Theory and practice of the platform

In the days before the May 1 demonstration, there was a brief exchange of messages between President Petro and Mayor Galán. The issue was a platform, and for a few minutes or a few hours the citizens were attentive to that issue: whether or not there would be a platform for Petro to speak after the march that he himself called in support of himself and, above all, against of the previous march. And at some point Petro came out to suggest on his social networks that they were not going to give him his platform and that they were trying to silence him; Neither of the two things was true, but we already know that much of what Petro says on his social networks is not true. Galán went out to put out the fire – the bonfire? – telling Petro, with the tone of adult patience that one has for a teenager’s tantrum, that the stage was guaranteed. Only certain agreements had to be reached with the unions, some of which had reserved the stage beforehand, while others looked with distrust as Petro was devoured on Workers’ Day: as in fact it happened.

The first thing that jumps out is how stupid politics has become. No, Petro was not saying anything to Galán: he was speaking to the gallery, which is how he always speaks (and that is where many of his problems lie). He could have picked up the phone and called the mayor, as people in important positions did in other times, but he asked himself: why solve an issue with a private call, when you can freely pose as a victim, fuel polarization and paranoia and poison people’s spirits a little more? Since he is not able to negotiate face to face with anyone, the place where Petro has always felt most comfortable is not the conversation between people, but the shouted monologue: and that is Twitter. We have become accustomed to politicians pretending to talk to each other: Uribe throws some piece of disinformation about someone, María Fernanda Cabal shares a falsehood about someone, Francisco Santos says a racist or classist nonsense or all of the things at the same time, and it seems that the messages were addressed to their recipient, but in reality this is not the case: they are talking for the gallery. They speak so that others, their own, can see them, and that’s why it doesn’t matter to make a fool of themselves a little, because the audience is captive and the screens – the digital platforms – can withstand everything.

In any case, it is also ridiculous for Petro to complain that they are trying to silence him. Silence him, who is not only the president, but also has the most foul-mouthed Twitter in the world, who has put his government, his diplomacy and his ministers in trouble for his unfiltered statements. Silence him, who has given whatever speech he wanted from every balcony he could get his hands on, and who not only has not been silent for a single second of his mandate, but has actually done nothing more than talk: his talent for management is as weak as its executive capacity, and its executive capacity is as weak as its interest in administering this very complex country. And so we are beginning to understand that in this government the only things that really happen happen there, on the stage. There is platform politics, and there is nothing new in this; but platform diplomacy is also carried out, and it is on the stage where, for example, a break in diplomatic relations is announced. It is striking that Petro chooses a demonstration in a public square, on Labor Day, to make an announcement that belongs to other areas and should be done in other ways (but we already know that Petro doesn’t care about the forms). It is a gesture of the most traditional demagoguery that, on the other hand, has cost Petro nothing more than words: words on a platform.

The peace process is another example. It had been or could have been one of the great achievements of this society of ours, but it was badly wounded after the hypocritical sabotage of Duque’s government and then it had to face the megalomania of Petro, who abandoned it politically and materially to embark the country on the irresponsible improvisation of total Peace. The continuity and due implementation of the peace process with the FARC was the only reason why many of us thought that Petro’s victory was good news. Now the war has returned to the territories from which it had left: the first year after the approval of the agreements, 2017, was the most peaceful or the least murderous so far this century; Now we are returning to homicide rates that have not been seen since 2013. The president, meanwhile, continues to talk about peace and life, as if the country had not returned – under the indolence of the previous government and its incompetence – to war and death.

That’s why I found the brief controversy over the May 1 stage so eloquent. Petro, of course, ended up having his platform, and no one ended up silencing him. (In fact, his Minister of Labor was always on the stage, a woman who has praised the electoral processes of Venezuela: a country where people are silenced, and even more so during the electoral processes. That has been visible to everyone in the last few days; except, apparently, from the minister.) And from his platform he gave one of the most divisive and hostile speeches of his government so far, and those of us who have memory remember the most hostile and divisive speeches of the times. darkest of uribismo. Uribe also believed that he was the true owner of the people, and those who were not with him were not genuine patriots; He also set up an entire government around inciting his people.

Uribe was wrong then and Petro is wrong now: those poisoned speeches – to refer to the motley crowds of nonconformists, in which there was everything, Petro spoke of “death marches”: he should be ashamed – have unforeseeable consequences on the citizenship. Populists and demagogues believe that they are only feeding the loyalty of their bases, and of course they seek or do not care to fuel division and confrontation; What they are almost never aware of, however, is the way in which their platform speeches also feed opponents. Radicalization produces radicalization: it is an elementary law of the stage. And Petro should begin to ask himself if he wants his legacy to be this: the strengthening and coming to power of that atrabiliary, extremist and authoritarian right that we have, the one that wants to legalize the carrying of weapons, take away women’s sovereignty over their own body and roll back the best achievements of the peace agreements.

In other words, Petro has confused two things: giving speeches and having a speech. And that can be expensive for us.

Subscribe here to the EL PAÍS newsletter about Colombia and here to the channel on WhatsAppand receive all the information keys on current events in the country.

_