Opinion Sur Joven

We’re not doing well. We’re not like our grandparents thought we would be. We’re not like we think we deserve to be. We’re not like we would like to, and that frustrates us, it makes us weak.

What’s the reason for our failure? I think that most of the region’s problems are related to the fact that we’re over-diagnosed: many people talk, but few do something about it. And every diagnosis has an enemy, which will someday come back for revenge.

There’s a problem. It’s the Maradona/Perón effect. Do these two people have anything in common? Whether due to soccer or to politics, they were both confirmed as “the greatest ones” at their thing.

Their stories are similar: charismatic leaders, skilled at what they do and eventually being unable to handle their own power… or unwilling to do it.

But their legacies are even more important. Not only does the consequence of a leader’s action have immediate effects, but his example tends to be repeated by his followers.

Every person who has reached their position (or a similar one) acted only by repetition so as to become Maradona or Perón themselves (as the case may be). During every World Cup we see Argentine players dribbling full-speed over the left wing and moving alone, just like in Maradona’s goal to the English team; they refuse to pass the ball and play as a team, because they wanna be like him.

Every newly elected president begins at the left (or right) wing and moves alone; he refuses to pass the ball and play as a team. He wants to be like Perón to have the town square filled with people, and rule for 16 years, or 20, or 30…

But power doesn’t last forever, life changes, the world is different and they’re left alone; almost as much alone as the country, which must start all over after the catastrophe many of them left behind. These are players who do their own thing, who don’t pass the ball, who want to kick it to the centerfield and head it into the net, or at least decide themselves every play and have the order strictly followed. Some weeks ago, a judge started a judicial research on a series or decisions by the last government of Perón. When the news went public, the morning after the city of Buenos Aires was covered with signs that read: “Don’t mess with Perón”. The journalist Pepe Eliaschev analyzed the statement: “Whenever they say ‘Don’t mess with Perón’, they’re actually saying something else: don’t mess with the thinking, but especially don’t mess with the methodology. This is not the ideology, because Peronism doesn’t have a sole ideology, but many of them. It’s the methodology what can’t be touched: the vertical ideology, the authoritarian ideology emphasizing the leading role”.

The word ‘dialog’ means “thinking between two people”. ‘Logos’ means logic or thought, “thinking logically or rationally and, at the same time, speaking in general”. ‘Dia’ means two or diverse. A dialog necessarily implies that the result is more than just the sum of both parties.

Where are we going to? History gave several answers to this question. The most common one –which sums up what comes next- is “no one knows”. Another type of answer could be “wherever the leader tells us to”. A third one would be “wherever the people says”, which is the same as saying “nowhere”, because the people is “everyone” and “everyone is “no one”.

Many times there’s no project; many others there is one, but it entirely depends on the leader, a sole person who is mortal, finite, capricious, insecure, proud, changing. If we depend on one person, the leader, and said person is affected by a change of mood, the project inevitably changes.

Moreover, if the leader only responds to what “the people” want, and the leader screws up, people stop supporting him and start supporting someone else, so the project fails. In democracy, communication between people and government officials is essential, and the latter must listen to what the people want. But this has to be materialized through a political project and not through a leader’s personality. The project must necessarily have several references.

Historically, Argentina –following Maradona and Perón’s legacy- has tended to refer to leaders. But, what about the rest of the countries? Let’s see three examples.

In Venezuela, there are a president with a project and an opposition with an entirely different project. One excludes the other. President Chávez apparently has a project to include popular social classes, though excluding all those who don’t think like him ; the opposition has a project which has historically excluded the popular classes and, since it can’t reach the majority of votes, it must resort to other methods to fight against Chávez, whom they consider to be a dictator. What are those methods? In 2002 they organized an overthrow of the government, a method leaving the country 20 or 30 years behind. Then, in 2005, they decided not to run for presidency because they considered the elections to be a fraud. The result: Chávez was allowed to have the majority of the Congress, which enables him to do whatever he wants, even changing the Constitution to hold the power perpetually. With this I’m not trying to be on one side or the other. But I do find it necessary to criticize both parties’ unwillingness to sit at the same table.

However, Latin America also has positive experiences where political dialog is generating greater stability in the short run.

In Uruguay, the government is formed by a center-left coalition, led by President Tabaré Vázquez. The political problem there is that some coalition sectors want to turn some more to the left, whereas the President is trying some policies such as a closer approach to the United States. The interesting thing here is that the internal organization of the official party, Frente Amplio (FA), stops or promotes these approaches in a more democratic and collective way. The FA is a political coalition formed by 19 national parties and as many district parties. Both programmatic and strategical decisions of said space are made through strongly established institutions such as the Plenario Nacional (national plenary), the Mesa Política Nacional (national political bureau) and many base delegations, which are established throughout the whole Uruguayan territory. In this space the President doesn’t make decisions on his own, but he is bound to negotiate with his party and –eventually- follow its orders.

Just like Uruguay, Chile is governed by a coalition –the Concertación (“consensus”)-, whose main members are the Socialist Party and Democracia Cristiana (Christian democracy). But, internally, the parties remain as separate forces, separate parliamentarian sectors and separate programmatic lines, which later promote consensus upon every new election. The Concertación has already had four democratic presidents: two from Democracia Cristiana and two from socialism. It’s a joint, long-term project. Maybe a lesson for the rest of the countries to learn.

Dialoguing implies thinking differently, though agreeing on something as well. I once read that in order to have a discussion, both the people involved have to agree basically on everything: otherwise, no discussion is possible.

In Argentina, just like in most Latin American countries, differences have always prevailed upon agreements: eliminating the other –intellectually or physically- has been a constant since the creation of national States.

A new view is possible today. Fundamental principles are starting to be agreed upon in many countries: democracy, growing upon equity and distribution, fighting poverty and quality education as a means for promoting the mentioned principles.

Most of us agree now. However, in order to project said agreements onto the future, the different political and social representatives must reflect them onto one or several all-embracing projects beyond the present government.

Two things are necessary to achieve that:

1) A political project needs to be given clear bases, discuss them internally and thus create rules. Upon that, several leaderships (they may even be classified by subjects) or references must be generated, so that if one leader fails, the project doesn’t fail too. People are ephemeral. Political parties aren’t.

2) Agreement may be reached even within disagreement (for example, regarding two different political projects). And I think such agreement may be useful to create State policies. In Argentina, matters such as the last education reform –National Education Act- or the retirement plan reform required an agreement by the left wing, the right wing, the Radical party and Peronists, even if with some differences.

Hopefully Argentina and the rest of the Latin American countries will learn to play as a team… That’s probably the only possible way our countries and their populations will progress.