The roar of anger that gives wings to the standard-bearers of national-populist political projects resounds like an echo in different parts of the world. Javier Milei is the umpteenth case of a broad wave – in which the episodes of Brexit, Trump, Bolsonaro and Meloni stand out – that represents a total change of the political system as a popular rejection of all traditional options. The echo effect lies in the many similarities between various elements of the reactionary International. However, this does not exclude the possibility that there are at the same time significant differences in the causes of success and in the proposals.
Due to personal characteristics and political approaches, Milei is a hyperbolic figure even within the radical world of the reactionary International, and his victory causes particular horror and disbelief in the ranks of progressives and moderate liberals. It’s not for less. His proposals are of extraordinary extremism, obviously without solid intellectual foundations, threateningly regressive in their conservatism and, moreover, represented by a leader whose manners do not exude the calm that is desirable in a leader.
However, the exaggeration of Milei’s chainsaw is combined with the spirit of rejection of the established that is typical of the national-populist International. With the United Kingdom, which voted for Brexit against the position of the major parties, the employers, the unions and where “Fuck the Experts” dominates; with Trump’s conquest of the United States and his mantra to “drain the swamp”; Italy is now governed by the only party in Parliament that did not support the government of national unity during the pandemic – the far-right Brothers of Italy – which had only 4% of the vote in this legislature, taking advantage of a lone opposition that is against everything and shot everyone and then became the first party in the country; with the Brazil that supported Bolsonaro, who was not a representative of one of the country’s main parties.
It is the popular spirit of total change of a political system borne out of the anger of citizens who feel that it doesn’t benefit them, doesn’t protect them, doesn’t work for them, that it’s biased and lazy. This deep frustration fuels the will for radical change and elevates outsiders who preach a populist mix of caste demonization, nationalism, conservatism, historical revisionism, and nostalgia for a supposedly better past – what will make America great again; to regain perceived lost control in the UK; the desert that began with democracy in Argentina, etc.―.
President-elect Javier Milei and his sister Karina Milei react to the results of the Argentine elections this Sunday in Buenos Aires.AGUSTIN MARCARIAN (Portal)
Experienced managers add fuel to the fire by using the possibilities of modern times, today’s social networks and soon, increasingly, artificial intelligence. Politics is led to the emotional terrain, and rationality hardly prevails there.
Join EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without restrictions.
Subscribe to
But this common root should not obscure the differences. Depending on the case, this frustration is fueled by resentment from national or global causes to varying degrees. In some countries the former far predominate. In others, the latter seems more relevant.
In the case of Argentina, it is obvious that Milei’s victory represents a complete rejection of the leadership of Kirchnerist Peronism. Likewise, Bolsonaro’s success was fueled by deep-rooted anti-PTism (PT, Lula and Rousseff’s party). In these cases, the progressive proposals failed largely because of their own failure, either because of economic efforts with disastrous results or because of the long shadow of corruption that had spread over them, rather than because of a national desire for closure in the face of the One World in which problems are important.
In other cases, the rise of national populism responds to a greater extent to global phenomena, to a protectionist instinct in the face of global vicissitudes, the developments of an interconnected world, the harmful side effects of a certain type of free trade, migration movements, information technologies. that some benefit while harming others, climate change and its challenges. In this phase too, social democracy paid for the mistakes of the past, its long adherence to values with a liberal bias that made it difficult to distinguish from the moderate right. But in this case, a general future of the world that is not the direct responsibility of the left seems to have more influence. Trump, Orbán or Brexit fit very well into this scheme, in which the rejection of what comes from outside has enormous weight and supports protectionist, nationalist, conservative proposals, a longing for a return to the past.
Depending on what the main driving force is, the positions on free trade, immigration or foreign policy, for example, may differ or in any case have more or less weight in approach.
Other differences inherent in the rise of national populism concern the origins of the standard bearer. In some cases – like Milei or Bolsonaro – they are complete outsiders who come to power. In other cases, these are traditional parties that lean towards this type of ideology – the Republicans in the US and the Tories in the UK.
The two different scenarios have different implications – the brakes that can continue to act despite change on a traditional party with a long history of moderates continuing to operate, and the unleashed situation of those not tied to it – as well as of course also the political strength they have in parliament – absolute majorities or need for negotiations – and the democratic quality of the countries in which they come to power.
The national populist wave is by no means invincible and is suffering setbacks. Recently in Poland or Spain. A pattern can be seen in which his poor management performance is sanctioned at the polls and the renewal of mandates is prevented wherever democracy remains sufficiently strong, such as in the United States (Trump’s defeat); Brazil (defeat of Bolsonaro) or Poland itself (defeat of PiS). The case of Hungary highlights the risks of the circumstances in which the national-populist proposal succeeds in undermining democratic quality to the point of almost stifling real options for change (the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OCSE) was of the opinion that the last elections in Hungary were free but not fair).
Unfortunately, the quality of democracy is declining in many places around the world, as confirmed by the most respected international studies on the subject.
The traditional conservative right is in the midst of a panic crisis due to the emergence of radical national-populist proposals that are destroying them (France, Italy) or limiting their scope in a way that makes it impossible for them to govern without having decided to cooperate with the radicals or even buy their arguments. History will condemn them for this.
For their part, the left-wing Social Democrats and Liberals should think carefully. Not only about the global problems that give wings to the ultras and offer answers in the key of social protection (“The Europe that protects,” declared Macron; “that ensures security,” emphasized Sánchez in his inaugural speech). This is right and important. However, it is necessary to analyze in more detail the entire spectrum of actions and failures that come from the areas of moderation and progressivism and that have favored the phenomenon of the national-populist wave in the Western Hemisphere, a very serious threat to the maintenance of fundamental rights and in in some cases even the most basic democratic values. Milei’s case, probably the most radical of all, shows that his development can lead to unimaginable and explosive places.
Follow all international information on Facebook and Xor in our weekly newsletter.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_