Much has been said about the growing political discontent throughout Latin America, where a decreasing percentage of the population is satisfied with democracy, even in countries where social indicators have been improving, such as Chile, Colombia or Peru.
According to the criteria of
There is a paradox that dates back to the nineteenth-century work of Alexis de Tocqueville: social frustration often grows as social conditions improve. The symptoms of this evil are well known: distrust in the system, disenchantment with politics and traditional politicians, a social fatigue prone to explode into civil unrest, and the rise of outsiders with a vague anti-system rhetoric that further caters to and fuels ideological extremes and antagonistic polarization.
The Latin American champions of today’s “politics of emotion” – Jair Bolsonaro, Nayib Bukele or Javier Milei on the right; Andrés Manuel López Obrador or Gustavo Petro on the left – have flourished as a challenge to traditional politics, driving voters to the extreme positions of populism. outsider and dividing societies into antagonistic groups: “the pure” and “the corrupt,” to use the words of Cas Mudde. “Us” versus “them”: a selfish confrontation that often justifies a constant retreat towards increasingly less liberal democracies.
As the title of a recent collection of essays states, the center must be maintained. It is more than a well-intentioned abstraction: the center, at its best, is an essential middle ground where the right and the left meet to provide programs and ideas that can survive political alternation and be embraced by society at large.
It has been at the heart of some of the most important and lasting developments in Latin America over the past 30 years. While it may now be considered outmoded across the region and indeed in the West, centrism continues to survive and produce results in some places such as Uruguay, where the diversity of interests is reflected without the “negative association” that characterizes political affinity in countries suffering from polarization.
Overcoming our tribalistic moment
While it may now be considered outmoded throughout the region and indeed in the West, centrism continues to survive and produce results in some places such as Uruguay, where the diversity of interests is reflected without the “negative association” that characterizes political affinity in countries suffering from polarization.
However, today the obstacles to a new centrism are formidable.
In 2017, one of us asked a diverse group of people in Argentina who they would vote for in a presidential election: Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (CFK) or Mauricio Macri. We then asked them to what extent they agreed with a hypothetical introduction of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). CFK voters approved it by 50%; Macri voters by 66%.
We repeated the experiment, but this time they were asked to what extent they agreed with a UBI plan proposed by CFK. Now, her voters supported UBI by 92%, and Macri’s voters by 7%. We repeated the experiment, swapping names. To what extent would they agree with the UBI plan proposed by Macri? Now, CFK’s voters supported it by 14%, Macri’s voters by 84%.
Had this experiment been conducted with political parties, the study would have been reminiscent of Geoffrey Cohen’s work on the “tribalist” nature of ideologies, “Party Above Politics.” Recognizing both the inspiration and novelty of our own experiment, we call it “Leader Above Politics.”
But the crucial point here relates to the conclusion of the article: we repeated the experiment one last time, asking how much they agreed with a UBI proposed jointly by CFK and Macri. The levels of support were then the same as if the project had not had any authorship; in some cases, even
were lower. The conclusion: party loyalties do not add up, they cancel each other out or
subtract from each other. Cooperation in today’s world is political kryptonite.
In the context of contemporary polarization in Argentina (and we assume elsewhere), identification is personal: it reflects the leader’s often shifting views on anything from income tax breaks to trade protectionism, including pension reform or illegal immigration – all examples that, like UBI, were examined in the paper with similar results.
But, perhaps more importantly, identification is also negative: polarization works through rejection, so coming close to the views of “the others” is seen as capitulation, if not betrayal.
There is no time for leopardism
The new centrists must not only innovate (in their priorities, strategies and communication approach), but centrism must become a new political movement, rather than a return to the past.
Where does this lead us? There are no silver bullets for this effort. Not only must the new centrists innovate (in their priorities, strategies and communication approach), but centrism must become a new political movement, rather than a return to the past.
A key starting point for revitalizing the center is to promote a new generation of politicians willing to break with the practices of corruption, nepotism and clientelism that have characterized Latin American politics for so long.
The new centre cannot be a recycling of leaders disguised as transformation. The aim should not be to revive the centre, but to reinvent it.
Any false personnel change or ‘gatopardismo’ (the Spanish term for the novel The Leopardby Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, summed up in the novel’s phrase: “Everything must change for everything to remain the same”) would be easily noticed, which would only further fuel distrust.
While not all experienced politicians are of the same ilk as they are often perceived to be, new centrists, and even old ones, would have to break away from the classic stereotype of “politician” into which years of (sometimes justified) pigeonholing have cornered them. A complete break with traditional politicians is mandatory. Short-term opportunistic alliances will only undermine the viability of the political project.
This new kind of centrism will also have to master the novel communication tactics that populists have excelled at, such as using direct, simple messages and appealing to emotions (positive emotions of hope rather than negative feelings of anger and fear).
This must be done without falling into the trap of polarization or unfounded promises that will inevitably lead to disappointment.
A new centrism will have to be outspoken about its beliefs and not be afraid to confront populists and the myths they sell to the public.
Fundamentally, such tactics must be guided by a strategic direction: moderation and balance must not be confused with convenience and complacency.
The new centrists need a new political agenda. They will have to address the region’s widespread inequality and exclusion and the resulting lowering of expectations behind the unsupportive “every man for himself” attitude that often characterises foreign populism.
The new centrists need a new political agenda. They will have to address the region’s widespread inequality and exclusion and the resulting decline in expectations behind the unsupportive “every man for himself” attitude that often characterizes foreign populism. And they will have to promote policies that improve living standards in the short term without compromising long-term sustainability.
In other words, the new centrists need to produce tangible results while avoiding the unattractive rhetoric of “short-term pain, long-term gain” that breeds frustration and skepticism, and ultimately strengthens populists. Inclusion, transparency and sustainability should be the key words of the new call to action.
But a new centrist agenda also demands a profound change in political habits, a move from quantity to quality, from passive and outdated distribution through fiscal transfers that compensate for the failure of the welfare state to modern and proactive policies that prioritize job training and access to quality public services, and a more agile and efficient state.
Actions that demonstrate that politics is at the service of the people and not the other way around, as is often thought. In short, policies for equity.
Finally, a new centrist agenda must be broader and younger, and encompass the new and unavoidable challenges: environmental care, technological innovation, migration and demographics, security and the ever-changing balance between work and leisure.
This could be crucial to reaching out to younger electorates, who will soon become the decisive majority in a large part of Western democracies, not just as an opportunistic gesture: representatives need to embody more than just the specific concerns of their generation.
Returning the center to its strong appearance again
Centrism has the answers to many of Latin America’s problems. Centrists are able to strike a balance between short-term improvements and long-term results.
In sports, less outstanding players often waste energy chasing the ball or fail to anticipate their opponent, exhausting themselves with unnecessary movements.
Polarization in Latin America is a bit like that of those players: unpredictable policy shifts discourage investment and encourage defensive (and inefficient) strategies or the outright departure of the best thinkers, entrepreneurs and workers. The result: with a few short-lived exceptions, a disappointing record of slow development and lost decades.
Centrism has the answers to many of Latin America’s problems. Centrists are able to strike a balance between short-term improvements and long-term results.
Reforming and investing in areas that directly impact the middle class’s ability to grow sustainably (education and health care, infrastructure and personal security, connectivity and access to credit), while preserving macroeconomic stability, has been a cornerstone of the centrist approach.
However, the failure of populists does not necessarily mean a recovery of lost voters.
It can just as easily cause our battered democracies to oscillate increasingly between improvised right- and left-wing populisms for several years, in a rather negative game of polarization.
To prevent this democratic breakdown, we need a real regime change within the political tribe: a new generation of politicians that will translate a broad and rejuvenated political agenda from technocratic programming into a mission-driven political platform that includes concrete actions in the areas that matter most to voters.
If a crisis is also an opportunity, we are facing the opportunity of the century to rewrite the political centre, the backbone of Western liberal democracies.
AUTHORS: MAURICIO CARDENAS
And Eduardo Levy Yeati (**)
AMERICAS QUARTERLY Professor of Professional Practice and Director of the MPA in Global Leadership at Sipa at Columbia University. He was Minister of Finance of Colombia from 2012 to 2018 and is a member of the editorial board of
AQ .(**) Former chief economist of the Central Bank of Argentina, he is a professor at the School of Government of the Torcuato di Tella University in Buenos Aires. He is a member of the editorial board of
AQ . This article is based on
The future of liberal democracy in Latin America: in search of a center,
#Imagining #return #center #Latin #America