Search
NEWSLETTER

One region, all voices

Constituent process and indigenous peoples in Chile

Tokichen Tricot
-
0
Constituent process and indigenous peoples in Chile

One year ago, this week, the so-called Peace Agreement was signed by almost all political parties in Congress and designed the current constitutional path in which Chile finds itself. It is important to point out that this Agreement was the result of the massive mobilizations that have taken place since October 2019 throughout the country.

The Agreement established that a plebiscite would be held to consult the citizens if they chose to remove the current constitution -the one imposed by the dictatorship- or not. Two options were also to be decided upon, in the event that the alternative of changing the current constitution was successful: through a constitutional convention (entirely elected by popular vote); and a mixed convention (composed half by parliamentarians and half elected by the citizenry). The options triumphed widely: changing Pinochet’s constitution through a constitutional convention. Gender parity has been assured for this, but not for seats reserved for indigenous peoples.

Last week, the discussion about the seats reserved for indigenous peoples in the Constitutional Convention was once again suspended.

Last week, the discussion about the seats reserved for indigenous peoples in the Constitutional Convention was once again suspended. This has caused political problems, since on the same day that the vote on reserved seats was postponed, the new Minister of the Interior, Rodrigo Delgado – the third since the beginning of Sebastián Piñera’s government – travelled with President Sebastián Piñera to the Araucanía region in the south of the country. The official visit sought to use once again the already century-old conflict between the Chilean state and the Mapuche people as a context to demonstrate a strength and control that they have shamefully lost since the revolt last October.

This situation may seem a priori to be normal, or even logical in terms of parliamentary or government procedures. However, it represents the latest expressions of a colonial relationship that the State has established with indigenous peoples. An imaginary established since the territorial consolidation of Chile as a country and in which the presence, much less the influence, of indigenous peoples was never considered, and which, in the end, was phagocytized by the idea of a state for a nation. The nineteenth-century, uninational, unicultural and assimilationist state still persists, without having changed substantially.

It is an asymmetrical relationship of domination with concrete manifestations, a naturalization of territorial, racial, and epistemic hierarchies in terms of the country’s institutionality. This situation has its political expression in the lack of systematic experiences of indigenous participation in the political life of the country. A review of the authorities appointed or elected in the country from 1990 to the present shows that the indigenous presence in important positions is marginal, with few and occasional exceptions.

Therefore, the successive suspensions of the vote on the seats reserved for the indigenous people are not surprising. This attitude not only responds to the economic and electoral accounts of the parliamentarians, but is also an expression of a continuum in terms of the way of relating to the indigenous peoples who are constantly relegated to secondary, symbolic positions with no real impact. This is despite the fact that, according to the last census in 2017, 12.8% of the population identifies itself as a member of some of the original peoples in the country. Even so, they have never been constitutionally recognized.

This turning point in the constitutional debate should be an opportunity, not only for a more than belated recognition of native peoples, but, as various indigenous organizations propose, to debate the recognition of Chile as a plurinational state. One way to contribute to this – not the only one obviously – is to approve and ensure the participation of the ten indigenous peoples in the country through reserved seats.

For the time being, this discussion is jammed. This is despite the fact that on October 30th the Senate’s constitutional commission approved the opposition’s proposal to create 24 reserved seats that would be added to the 155 general conventions approved in the October plebiscite. For the proposal to be approved, 26 votes are necessary, but the opposition only has 24.

It remains to be seen what the outcome will be. It remains to be seen what the outcome will be, if the necessary votes are reached, or if, on the contrary, it will give in to the demands of the governing coalition whose leaders use fallacious arguments, such as the president of the UDI (the right-wing, pro-government party) who states that if quotas are given to the indigenous people, they should also be given to the evangelical church. This colonialist and racist vision undoubtedly ignores the historical debt that the state has with the original peoples due to the dispossession to which they have been subjected. This vision also ignores that they are different nations, subject to collective rights as recognized in international law

There are dissonant voices from other organizations, particularly Mapuche, that do not agree with any of the proposals. They argue that they do not need to be recognized by the state and that they do not participate in the constituent process because they do not understand it as a new mode of assimilation since autonomy is not being considered. These factions affirm that they will continue their struggle in their territories in the south. 

it can be argued, as the Mapuche historian Fernando Pairican puts it, that what is at stake is “a deepening of an autonomous indigenous political power of the original nations”.

There are several aspects of the process that can be criticized. Such as the fact that the plebiscite was voted on without having previously established the details of the reserved seats, the lack of participation of some organizations in the debate, or even the electoral calculations that the political parties are making in a strategic way. But, on the other hand, it can be argued, as the Mapuche historian Fernando Pairican puts it, that what is at stake is “a deepening of an autonomous indigenous political power of the original nations”. The presence of indigenous voice and a vote proportional to its population in the Constituent would represent a significant change.

The crossroads opened in October 2019 represent a potential paradigm shift in the way the state relates to indigenous peoples. And while recent and past history is not too encouraging, it could be a turning point. This is despite the gatopardizing shadow of the transition (change to remain) that looms over the constituent process.

Foto de membros do Parlamento em Foter.com / CC BY-NC-ND

How did Trump get this far?

Joaquín Roy
-
0
How did Trump get this far?

To believe that Biden’s triumph is the end of the drama that has unfolded since January 2016 is an example of a mirage with fatal consequences. Pretending that those millions of voters, who have followed Trump to the end, will disappear from the map on January 20 with the inauguration of Biden and Harris reveals a blindness to how much America has changed in recent generations. But what is even worrisome is not the survival of the ideology of those who elevated Trump. But the enigma is how that long third of the electorate occupied a vital territory?

Numerous observers of the evolution of the American political soul raised voices of alarm in recent months. They wondered about the dangerous conversion of the United States political system into an unusual imitation of the fabric existing in other countries that had fallen into the nets of authoritarianism.

Worse still is they had been swallowed up by the extreme ideologies that appeared in Europe in the 1930s. These drove countries with a long cultural tradition to turn into totalitarian dictatorships. These voices advanced the comparison of what was happening by applying Trump’s whims, turned into policies that resembled the practical programs of the Hitler regime since 1933.

In the society of the United States at the beginning of the new century, the existence of broad sectors that felt cornered, disappointed, and isolated began to be detected.

In the society of the United States at the beginning of the new century, the existence of broad sectors that felt cornered, disappointed, and isolated began to be detected. They were not the traditional enclaves of racial minorities or remnants of European immigrants who had not fully fitted into the social and economic fabric.

They were, so to speak, “full-blooded Americans.” They saw that the American dream was beginning to turn into a hurtful nightmare, from which they could not wake up despite having faithfully complied with the report card that the system had given to their parents or grandparents.

Wages were not keeping up with the rising cost of living. Mortgages ate much of the income. If they were inhabitants of rural areas, they felt trapped by invisible borders. If they grew up with a basic education, access to college was limited by their income or the stratospheric cost of private institutions. An explanation had to be found for this apparent scam.

That was not the America, in short, that they had been promised. It was urgent to find the culprits for this fraud. In addition, it was necessary to detect the existence of new leaders who would not be that hateful and corrupt establishment in Washington. Suddenly, they were orphans from another direction, whose space was occupied by an “outsider”, Donald Trump. He arrived pristine, without the blemish of traditional politics. It guaranteed the decontamination of the Washington swamp.

In a reasonably educated nation, it would truly be a feat to have followed the tunes of a flute player, who had revealed the causes of their misfortune.

In a reasonably educated nation, it would truly be a feat to have followed the tunes of a flute player, who had revealed the causes of their misfortune. As Hitler enthralled a cultured people like the troubled interwar Germans, Trump fascinated the Americans with his simplistic solutions.

In Germany of 1930s, urban decay was attributed to the alleged capture of certain businesses by Jews. The solution began with the breaking up of the shop windows, the prohibition of certain professions, and finally imprisonment. The German people, educated and disciplined, swallowed the lie without question.

The regime accurately sold the supposed need to expand the territory by the call of the Lebensraum. The simple solution was the Anschluss of Austria, and then the bite into the ethnically German territories in Czechoslovakia. The people applauded, but did not seem satisfied: Poland had to be invaded and then respond to the Anglo-French protest with the forceful Blitzkrieg. The German people cheered, as Hitler paraded triumphantly around the Arc de Triomphe.

As Trump ascended the throne, many Americans who had been drawn to urban areas found that the neat neighborhoods of the suburbs ended up being contaminated by the invasion of racial minorities, previously hardly detected. They felt uncomfortable sharing the space with blacks and, what was more hurtful, with Hispanics, who also spoke an incomprehensible language. And most of them were accused of being drug traffickers.

The remedy from the White House was to close the border to the invaders with a wall. Trump also promised that the Mexicans themselves would pay for it. He continued by dividing the families of those who had already entered, making it difficult for them to attend university, and delaying their citizenship to the maximum.

The “lifelong Americans” were enthralled. And the Republican Party was satisfied with the renewal of its positions in the Senate. Arbitrary measures bordered on unconstitutionality. But the goal of “making America great again” became the central watchword.

In the Germany of Hitler’s rise, everything was subordinated to the very end of reestablishing or inventing the glories of the past, to the chords of a Wagner opera. The absence of questioning the sovereignty of the Fuhrer guaranteed the fulfillment of the script.

Believing itself to be the best nation in Europe justified the madness of the invasion of the Soviet Union, without realizing that such an operation caused the downfall of Napoleon. The National Socialist Party guaranteed order and the SS inherited the role of the Brown Shirts to tame the Wehrmacht that swallowed up the professional military, who had not digested the defeat of 1918 well.

The disaster that began in Stalingrad and culminated with Russian troops raising the flag at the top of the Reichstag, was riveted by Allied bombardments that left Dresden and Hamburg in ruins, populated by millions of wandering soldiers, while the furnaces were still smoking in the death camps and a million German women of all ages were raped. The sentence was so forceful that only in this way did the Germans learn their lesson and became a model of cooperation in Europe and the world.

But it is unknown how the application of the same strategy could have ended if Trump’s misrule plan had followed the same path. Now only the seventy million who have voted him to “make America great again” have remained silent. But the SS in the Republican Senate and the recent infiltrators in the Supreme Court also remain unscathed. It’s a gigantic denazification task for Biden, without Nuremberg-style trials.

Photo by alisdare1 on Foter.com / CC BY-SA

Pandemic, Economy and Politics: A View from America

Gregorio Vidal
-
0
Pandemic, Economy and Politics: A View from America

The COVID-19 pandemic abides. Growth in the number of infections and the number of positive people in Europe and America indicate that the disease is re-emerging in these areas. In some countries the spread of the disease hasn’t been significantly controlled and, in recent weeks, there has been a further escalation in the numbers. The United States stands out, in the midst of its long electoral process, with contagion figures nearly exceeding one hundred thousand people per day, indicating that in the coming weeks, pressure on its health system could be significant.

Health care systems have been stretched to the limit, with insufficient investment in expanding and modernizing their infrastructure, let alone insufficient recruitment of qualified health care professionals over the course of the pandemic. In Europe, street demonstrations by various citizens groups over new confinement measures are noteworthy.  In Germany, as in Spain and England, there are expressions of this nature that, by themselves, do not help to curb  COVID-19 contagions. In several countries in America there are also protests, and yet they are motivated by other purposes. The common sign in the region is to protest against the results of the economic and social management conducted by the authorities for many years

In the United States there is a broad social movement against racism, police brutality, and violence against women. In recent weeks, it has been linked to the presidential elections, House of Representatives, part of the Senate and some governorships. This is an issue that requires specific analysis. For the time being, consider the remarkable extent of the social movement against inequality. This in a context where the proposals of the Republican Party, led by Donald Trump, have the electoral support of more than 70 million citizens — 47.7% of those who exercised their vote. In the meantime, the management of the pandemic and economic-policy measures will advance with difficulty amid this context.

In Latin America, in the political scenario, the social movements and political parties located in the space of the struggle against social inequality

In Latin America, in the political scenario, the social movements and political parties located in the space of the struggle against social inequality and the political expressions that make it possible stand out. In Chile a broad movement of citizens managed to win the plebiscite to legislate a new Constitution that will be the subject of deliberation in a constitutional convention starting in April 2021. 

Popular action must continue. Precisely, the continuity in popular action and the capacity to achieve common goals is a relevant fact of the recent triumph of the MAS in Bolivia. It will still be necessary to complete the restoration of legality with the inauguration of President Arce and then, as the president-elect recognizes, to carry out the most important tasks in the area of redirecting the economy and politics in order to make progress in reducing social inequality and creating conditions for a dignified life for the majority of the population.

This is the point at which other countries, such as Mexico and Argentina, find themselves with governments that declare their distance from neoliberal positions and must advance in a notable economic and social reconstruction that will be the seat of new political relations in each country. The pandemic further complicates the scenario, but in a sense it forces more far-reaching decisions in the reorganization of the economies. 

In other countries in the region, social movements are continuing, with their specific forms of development as in Colombia, adding the demands of the original inhabitants, women, urban dwellers and the full implementation of the peace agreements. In Ecuador, in a few months, presidential and legislative elections will be held, which could be the space for the multiple partisan and social movement built against the program of restoration of the structural reforms of the current government to achieve an electoral victory. The social mobilization is taking place in the difficult context of the continuity of the COVID-19.

the multilateral financial organizations are considering the emergency situation, but they are not proposing measures that effectively overflow the space of structural reforms.

All of this is happening while the multilateral financial organizations are considering the emergency situation, but they are not proposing measures that effectively overflow the space of structural reforms. The thesis of the external shock is maintained and that once the pandemic is overcome, it will be possible to return to normal economic behavior. 

There is no recognition of the long period of weak growth in the economies of Europe and America and the advance of social inequality. In October, within the framework of the meeting of the IMF and the World Bank, the 42nd session of the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) was held, composed of the finance ministers or the presidents of the central banks of the largest developed economies and other guests, which recognized the difficult situation resulting from the pandemic. 

But it also notes that, going forward, once the health crisis is behind us, action will be taken based on what the IMFC defines as its pre-health crisis agenda. This means moving forward with structural reforms. 

For the time being, the functioning of the international monetary system is placed in first place, which includes the provision of substantial resources by central banks that allow for the benefits of a small group of participants in these markets, without improvements in the rest of the economic activities. For most of the population there is no improvement in their living conditions. In Latin America it means the maintenance or increase of social inequality.

*Translation from Spanish by Ricardo Aceves

Foto de Eneas en Foter.com / CC BY

21st Century: Polarization in America

José Orlando Peralta
-
0
21st Century: Polarization in America

Co-author Ana CarolaTraverso-Krejcarek

The pandemic turned the world upside down, shook institutions, generated new social conflicts and deepened existing ones. Various political systems in the Americas were affected by social and ideological polarization, the emergence and strengthening of extremes, and distrust of democratic institutions. Making matters worse, this was spiced up by waves of fake news. In both the north and south of the continent the situation has been just as critical. What parallels can be drawn? Are there lessons to be learned?

Let’s look at the case of the United States. The success of quasi-guerrilla tactics in positioning messages once considered peripheral or extremist was overwhelming. Among them is the use of media apparently unwelcome to new information technologies-such as amplitude modulated (AM) radio-for the dissemination of ultraconservative messages. To cite one example, Brian Rosenwald’s research, published in 2019, accounts for how the radio industry was co-opted by the radical right, expanding from fifty-nine to over a thousand radios since the 1980s.

ultraconservative rhetoric amassed unquestioned political power, convincing the country to support a candidate tailored to its needs.

In the process, ultraconservative rhetoric amassed unquestioned political power, convincing the country to support a candidate tailored to its needs. Today it continues to demand even more radicalism through its rhetoric and power to penetrate the homes of hundreds of thousands of inhabitants. The use of radio for political purposes in countries with high concentrations of rural populations is therefore not new and is reflected both in the United States and in many Latin American countries.

Another phenomenon to be pointed out is the fact that, in states like Florida, the rejection and fear associated with the Democratic Party’s link to the international socialist agenda and the authoritarian governments of Cuba, Venezuela and even Bolivia or Nicaragua took on a profound significance. A similar situation can be seen among first-generation immigrants in other states, moved to the right primarily by their desire for social and economic mobility.

This shows that hyper-segmented propaganda, with messages directed towards publics with concrete characteristics, does work, because they were used relentlessly and they worked. And, certainly, the voting of important minority groups such as Latinos is not monolithic; they do not vote in bloc.

Now let’s look at the Argentine case. The “cracked” citizens are a symptom of the polarization in the south of the continent due to the ideological distance that currently characterizes them: in favor or against Kirchnerism. With a pandemic in the air, the political decisions of the government of Alberto Fernández deepen the malaise of the dissidents. This is a very critical situation that divides families, couples, co-workers and transcends the political plane. If we consider the effects of COVID-19 and the economic crisis, it is worrying to note the polarization in a country whose political center is now almost non-existent. 

Now let’s look at the case of Bolivia. The polarization of the cloistered country is experienced between those who support the MAS (recently elected party) and a heterogeneous opposition block. The electoral triumph of MAS marks a territorial and ideological split that divides the country in two and evidences the failure of the opposition to produce a proposal for political renewal. The return of the indigenist discourse in a mestizo country (according to the results of the 2012 census) constitutes the new political moment that will not be exempt from deep unresolved tensions.

Discerning between real facts and wild ideas like conspiracy theories or unscientific ones becomes a difficult task.

In this scenario of polarization, change and uncertainty, many succumb. Discerning between real facts and wild ideas like conspiracy theories or unscientific ones becomes a difficult task. And as if that were not enough, one of the most disturbing examples in the northern hemisphere, Q Anon’s conspiracy theory now has supporters even among newly elected candidates.

The hatred fostered by false news is probably one of the parallels that have plagued electoral processes in the United States and other countries. Added to this is the mistrust of its electoral courts promoted by extreme right-wing political forces. In summary, one of the toxic effects of polarization is the deconstruction of democratic institutions and the questioning of reason and science.

The pandemic has marked a before and after in our way of life, social relations and work. Today this health crisis finds us in the midst of what we hope will be a paradigm shift driven by the American political shift. The lesson of the U.S. electoral process is the conviction that the deep, open wounds generated by Trump’s ongoing discourse will take years to heal.

It is important to emphasize the urgent need to build bridges of communication and dialogue that will lead us to know, talk and share opinions in a constructive way with those who do not know and think as we do. If in the past it was believed that social networks would help break down the physical boundaries between people, today we know that the business model of these networks is based on hyper-reality, tailored to the user, isolating him even more from the rest of his community and strengthening certain beliefs and prejudices.

We hope, for the sake of humanity, that one of the skills widely capitalized on by President-elect Joe Biden – empathy and the ability to negotiate with the opposing party – will have a multiplier effect on the titanic task of redefining our everyday democratic exercise. If there was any point in sitting on tenterhooks the first week of November waiting to see what would happen in the United States, it was to rekindle hope and a sense that a new and better version of society is possible.

Polarization in North and South America will mark the second decade of the 21st century given the effects of hatred of what is different and the political corrosion produced by mistrust of democratic institutions. The co-responsibility between those who govern and those who are governed in order to overcome it is, without a doubt, a challenge for the countries of the new world at the beginning of this five-year period.

*Translation from Spanish by Emmanuel Guerisoli

Photo of the Palacio del Planalto at Foter.com / CC BY

The Vacancy of a President without a Party

Milagros Campos
-
0
The Vacancy of a President without a Party

Peru has a new president. On Monday, November 9, Martin Vizcarra was vacated in office on the grounds of permanent moral incapacity. Manuel Merino, congressman for the department of Tumbes, who was presiding over Congress until that day, has assumed the Presidency of the Republic following the Constitution. An overwhelming vote surpassed the required two-thirds.

The new Congress that has taken this decision was elected in January of this year to complete the period of the dissolved congress. It is made up of nine political parties, none of them reaching 20 percent of the seats.

How do eight of the nine parties manage to agree to vacate a president with popular support? According to Ipsos, Martín Vizcarra achieved a 79% approval rating after the dissolution of Congress; 87% in the first weeks of the fight against the pandemic and 54% in October, after the first impeachment process was carried out.

Martín Vizcarra was a president without a political party or a party.

In the first place, Martín Vizcarra was a president without a political party or a party. Upon dissolving Congress, he did not attempt to ally himself with any of the 24 parties with current registrations to present candidates to Congress.

Secondly, there is an institutional problem in Peru. Governments without a majority until 2001 ended in coups d’état. Between 2001 and 2016, governments without a parliamentary majority prevented an opposition coalition from prematurely ending their mandate. This has not happened since 2016. In the last four years, Peru had the first divided government in its history, four presidential vacancies due to permanent moral incapacity, the early resignation of a president, a referendum that prohibited immediate parliamentary reelection, a request by the president to bring forward elections that was denied; the first dissolution of the unicameral congress, extraordinary parliamentary elections, the first motion of confidence denied to a new cabinet, a vice president who assumes the office of president and is vacated with five months to go before general elections.

Thirdly, the vacancy due to permanent moral incapacity is an institution that has been questioned to the extent that it constitutes an open term subject to an interpretation that depends on the congress. Within the framework of reforms to optimize democratic governance, the political reform commission proposed that it be eliminated, broadening, in a limited way, the cases for which the president can be accused during his term of office.

In the public debate there are two interpretations of the cause of vacancy. The first links it to a historical interpretation that links it to mental incapacity. The other, points to conduct that is at odds with the exercise of office. In any case, the vacancy of Fujimori (2000) and that of Pedro Pablo Kuczynski (2018) were based on the qualification of the conduct of the former presidents. The debate on the vacancy of President Vizcarra revolved around various issues related to his government. However, the motion that triggered the vacancy process linked him to the reception of bribes, when he was regional governor of Moquegua.

In his defense, he maintained that in the Peruvian constitutional model, when criminal accusations against high officials occur, no definitive decisions are made, “even less so to vacate a president of the Republic, altering the presidential term and modifying the regime that the Constitution grants to said position. In our country, according to the constitutional design, presidents remain in office for five years; therefore a vacancy is an exceptional measure, which should only be promoted in extreme circumstances, not every month and a half”. He added “it has been made public that 68 congressmen have processes under investigation in the Public Ministry. Would they also have to leave their positions because of this, without the fiscal investigation having been concluded”?

Vizcarra could not avoid this second vacancy process in less than two months. 

Thus, without a political party to support him, in a context of escalating conflicts between the executive and legislative branches, with a ruling pending before the Constitutional Court for the demand of competence for the improper use of the vacancy cause by permanent moral incapacity, Vizcarra could not avoid this second vacancy process in less than two months.  Popularity was not enough. On Monday night he announced that he was leaving the Government Palace and would not take legal action, abiding by the decision of Congress. He said goodbye “until another opportunity”.

The country is in a state of emergency because of the fight against COVID -19. During this state of emergency, the right to assembly and free movement are restricted. However, today there were demonstrations in different cities of the country. It is premature to foresee if these demonstrations are isolated events or if they may grow in the course of the days. General elections were called for April 11. What happened this week and the agenda to be developed by the executive and legislative branches will have a direct impact on the campaign.

Manuel Merino belongs to one of the oldest political parties in Peru, Acción Popular; the party of Fernando Belaunde Terry, who was twice president of Peru, and Valentín Paniagua, the most recent predecessor of a President of Congress who took office in a very different context, during the political crisis of 2000.  As I write these lines, Antero Flores Araoz Esparza is being announced as President of the Council of Ministers. A politician with much experience, he was president of the Popular Christian Party, presided over Congress during the government of Alejandro Toledo and later was Minister of Defense during the government of Alan Garcia. He has been a deputy member of the Democratic Constituent Congress. The democratic disposition of the new President of the Council of Ministers and his ample parliamentary experience will allow him to have the vote of confidence in the Congress, which must occur within 30 days after the swearing-in. Flores Araoz will facilitate an understanding with Congress, where Acción Popular has just under 20% of the seats in order to guarantee continuity until July 28, 2021, when the President who will celebrate the bicentennial of Peru’s independence takes office.

*Translation from Spanish by Emmanuel Guerisoli

Photo of Presidency Peru in Foter.com / CC BY-NC-SA

Trump’s Lies: A Lesson for the Media

Federico Finchelstein
-
0
Trump’s Lies: A Lesson for the Media

Donald Trump lost the U.S. presidential election, but he still prefers to live in the alternative world that his own propaganda has created for him. In this bizarre universe, he is considered an invincible hero of mythical proportions who decides what is right and wrong, what is false and what is not. In truth, Trump first lied that he won the election and then for days denied his undeniable defeat, but in the trumpworld, the leader is still considered the winner. This fanatical denial of reality is a key essence of Trumpism.

We need to think about the causes that made it possible for the United States to produce, elect, and now fire a leader who presented such a disastrous right-wing populist combination of denial of science regarding the Covid and racism, violence, corruption, and failed positions and actions in terms of economics, politics, health, climate change, taxes, and income inequality. A key part of the explanation is the lies. In short, a fundamental cause of Trumpismo’s success was that the Trumpistas manufactured, circulated, and sold lies and many Americans bought these lies.

The manufacture of disinformation will be remembered as the trademark of the history of Trumpismo.

The manufacture of disinformation will be remembered as the trademark of the history of Trumpismo. But we must not forget that an equally significant lesson is that Trumpism succeeded because real news has been constantly minimized in the media by the amplification of government propaganda.

As a candidate in 2016, and before that, Trump used “birtherism” (racist lies claiming that President Barack Obama was not born in the US), and other conspiracy theories to present himself as a key political player. As president, he reached a whole new level of propaganda with his falsehoods about minorities, immigrants and, last but not least, the Coronavirus.

Thus, of all the things that have been said about Donald Trump, the comparison with one of the most infamous liars in history, Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, remains the most extreme and yet the most accurate. The reason for this is simple: Trump is lying through fascist propaganda techniques.

In explaining why Donald Trump lies so much, President-elect Joe Biden recently resorted to a proper historical comparison, saying that Trump lies “like Goebbels”. You tell the lie long enough, you keep repeating it, repeating it, repeating it, and the lie becomes common knowledge. Like many historians of fascism and populism, I believe Biden is correct, although, as I explain in my work on the history of fascist lies, Goebbels never said that repeating lies was part of his strategy. In fact, like Trump, he believed in the lies he fabricated.

To be sure, most politicians lie, but as a liar, Trump plays in a different league. From a historical perspective, there is no doubt that Trump participates in a tradition of totalitarian lies that have nothing to do with the conventional lies of traditional politicians on both the left and the right. And here Biden’s criticism is correct.

Trump lies like a cult leader.

Trump lies like a cult leader. He believes that his lies are in service of a larger truth based on the faith that he himself embodies. The history of fascism presents a multitude of cases of such liars who believe and want to change the world to fit their lies, from Benito Mussolini to Adolf Hitler and many other dictators and ideologues.

There is a chronology of totalitarian lies. The fascists increased and dominated the fabrication of lies after years of being in power. The same thing happened with Trumpism and the paroxysm of the lie reached its peak in the last days with the lies about fraud and illegal votes.

But the real news is that Trump will no longer be able to manufacture and spread lies from the White House. And at least these days, there is no longer a news cycle centered on Trump. The media circulation of Trump’s lies was commonplace for the past four years, but this has changed with Trump’s defeat. But will the media learn the lesson and not put Trump’s propaganda above all else in the coming weeks, months and years?

This lesson also applies to Trump’s allies on a global scale. Like Trump, post-fascist populists like Jair Mesias Bolsonaro in Brazil or Narendra Modi in India have lied for many years, most recently about the coronavirus, and like Trump, have used it as an excuse to promote their totalitarian vocations. It is not by chance that repression and violence increased in the United States, India and Brazil at the same time that these countries became the most affected by the virus.  Biden is right, Trump has lied like Goebbels. If this lesson is not learned and fascist-type lies are uncritically circulated, democracy will again be threatened by future forms of Trumpism.

Photo by Gage Skidmore at Foter.com / CC BY-SA

*Translation from Spanish by Emmanuel Guerisoli

What is happening in Peru?

Martín Tanaka
-
0
What is happening in Peru?

I am writing this article after the swearing in of Manuel Merino as President of the Republic of Peru on November 10. Let us recall that in July 2016 Pedro Pablo Kuczynski assumed the presidency, for a period of five years, but resigned in March 2018, in view of the imminent declaration by Congress of the vacancy of the office of President invoking his “permanent moral incapacity” (Article 133 of the Constitution). The first Vice President, Martín Vizcarra, assumed the presidency, but the confrontation with Congress did not cease, which triggered its constitutional dissolution in September 2019 (and the resignation of the second Vice President, Mercedes Aráoz) and the holding of new legislative elections in January of this year. It is this Congress that has declared Vizcarra’s “permanent moral incapacity”; while the second Vice President had already resigned from the post, the next in line of succession was the President of Congress, now President of the Republic.

Let’s start analyzing things from the most immediate and try to get to the bottom-line implications. On the morning of November 9, the day on which the second motion of vacancy of President Vizcarra would be voted, the forecast was that it would not be approved. The first motion, on September 18, received 32 votes in favor, 78 against and 15 abstentions, and in reality, things had not changed substantially in those three weeks.

these are serious allegations that certainly deserve a thorough investigation by the Prosecutor’s Office, but are still in a preliminary phase.

At first, the media had reported several complaints about the irregular hiring of professional services in a ministry that allegedly involved President Vizcarra himself, and then others about the alleged payment of bribes to him while he was Governor of the Moquegua region between 2011 and 2014. In the latter case, these are serious allegations that certainly deserve a thorough investigation by the Prosecutor’s Office, but are still in a preliminary phase.

Considering that general elections have already been called for April of next year, and that according to opinion polls 95% of those interviewed agree that Vizcarra should be investigated by the Prosecutor’s Office and end his government (October survey by the Institute of Peruvian Studies), and that key parties had announced that they would vote against the vacancy, there was some calm regarding the outcome of this vote.

However, somewhat unexpectedly, the ambition of short-term power ended up taking precedence, and so a vote was reached in which the vacancy reached 105 votes in favor (19 against and 4 abstentions). The changes of position and the high vote obtained are the result of a kind of political agreement, a kind of parliamentary “repartija”, which will be expressed in President Merino’s Council of Ministers, and in the appointments of officials that are planned for the coming weeks and months.

Despite the fact that the declaration of a vacancy by Congress has a very dubious constitutionality in the framework of a presidentialist regime, based on an exaggeratedly elastic and risky interpretation (because of the instability it implies for any president without a parliamentary majority), Vizcarra announced on the night of November 9 that he would leave office.

This decision could have been influenced by the fact that a challenge to the constitutionality of the Congress’ decision would not have prevented President Merino from being sworn in the next day; something similar, but in the opposite direction, occurred with the dissolution of Congress in September 2019: the congressmen denounced the unconstitutionality of the dissolution, but the legal resources they filed (and which they eventually lost) could not prevent its closure and the calling of new elections.

If we look at things from a broader perspective, it could be said that this episode is part of a series, begun in July 2016, with the election of President Kuczynski. On that date, when looking at Peru from a political angle, it could have been said that the most striking feature of the country was the remarkable continuity of market-oriented policies, begun in the 1990s, despite the victories of candidates with critical discourses of neoliberalism, such as Alan García in 2006 and Ollanta Humala in 2011. And of the remarkable, by Peruvian standards, democratic continuity since 2001, despite the extreme precariousness of its parties, the non-existence of a party system proper, and the scant legitimacy of political institutions.

What has changed? First, the deceleration of economic growth, which has been evident since 2014, cracked the neoliberal consensus, which had been fairly cohesive up to that point. Second, Fujimorism, which had been a “guarantor” of the market economy in 2006 and 2011, changed profoundly after losing the 2016 presidential election, in which it obtained an absolute majority of parliamentary representation. What was perceived as an opportunity to launch a “second generation” of market-oriented reforms, turned into a growing confrontation between the executive and the legislature, which led to Kuczynski’s resignation, and then to the dissolution of Congress by Vizcarra.

The election of the new Congress in January of this year, in which the government did not present any candidates or obtain any representation, seemed to calm the waters relatively

The election of the new Congress in January of this year, in which the government did not present any candidates or obtain any representation, seemed to calm the waters relatively (a Congress with a short mandate, in which a certain fragmentation of the vote and the predominance of moderate positions prevailed) but the Covid-19 quickly changed the panorama: Peru was one of the countries in the region that had been hit hardest by the epidemic, both in terms of health and the economy, which encouraged the development of populist (and rather demagogic) positions in all benches, which generated a growing distance from the executive branch.

Thus, initiatives that had not been seen in Peru in the last thirty years began to appear in Congress with broad consensus, openly challenging the pro-market consensus that distinguished Peru in the context of the region. A reality was revealed in which parliamentary representation is very individualistic, populated by multiple particularistic interests, some of which are linked to sectors that are very opposed to any attempt to change the status quo.

This type of representation, on the one hand, found a brake on the policies of the Vizcarra government, and on the other, was affected by some of its reform initiatives. With all its limitations, Vizcarra promoted a judicial reform, a political reform, an educational reform, which generated resistance in conservative sectors and also with some corruption networks. In addition, there are sectors close to Fujimori that lost out with the closing of Congress last year. President Merino now represents this constellation of interests.

It is this confrontation that distanced the Congress from President Vizcarra, and that made it fall, without tools to face an opposition majority. Thus, we are not only facing a temporary crisis, but the possibility of witnessing the beginning of the end of a longer cycle, started thirty years ago.

What will come in the immediate future? Unfortunately, there is not much room for optimism regarding President Merino’s administration. And we can only cross our fingers so that the 2021 elections, which are being held in the midst of great dispersion and uncertainty, will generate a result that will allow the next government a minimum of viability to face the challenges left by the health emergency, the need to reactivate the economy, and institutional reconstruction.

*Translation from Spanish by Emmanuel Guerisoli

Socioeconomic Factors and the COVID-19 crisis in Latin America

León Padilla
-
0
Socioeconomic Factors and the COVID-19 crisis in Latin America

Far from generating opportunities, periods of crisis generally reveal structural problems that, in normal circumstances, can go unnoticed. The Covid-19 pandemic has caused the greatest economic and social crisis in the last century. In this context, Latin America has been one of the most affected regions. According to estimates by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), per capita GDP at the end of 2020 would equal that of 2010 , 2.7 million businesses are expected to close, unemployment would reach 44 million people and extreme poverty would reach levels similar to 1990. 

In addition to the economic aftermath, Latin America is one of the world’s territories with the highest human loss rate. According to information from Johns Hopkins University, as of 28 October, the total number of Covid-19 confirmed cases amounted to 44 million people and 1.17 million deaths worldwide. Of these, 11 million cases and 394,000 deaths correspond to Latin America and the Caribbean. In other words, the region accounts for 24.95% of cases and 33.8% of reported deaths, with some nations being the most affected. 

For example, the countries with the highest number of deaths per 100,000 inhabitants are Peru, which has 106.9 (first in the world), followed by Bolivia with 76.4 (fourth), Brazil 75.4 (sixth), Chile 74.9 (eighth), Ecuador 73.7 (ninth) and Mexico 71.2 (tenth). In addition, Mexico, Ecuador and Bolivia have high levels of fatalities (deaths/confirmed cases) with 10.0%, 7.7% and 6.1%, respectively. It should be noted that these figures contain a degree of inaccuracy, as thousands of infections and deaths cannot be confirmed due to limitations in the use of Covid-19 tests. 

some socioeconomic variables reveal characteristics that are typical of the Latin American reality.

However, what factors could explain these figures? The answer is extremely complex. On the one hand, there are subjective causes that impede their adequate measurement. Of them are idiosyncratic factors, such as lack of knowledge of the disease’s scope, inadequate behavior in line with authorities’ guidelines, lack of credibility in light of decisions made by the political power and, among other, people’s attachment to close social relationships. On the other hand, there are  elements that allow a more objective analysis in order to establish possible causes for this humanitarian crisis. More precisely, some socioeconomic variables reveal characteristics that are typical of the Latin American reality.

The following indicators reflect the vulnerability of that group of nations most affected. Peru has allocated the lowest spending on health in South America (4.9 percent of GDP) between 2010 and 2018. The nation also maintains the second place in the region in terms of vulnerable employment (50.9 percent of total employment). It has inadequate processes to control corruption and maintains low effectiveness in government spending, according to the World Bank’s Governance Indicators. 

In Bolivia, the access to basic services is the most precarious in South America (as measured by the Human Development Index); vulnerable employment is the highest (58.1% of total employment); 39.9% of the population lives in poverty; the number of hospital beds per 10,000 inhabitants is 11.5 (data to 2015). 

In Brazil, income inequality is the largest (with a Gini coefficient of 0.53 in 2018) and access to education is highly unequal (23.8 in 2018), while in Ecuador control measures against corruption are practically non-existent, according to the World Bank’s Governance Indicators. This was exposed by the several corruption cases in the management of resources allocated to public health during the current health emergency. 

In Mexico, health spending is the second lowest in Latin America

In Mexico, health spending is the second lowest in Latin America (5.6% of GDP between 2010 and 2018). In Chile, despite being the economy with the highest per capita GDP and highest Human Development Index in Latin America, 16.8 people out of every 100 inhabitants are over 65 year old; also inequality in income distribution is one of the main causes of social discontent in the Andean nation in recent years. The information presented corresponds to the latest available data from ECLAC, the United Nations and the World Bank.

Although no economy has been able to avoid human losses, the latent singularities in Latin America have contributed to deepen and magnify the pandemic’s effects. Vulnerability in the labor market, insufficient systems to control corruption, inadequate allocation of resources to education and health, precarious access to basic needs, the passivity of public policies and acute income inequality have been ingrained problems in these societies. 

However, the harshness with which the pandemic has struck these countries requires collective action. At a local level, the role of the state in establishing policies to achieve a more just society is instrumental. At a regional level, it is essential to establish a real integration project with common objectives that could mitigate similar crises, even if this implies a partial loss of sovereignty. Inaction in the face of this complex social and economic situation would surely cause similar tragedies.

Photo of Eneas in Foter.com / CC BY

ECLAC respected but not heard

Esteban Caballero
-
0
ECLAC respected but not heard

The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), the main United Nations body for the region, is an institution with deep roots in the history of economic and social thought. Since its establishment in 1948, its reports, working documents, meetings and conferences have played an important role in the thinking and actions of technical and political cadres in leadership positions. 

From 26 to 28 October of this year, ECLAC held its first virtual session.  All the protocols were normally developed under the presidency of Costa Rica, which succeeded Cuba in that role. Obviously, the online sessions, with the usual occasional difficulties of sound and synchronization, did not have the same impact as the face-to-face sessions. It did not look the same. But not only because of the lack of luster and energy that comes with doing things through a screen, but also because of a certain distance between the spirit of ECLAC and the political moment the region is going through. 

The official document presented, entitled “Building a New Future: A Transformative Recovery with Equality and Sustainability,” represents the organization’s effort to structure a basis for the meeting’s debate and resolutions. This is one of the essential purposes of the document.

ECLAC calls for combining the response to the crisis unleashed by the pandemic with a recovery of sustainable development with equality and environmental awareness.

In the text, ECLAC calls for combining the response to the crisis unleashed by the pandemic with a recovery of sustainable development with equality and environmental awareness. Executive Secretary Alicia Bárcena, in the foreword, argues that the costs of inequality have become unsustainable. Equality is not only an issue of inclusion and human rights, she argues, it is also a way to sustain income and aggregate demand. being underage and needing to buy liquor or get into a club, there are likewise a few perils while utilizing a phony ID. In this blog entry, we will investigate the best phony ID sites for 2023. We’ll likewise give a few hints on the most proficient method to recognize a phony ID site and what to do in the event that you get found out with a using fake id services in 2023.

The text thus recovers ECLAC’s founding principles and refers to the need for a “development proposal based on the welfare state, technical change and the productive transformation associated with environmental care, which strengthens equality and democracy as the most precious legacy of modernity.

The report calls for a “social pact” and places ECLAC’s thinking on the side of those who believe that the 2008 crisis marked the beginning of the end of neoliberalism and adds that the pandemic has made this crisis even more evident. “The crisis of 2008 first, and to an even greater extent, the crisis of the pandemic, put in check myths that limited the space of ideas and public policies… Some years ago, equality and economic efficiency were considered to be contradictory…

Today there is a growing consensus that inequality is the enemy of productivity, learning and innovation.

Today there is a growing consensus that inequality is the enemy of productivity, learning and innovation. A few years ago, industrial policy was anathema; today there is broad agreement that it is key to reducing technology gaps, diversifying exports, and decoupling GDP from emissions.

The report develops its ideas and supports them with arguments, data and evidence. However, the low reception is evidenced by the fact that the resolutions of the thirty-eighth session write, laconically, that the Commission “takes note of the document Building a New Future: A Transformative Recovery with Equality and Sustainability and welcomes the integrated approach to development that has characterized the thinking of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean since its creation” and “recognizes the relevance of the issues examined and shares the general tenor of the conclusions offered by the document”.

The somewhat dry language is not unusual in the United Nations. However, what is striking at this instance is that in addition to this cold and laconic reception, there is a lack of synergy between the report and the so-called “Political Declaration on Sustainable, Inclusive and Resilient Recovery in Latin America and the Caribbean”, which is being formulated on behalf of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and High Representatives of Latin America and the Caribbean.

This Declaration is much more focused on the response to the Covid 19 pandemic than on the issues of recovery of sustainable development, with equality and greater State participation. Both in terms of redistribution and regulation. And there is a strong interest by the Member States in greater financing, whether through foreign development aid or any mechanism involving suspension or cancellation of debt.

On the other hand, the concepts of “social pact” or “welfare state” are not used and although there is talk of fiscal space and stimuli through public spending and investment, there is no allusion to redistributive policies. Nor is explicit reference made to the type of productive transformation that must be implemented to achieve a green economy, blunting the calls to renew the commitment to Agenda 2030 and its three pillars, the economic, social and environmental. 

At a time when the region is losing instances and spaces for multilateral dialogue, it would be a pity if what we identify as a lack of synergy were to mean that the governments in office are losing the capacity to understand the relevance of ECLAC or simply do not want to show that they disagree with it. At the same time, it would be unfortunate if the same technical teams and the pool of experts that bring ECLAC’s work to life were to lose interest in the lack of echo of its recommendations and become convinced that a new political cycle is all that can be expected.

There has always been a gap between ECLAC’s thinking and the public policies of governments, but this gap widens from less to more, depending on the time. Nevertheless, an effort must be made to find better points of contact, both from the perspective of the internal changes that ECLAC itself can make and from the perspective of greater openness to ECLAC thinking on the part of decision makers.

*Translation from Spanish by Emmanuel Guerisoli

Foto de la Cancillería del Perú en Foter.com / CC BY-SA

Biden’s Triumph, Trump’s Legacy

Fabián Bosoer
-
0
Biden’s Triumph, Trump’s Legacy

We’ve heard and read various analyses of the issues that contributed to the results of the most closely contested and polarized election in U.S. history, an election that kept the entire country and the world on the edge and on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Among these issues are the U.S. electoral system, which uses indirect voting, meaning that the popular vote at the national level doesn’t reflect voters’ composition by state, who are the ones that finally elect the president in the electoral college. In addition, early voting by mail, massive in this case due to the pandemic, made the count more cumbersome and complex. Finally, the electorate’s polarization, fostered by a leader who made a mockery of the foundations of the liberal democracy.

The U.S. bipartisan tradition has always had a dual tension: Democrats and Republicans gravitate around two political cultures and their leaders are in charge of moderating them when competing for the presidency. However, everything changed with Donald Trump, who kicked the chessboard, radicalized the game and enhanced the populist factor, acting as the leader of the American people that despise traditional politicians. 

For this reason, the Trump vs. Biden contest was transformed into a crossroads with a different color, nearly existential, in which deeper and more fundamental questions were put to the test. The two sides that competed for the soul of “the deep America” in these elections showed a striking parity of forces. There was no clear winner or a resounding defeat, and it is now possible to see this in the future composition of the Senate and the House of Representatives, with notable parity and diversity. The difficulties that delayed the counting and hence the election of who has finally won the presidential race have left some lessons to learn. 

something that has to do with what distinguishes–or should distinguish–democracies from oligarchic or autocratic regimes: The uncertainty principle.

For now, something that has to do with what distinguishes–or should distinguish–democracies from oligarchic or autocratic regimes: The uncertainty principle. Predictable rules, uncertain results. Something that must be resolved quantitatively, counting each vote, and counting again, should there be any doubts. 

But even if this becomes complicated, as happened with this election, a qualitative dimension occurs in the final resolution. Leaders’ reaction to this forced lengthening of the count; people’s activism on the streets and near the voting centers demanding respect for the popular vote; the role of the media; social media replicating or neutralizing fake news and other contested facts; the partisan lobbies and judicial intervention ultimately tarnishing or guaranteeing the validity of the count. 

All the levers of a democratic republic are put under maximum tension, reflecting the interests at stake, the intentions to safeguard or manipulate the results, to give credit or to dismiss allegations of fraud. But too are the checks and balances that avoid the imposition of a contradictory outcome to respect the popular will, expressed with the vote of the majority and minority. How about trying your luck? Best rated online casinos with easy filtering by country will help you do that. This principle of uncertainty bothers those who–like Donald Trump–believe they know, in advance, for whom the majority would vote. And when they don’t know it, they only find an explanation in deception or error. 

A presidential election can also be a therapeutic experience of democratic restitution for a society like the American

A presidential election can also be a therapeutic experience of democratic restitution for a society like the American which has been split in two, at least. The collective reconstruction of “We The People” –the registered formula in its preamble– with which the constituents wanted to embody a principle of unity within extreme diversity. The American people is this what everybody witnessed during this week: splintered multi-colored mirrors of a kaleidoscope that doesn’t stop spinning, making it extremely difficult to reduce to a unity, which means electing a President. This is one of the legacies left by Donald Trump, the little president who thought he was the emperor of the (still) major world power, to his successor, Joe Biden.

*Translation from Spanish by Ricardo Aceves

Foto de Gage Skidmore en Foter.com / CC BY-SA

1...125126127...130Page 126 of 130

Media that publish our content

Copyright © Latinoamérica21.com - Montevideo

Go back up