Our Constitution is an inclusive pact for fair activities.

Enrique Blasco Garma
Consejero Académico en Libertad y Progreso

INFOBAE: England’s Royal Society, the first science-promoting association, adopted the motto “no man’s word.” Nations progress when uncertain opinions are replaced by science or justice.

Two stories of hatred: 1) The Spanish inquisition promoted the “purity” of Catholicism, creating courts to prosecute heretics and aggravating the unrest between Jews and Christians. Anyone who had a quarrel accused the other of being a Jew to complicate his life, a custum that generalized religious accusations. They even enacted laws prohibiting marriages between Christians and Jews. Many Jews were killed or expelled; and 2) after Independenoce, the fratricidal confrontations that lasted until 1853 impoverished Argentines. Against this fissure, the Constitution established an Inclusion Pact, enhancing the autonomy of the inhabitants respectful of the objective law, sentenced by independent judges. This contrasts with the subjectivity of the previous regime of subordination to the caudillo, to the extreme demand of having to wear the party badge.

The Constitution established an inclusion pact, enlarging the autonomy of the inhabitants respectful of the objective law

The new Constitution, organized in protection of individual rights, was inspired by the most prestigious political texts and the success of the United States. It unleashed the capacities of the inhabitants to forge a destiny of progress that would make them proud and sing the anthem and songs for their homeland.

In six decades, a very poor geography of less than 1 million inhabitants, was illuminated with the splendor of the wealth achieved by more than 7 million people attracted by magnificent opportunities. From the previous condition of submission to the leader, to the novelty of obeying the law, according to a justice independent of political ups and downs.

If they were not safe from politics, judicial sentences would vary with it, destabilizing all rights. Pretending for a politicized Justice is volatilizing individual rights.

Competition drives the growth of personal income, the value of companies and GDP of the countries, based on stable, objective laws, independent of political leadership. Hatred is always reciprocal, as are the distrust of one group with respect to the other, disrupting the order of the Constitution and rights. Nothing solid is built on subjective bias. Businesses are built according to the firmness of individual rights and properties. The value of hate and political allegiances fluctuate wildly in the markets.

Competition drives the growth of personal income, the value of companies and GDP of the countries based on stable, objective laws.

Economic science illustrates the personal interrelationships that should be addressed, which are imperative for governability. Leaders who neglect individual autonomy violate rights, seeking to impose themselves even at the cost of impoverishing the people. Politicians would do well to study this issue in depth. Divided countries in which businesses are oriented according to a friend-enemy dynamic do not prosper, are increasingly uncertain and poor.

“Democracy in Chile, Lessons in Governance”, written by Edgardo Boeninger, chief minister in Patricio Alwyn’s presidency, details the growing conflicts during the Unión Popular government. Disempowering opponents can strengthen the ruling faction for a time, but unresolved conflicts aggravate rejections, voter dispersion and economic losses. In the end, a dictatorship ensues or the government falls.

They promote hatred to silence the other, weaken freedom of expression, criticism and adverse sentences

Ernesto Laclau develops a binary logic of “us” and “them”. He understands populism as a phenomenon of a discursive and symbolic nature, rather than of a political or ideological nature. It builds the so-called “people” or “us” from an overload of social demands that the political system does not process adequately. Such unsatisfied requests weave a political border that fractures society. On the one hand, we find the agents that make up the group of satisfied (the establishment…); and, on the other, the people whose demands have not been met.

According to Laclau, a populist leader defines who is included in “the people” and who is not. The leader’s speech unifies the demands of a multitude of people, however disparate their social situations may be. He is the one who defines the protagonists and antagonists, weaves the story and advocates a political goal as a desirable end to be achieved. This is where the hatred between “them” and “us” becomes an instrument capable of giving a sense of reality to this discursive strategy and politically and psychologically, mobilizing people who would otherwise be difficult to mobilize.

They promote hatred to silence the other, weaken freedom of expression, criticism and adverse sentences. Different politicians seek to bring together and build leadership around these hate speeches, once dispersed. They build a framework of ideas that ranges from conspiracy theories, the superiority of the group, to the denial of science and justice; a kind of political flat earthism that, when they observe that the facts contradict their ideological frameworks, proceed to ignore them.