immobility by destiny

With so much mobilization, the following is immobility and loss of direction. The inability to get out of the mediocrity that, six-year term after six-year term, stamps its stamp on the ruling class – not only politics – and prevents the nation from giving a horizon.

Entrenched at the extremes, actors and political factors left and right touch and complement each other. They make the radicalization of the position the ideal pretext to reach an unspeakable, deaf and pusillanimous agreement: leave things as they are, as if the country did not need to seriously review its political, economic and social structure, as well as address insecurity , health, inequality and education.

Thus, the debate turns into an argument and the exaggerations, into a parody of the analysis. An increasingly unbearable and boring game, but above all futile. Those who do not dress in white and pink or whatever they want on Sunday could dress in black as a sign of mourning for politics.

When some propose to shake the foundations, castles and finishes of the political-electoral regime knowing that it is impossible and others oppose not touching it even with a feather duster knowing that it is necessary, there is –at the bottom of the supposed confrontation– a fundamental agreement: to leave it almost as it is, being necessary to reform it.

Both take off their masks to put on their costumes, the one of the stubborn revolutionary and the undaunted conservative determined to play to see who can win the most and, in the contest, show the largest repertoire of insults and offenses, as long as they do not argue. A verbal fencing typical of the suburban cantina, not of the political arena.

Insults and disqualifications fly, while a large part of the supposedly professional press and supposedly independent intellectuals keep track of those uttered from power, feigning amnesia of those exclaimed from the front. Everything, while the self-appointed representatives of civil society claim to take citizens into account, but not the people because it is an entelechy, an old concept, typical of the alleged dictator in the making.

Of course, both swear to act in defense of democracy, letting the electorate pay the price. Come the call to immobility, high altar of mediocrity!

Obviously, the Executive knew of the extemporaneity and the lack of conditions and, even, of votes to carry out and in its terms the initiative of constitutional reform of the political-electoral regime that it submitted to Congress.

Besides, he knew another matter. The idea of ​​electing advisors and electoral magistrates by popular vote, pre-selected with loaded dice, could bring down the whole of the reform initiative that, apart from this and other blunders, has worthy parts. He was aware of this and, therefore, of the enormous political effort required to give the project a chance, even partially. Yet both he and his political and legislative operatives did their best to frustrate it themselves…and succeeded.

Far from building bridges with legislators and sectors that, based on the negotiation, could support the reform, they broke them. They charged against the electoral body and the two leading advisors, they disqualified other legislators instead of convincing them and, to top it off, they insulted the citizens who were resistant to the intention of undertaking the reform on a presidential whim and whim. Not only that, the strategy was a chain of errors: if there is no constitutional reform, there will be a change in regulatory laws; if that doesn’t work either, there will be budget cuts to tame the institute and, if that fails, there will be appointment of new advisers to colonize it.

Spinning together so many errors and contradictions should not be easy, unless the supposed reformist cause was and is a ruse in order to distract the opponents, without giving them time to define, structure and organize the broad front to which the organizations of the civil society.

Despite this and other setbacks this week – a candidacy for the Inter-American Development Bank, a board of Latin American leaders in office or elected from the left, a rise in homicides in October, a lawsuit in the Senate that announces fissures – the president calls on his people to mobilize, according to this, to celebrate four years of government.

It’s like with the soccer team, they celebrate not the victory, but not having been defeated until now. Mediocrity as a trophy.

The partisan opposition, for its part, does not sing rancheras badly. It pleases me.

Thanks to the social organizations that tow these parties – there is room behind them, they were told – they managed to ingratiate themselves with part of the electorate, under the banner of defending democracy. A profitable cause to which they joined, what a joy, without losing a single fifth of the prerogatives and, perhaps, not a single seat in Congress. Mobilize so that nothing moves. And, as if that were not enough, the pro-government move revived the opposition’s possibility of going to the elections together, although it is not clear how or for what purpose.

What a task for the leaders of the civil resistance: lead the opposition leaders well because they are easily disoriented and fall into temptations. Hopefully they will do that and, at the same time, define what they do want because continuing with the motto of museums –look without touching– is not a proposal. Except when many of the institutions, instances and systems created under its influence have not yielded the promised fruits and returning to the recent past is not an alternative either.

It is a contradiction to mobilize to immobilize and lose your way, making destiny out of mediocrity.

immobility by destiny