Every country is subject to the conditions imposed by its own past, its level of development, social behavior, the distribution of power and its relationship with other countries.
The mere will of rulers—even the most capable—cannot magically transform a lagging country into a power.
Reality draws uncrossable borders.
However, within the scope that reality demarcates, there can be significant progress towards a higher degree of development.
Or dramatic setbacks.
In societies, as in individuals,
identical causes do not inevitably produce identical effects.
Economic deterioration and social hardship cause deep crises, but the consequences are not always the same.
When a society experiences crises ruminating on frustration, wrapped in an obsessive neurosis and transforming dissent into hatred,
it ends up looking for providential solutions.
It begins by identifying the alleged culprits of misfortunes, and generally suspects those who manage public affairs (politicians) and those who must prevent abuses of power (judges).
Suspicions become widespread and end in the global questioning of democratic institutions
In the past, it was assumed that to “clean up” democracy there was a remedy: the coup d'état
In Argentina, in 1966, the armed forces struck a blow
against the “rigid political structures” that, supposedly, prevented “a healthy economy” and annihilated “the efforts of the community.”
The military regime maintained that its “sole and authentic purpose” was “
to save the Republic and definitively guide it along the path of its greatness.”
To do this, he decided to “eliminate the deep causes that have led the country to its current situation.”
These “deep causes” presumably resided in the institutions.
Consequently, the regime decided:
“Remove from their positions the President and Vice President of the Republic and the governors and vice-governors of all the Provinces”
“Dissolve the National Congress and the Provincial Legislatures”
“Dissolve all political parties in the country.”
“Remove the members of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Attorney General of the Nation from their positions.”
That government ended with the (until then) highest inflation of the century, chain insurrections and proliferation of armed organizations.
Today the coups have been replaced by something that, although it is not new in Latin America, has been spreading in Europe for a few years: populism.
It is defined as the strategy of confronting the people with the political elites, attributing crises and hardships to these elites.
When they come to power, populists dismantle or weaken the democratic state.
In this situation are
Hungary, Poland, Italy, Greece, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands
, whose governments have won elections with more than 50 percent of the votes.
In other countries, populism does not govern but there are populist parties that manage to captivate, some up to a third of the electorate.
This is the case of France, Spain, Ireland, Sweden, Croatia, Cyprus, Slovakia, Estonia and Bulgaria.
Most populists are eurosceptic, defend unrestricted private property, and oppose: immigration, the welfare state, ecology, the fight against climate change, vaccines, legal abortion and the LGBT community.
Its objectives are: to preserve national sovereignty, promote the market economy, preserve social homogeneity, combat statism, avoid brakes on development, ensure natural protection against disease, defend life from pregnancy and not legitimize sexual perversions. .
This ideology clashes with that of progressivism,
defined as a defender of human rights and social equity.
Most progressivism is Europeanist, postulates equitable distribution of income and defends: the rights of immigrants, the legal satisfaction of basic needs, immunoprevention, ecology, feminism and gender freedom.
Its objectives are: to promote social justice, protect human rights, overcome poverty, promote scientific research, safeguard gender equality and respect the different manifestations of sexuality.
The disparity between populism and progressivism is such that these conceptions are separated by deep cracks.
Populism can affect different sectors and face possible social reactions, capable of putting the application of its ideology at risk.
To impose it, some governments could become a kind of elected autocracy.
Liberties—a Berlin-based nongovernmental organization that promotes civil liberties in the European Union—notes that “in some countries, such as Hungary,” populism has managed to “change laws, silence critical voices, and erode the rule of law.” right”, all of which makes it difficult to dislodge him with votes.
The NGO adds that there is more than one country (which it does not identify), in certain areas of the European Union, that does not guarantee completely transparent elections.
Based on this assumption, it suggests that, in such countries, the loss of support may not be reflected at the polls, thus prolonging the validity of authoritarian populist governments.”
The risk of populism, and in particular authoritarian populism, occurs when, in critical situations, a society falls into what, in Spain before the civil war, Ortega summarized as follows: “We do not know what is happening to us, and that is what happens to us.”
In the midst of such uncertainties, there are always those who tell society how to overcome its frustrations and show it the wrong path.