The last few weeks have been marked by the emergence of a discourse typical of a radical right that recalls other contemporary expressions of an “authoritarian populism”. As in other latitudes, in Chile this discourse strongly vindicates two basic promises: defense of “freedom” and return of “order”. What is his promise of “order”? What are you talking about when you say “freedom”?
While it is clear that his idea of freedom is largely based on a reduction to economic freedom, there is certainly something else as well. Not clearly noticing this “something else” seems to be behind the position of those who – even among those who identify as liberals – believe that simple gestures of moderation or programmatic adjustments would be enough to reorient this discourse towards democratic positions. In turn, in that “something more” also seems to find a key to understanding its ability to generate attraction.
Indeed, in its invocation of freedom it also seems to echo a certain gesture of opposition, to reflect a spirit of challenge. In this case, however, this challenge is directed towards the conquests of equality of recent decades. He speaks of the freedom to say “without ties” what one thinks, to dare to defend one’s convictions “without complexes” or, simply, to return to “common sense”. A series of equality rights (human rights, gender equality or even the most basic civil guarantees) are thus seen as limits or threats to freedom: absurd impositions from which the time has come to free oneself. Similarly, when (in the name of a supposed freedom of “expression” or “thought”) he throws over the public debate admittedly false information, he not only lies or misrepresents but at the same time undermines one of the most basic conditions that make it possible for political discussion to approach a dialogue between equals.
And it is here that its deepest authoritarian and anti-democratic roots lie. Such a way of understanding freedom (as opposed to the conquests of equality) can only promise an “order” based on the denial of democracy. Freedom can only be realized here at the cost of the loss of freedom for others: restricting their rights or threatening their existence. Their promise of “order” can only exist where the difference is expelled or, if possible, eliminated. His promise of “security” does not appeal to those who recognize themselves as equals, but to those who see themselves as identical: all plurality is a threat.
On the contrary, a basic assumption of democracy is the building of a common order through equality and freedom. Here not only the exercise of freedom and the conquests of equality do not contradict each other, but complement each other. No freedom without rights means, at the same time, that equality is seen as the condition of one’s freedom. Therefore, the democratic promise of “security” does not lie in the arbitrary power of either force or money, but in the collective production of common certainties and social certainties for everyday life. Neither freedom is opposed to equality, nor is the deepening of democracy opposed – in short – to the conquest of an order capable of guaranteeing legitimate aspirations for security for individual and collective life.
It is a false dilemma, in short, to place this choice around the dilemma between “order” versus “transformation” or also “freedom” versus promises of “equality”. Rather, what seems to be at stake is whether the crisis that democracy is going through today is capitalized by an authoritarian regression or, on the contrary, is channeled on the horizon of a democratic deepening of equality and civil liberties.
The content expressed in this opinion column is the sole responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line or position of El Mostrador.
