Two recent news, affecting the presidents of Brazil and Colombia, are an ideal excuse to wonder about the ownership of votes, especially where there is a second round or broad coalitions have been formed with the main objective of winning the presidential election.
The question is even more relevant in a context of strong tension and polarization and an intense fragmentation of the political forces competing for the different elective offices. It is not uncommon, these days, to see parliaments with more than 15 or even 20 different political groups represented there.
Are the winning candidates of the elections the legitimate owners of the votes that supported them and allowed them to access the first magistracy of their countries? The electoral triumph, and more in the case of presidents, grants the winners an undeniable legitimacy of origin that makes it easier for them to present themselves as the rulers of all the citizens of the country whether they voted for them or not.
However, problems arise when those elected begin to speak and govern only in the name of their theoretical supporters and the majorities, large or small, that have supported them.
But, beyond the preferential positioning at the extremes of the ideological political spectrum of the normally winning options, the majority of Latin American voters perceive themselves as centrist, whether center-left or center-right.
What were the news mentioned? As far as Brazil is concerned, it is related to foreign policy, while in Colombia it affects domestic policy. In Brazil we must mention the warm reception, practically fraternal or even paternal filial, of Lula to Nicolás Maduro.
To the surprise of many, the Brazilian president said that in the world "there is a very big prejudice against Maduro," a narrative against Venezuela, which he defined as a democracy. In reality, this biased approach of the leader of the PT on Venezuela is nothing new.
In 2008, he noted that Hugo Chavez had been the country's best president in the last 100 years. Lula 3 seems to like to get into too many puddles, without measuring their consequences well, as reflected in his Russian position on the invasion of Ukraine.
In relation to Gustavo Petro his statements were even more worrying, crossing a red line regarding the functioning of democracy and the separation of powers in his country. He had previously said that "the attempt to curtail the reforms [his reforms] can lead to a revolution."
That is why it was not surprising that he began to speak of a "soft coup", something motivated by various administrative decisions on the situation of parliamentarians linked to his Historical Pact project, although they had double militancy.
These decisions, according to his interpretation, had the clear objective of reducing the weight of his caucus and thus weakening the viability of his proposals. However, in two of the cases considered, those affected were replaced by their substitutes, without changing the composition of the Chambers. There was also another senator, suspended for eight months by the Attorney General's Office after assaulting some policemen in a drunken state, whom he called murderers.
Both cases, despite their different approaches, have a similar component consisting of the custom, relatively normal in Latin America, of speaking from partisan positions that do not represent the bulk of the population but a specific sector or sectors and generally minority.
It is common for presidents to express themselves from their position of strength, using all the power of their investiture and assuming that the votes obtained are their own and not borrowed.
This phenomenon is even more serious when, in order to win the election, broad coalitions, whether formal or informal, have had to be formed to reach broader sectors of society. Brazil, Colombia or even Chile are examples of this situation. Without the input of centrist or more focused forces and politicians, many of these victories, some very close, would have been impossible.
However, in many presidential attitudes, arrogance weighs more than a calm reading of reality. The great paradox of this mechanism has to do with the different readings that are made of the electoral results, highlighting the presidential election and underestimating the parliamentary ones. It would seem that the vote that elects the president is first-rate, while the same vote that is cast in a legislative election has a significantly lower value.
Behind this arrogance is the intention to promote hegemonic projects, not to take into account the balances of power or the real support of each specific political option.
This tendency, which is quite widespread in Latin America, prevents reaching broad consensus that facilitates governance and defends the general interest. As long as this trend continues, disaffection with democracy will remain one of the slabs that hinders regional politics.
Carlos Malamud is Professor of American History at the UNED, Spain, and principal investigator for Latin America at the Elcano Royal Institute.