emphasize issues related to national identity, industrialization, energy production, and civic patriotism over those related to free enterprise, individualism, and deregulation? Mileism promotes the idea of economic freedom without taking into account the new protectionism that is spreading around the world, allowing China and Russia – geopolitical competitors of the United States – to import cheap products that impact local businesses and workers. Not only the CGT is protesting, but also Rocca and Galperin, while Europe and Brazil are imposing tariffs on Chinese products.
Authoritarians don’t like that
The practice of professional and critical journalism is a mainstay of democracy. That is why it bothers those who believe that they are the owners of the truth.
The fact that the right is on the rise in countries like Chile, Peru, Bolivia or Paraguay does not mean that their societies are right-wing. Societies want to live better and at different times believe that a government of one political stripe or another can achieve this. Our countries go through cycles in which the failure of one government is followed by another of the opposite nature. The deeper the failure, the more the electoral pendulum swings to the opposite extreme.
MIT social scientist Alex Pentland provides a key to understanding this phenomenon: Polarization increases when interactions between like-minded people predominate, as is the case in social networks. There, exclusive identities are strengthened and contacts with people who think differently are reduced. This type of dynamic favors polarizing leadership that deepens the logic of “us versus them,” of friend-enemy, and seeks internal cohesion through confrontation and high emotional charge. Mileism is a clear example of this, but so is Christianity.
Perhaps the solution will eventually come from inclusive and inspiring leadership that strives for social cohesion based on shared values, the inclusion of others and the transversal exchange of ideas, or from polarizing leadership but based on the affirmation of shared values, national identity, respect in institutions and the integration of sectors. Nothing is said. What we do know is that hate and anger are used to win elections, not to build more integrated societies.
We then return to the original question: How can we build our future in a challenging geopolitical context with a fragmented society and weak institutions, led by leaderships that seem determined to deepen the fissures?
* Consultant and political analyst.
About The Author
