After the first presidential round in Chile a week ago, we are already seeing the after-effects of the very close results achieved by leftist candidate Janet Jara. One of those responses is expected to come from the new senator and head of the Socialist Party, Polina Vodanovich. In several interviews, Senator Vodanović hinted at what is to come for the two main parties of Social Democracy, the Socialist Party and the Party for Democracy: the demise of the connection between two parties that for some time have shown no vital signs. With great frankness, the President of the Socialists expressed her annoyance at the presence of two parties that are far from forming an alliance, as they will not have common interests. The diagnosis is very harsh and somewhat counter-intuitive, because this Social Democracy did not do too badly in the parliamentary elections that took place on the same day of the first round: 20 deputies between the Socialists and Pepsidis, to which are added in the official calculations 8 Christian Democrats, 3 liberals and 2 radicals (33 in total, in a chamber of 155 members). Nothing bad compared to the 17 Deputies of the Enlarged Front and the 11 Communists, among whom there is neither unity nor community of interests. All this tells us about broken rights. But things are as they are now, and everything indicates that social democracy has no future, for a very good and simple reason developed by Senator Vodanovich: that the center-left label of social democracy makes socialists uncomfortable, because it erases their original identity, simply left. This death certificate should be taken seriously because it comes from the undisputed leader of the Socialist Party, who is as empowered as ever, which could foretell her emergence as a presidential candidate in the four years of opposition that are likely to come: once out of power, in the context of an electoral disaster, Buric will have to reinvent himself if he wants to compete for the position of first judge again. It is clear that he will face many difficulties to achieve this: his government ends very badly.
What is strange about this death certificate is the speed of its issuance, as well as the factionalist tone used: it does not take into account the remarkable resilience enjoyed by the Party of Democracy and the Christian Democratic Party, two forces that have been expelled by Moroccans and Christians (including many analysts). Nor does it measure the relative, if arithmetical, strength of the social-democratic entelitivism (which I will henceforth call The thing): 33 MPs is not small. Finally, he overlooks the electoral weakness suffered by the Socialist Party, a party that has lost nearly half of its electoral wealth in the past decade, which is only compensated for by its high electoral rates due to its negotiating ability. It is true that all of these things are explained by the emotional connection to the long history of the Socialist Party, with its traditions, symbols and identity, which is stirred when exemplary freedom fighters are honored posthumously. Political rationality cannot compete with the cultural power and identity of socialists, no matter how low their electoral power.
There is no doubt: what is missing from this death certificate The thing It’s a pre-drafting of the birth certificate from the other left. In this vision, socialists have a fundamental role to play, which includes several things.
First, the Socialists will hold a national program conference in 2026: Personally, I was expecting an ideological conference (like the 1959 Bad Godesberg conference, legendary in the social democratic tradition), given the scale of the defeat in the first round and the serious parliamentary setback for all leftists (some more, some less). How do we explain this defeat? There are many reasons that converge: from global and global factors (this happens almost everywhere) to local phenomena that have occurred in the last six years (the social outbreak of 2019 and everything that followed it: two aborted processes of constitutional change, the return to compulsory voting, the pandemic, the new left government of Gabriel Buric). In other words, and in left-wing language: socialists urgently need “an analysis of this period.”
Second, socialists cannot remain diagnostic: they must adopt objective definitions, which involves frank and perhaps painful ideological debate. In this sense, such a definitive and early definition of the end of democratic socialism is relevant: It may end, but The thing It must be terminated for objective reasons. These are the reasons that must be addressed at the socialist level, from there, to shape the public debate of all leftists. This is why the status of the party event is important (ideological congress or congress?), as well as the desire to resolve internal and public disagreements, true to the foundations on which the Socialist Party has been governed since 1990. Can anyone doubt that the Socialist Party was governed, however confusingly, from a social democratic perspective, sometimes dominated by a liberal version of the Third Way type, and sometimes steeped in ambiguity? Since 1990, the Socialists have never explained their ideology and system to justify the policies by which they have governed, except to say that they ruled in coalition, and thus their doctrinal and ideological positions cannot be precisely argued. Well, this is the time to do it: the defeat was so great, and so historic, that it is difficult to imagine the socialists escaping reality.
As for the Democracy Party, it is a party that must also adopt broad definitions. Its flaw comes from its weak identity and Bipedista culture which, if present in society, does not stand out. Its main challenge will be to challenge socialists politically and intellectually on the big issues of the emerging and future society: transhumanism, the robotization of work, the abandonment of the human body through the technological revolution, and the environmental crisis. On many of these issues, socialists do not even realize what will happen to humanity.
It doesn’t matter if The thing They no longer exist: what is relevant is that the parts are old Things Be aware that another world is emerging. We don’t know if this is a good world: I’m afraid not.