El Ciudadano
Original article: Chile: El corazón sangra pero no muere
By Taroa Zúñiga Silva and José Roberto Duque
The disappointment felt by many left-wing supporters in Latin America has been renewed with the recent democratic victory of the far right in Chile. This sentiment is particularly poignant as it reflects the struggles of those who identify politically with progressive ideals.
Much of this disappointment stems from a simplistic and linear understanding of historical processes. Like in films, where stories unfold and resolve within a specific timeframe, there is a psychological tendency that leads us to believe that this narrative structure applies to political reality as well.
Accustomed to this format, we often think that concepts of victory, defeat, heroism, good, evil, and justice must meet unattainable standards in the real world: “forever victories”, eternal love, and the definitive triumph of good over evil (with ourselves, of course, representing the good).
Through an even more fantastical lens than Hollywood, we tend to think that because we have faced oppression for centuries, our history should now be an unstoppable chain of victories. This would portray history and revolutions as a straightforward and upward trajectory, where there is no room for setbacks, defeats, or moments of pause.
“To stop is to go back,” said a 20th-century megalomaniac; “If nature opposes us, we will fight against it and make it obey,” claimed the symbolic father of liberation struggles on this continent. Both of these viewpoints reflect a drastic obligation to win, to progress, and to never pause. They refer to the ultimate aim of politics and war: the conquest of power.
This commentary aims to provide some reflections on power, bourgeois democracy, and the grand deception against the peoples.
*
The occurrence of inevitable and temporary defeats (as no victory or defeat is ever permanent) often gives rise to one of the saddest symptoms of politics: assuming that there are stupid peoples (those who voted against a particular trend) and heroic peoples (those who voted in favor).
Currently, certain factions on the left (both inside and outside Chile) are saying the opposite about the Chilean people compared to four years ago. The heroic populace that took to the streets and propelled the constituent assembly is suddenly being labeled as ignorant for voting predominantly for a far-right party that leans towards fascism.
This narrow, twisted, classist, and overly simplified view of processes diverts attention from a very sad and perplexing reality: the rules by which people elect (as they say) the administrators of our nation-states were designed, defined, and imposed by our class and civilizational enemies. Our countries, our leaders, and our propagandists and analysts have docilely adapted to the norms, demands, and canons of representative or bourgeois democracy, a global imposition by the United States and Europe.
Rufino Blanco Fombona coined an insightful saying a century ago: the struggle between our countries molded by Spain and those shaped by the Anglo-Saxons is the struggle between the United States and the Disunited States: the ancestral tendency towards disintegration versus the historical impulse towards the agglutination of territories.
This may explain why some segments of the Latin American left criticize others for breaking the mold imposed by hegemonies and re-evaluating democracy and power.
When you have publicly stated that you accept and pledge to abide by the enemy’s rules, your only option left is to congratulate the enemy who will destroy and imprison you once they win elections. You play fair, but your enemies do not: this is a lesson we’ve been slow to learn.
Ecuador, Peru, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Honduras, now Chile, and tomorrow perhaps Colombia: if the movements, protagonists, and observers of emancipation and liberation do not identify common traits in the bizarre utilization of judicial, military, and interventionist resources over these ten years of continental upheaval, we need sharper insight.
But if we do recognize these patterns and still believe it is crucial to continue playing fair with the franchises of Israel and the United States, out of shame for the “what will they say,” we do not need insight but rather another half-century of humiliation, imprisonment, demonization, and slaps from the “civilized nations”: those that indeed respect rules because they invented them.
It is ironic, but certainly not surprising, that the United States (the country that pursues and punishes those who do not adhere strictly to the rituals of election-based democracy) still chooses its President through a labyrinthine and cryptic process that everyone accepts as normal: if the people vote a psychopath into office, but the powers that be decide on another, the system determines that the latter wins. No one requests records, reviews, or reconsiderations of any kind.
The objective of American democracy is not the fulfillment of the popular will but the maintenance of the mechanisms that ensure the continuation of a hegemonic project.
*
As history continues to turn, it has fallen upon Chile to revert to the reign of the far right. As disheartening as this reality may be, it is important to remember two key points: 1) nothing is forever, neither defeats nor victories, because History is not a straight line but a series of changing planes and cycles; 2) the processes of emancipation carry on. Slow, laborious, and gradually, but they advance.
Chile will be governed by a fascist for the next four years (unless something drastic occurs: a blinding light, a snowball thrown), but present-day Chile is undeniably closer to a revolutionary transformation than it was in 2019.
This shift does not relate to Piñera or Boric but rather to the unlocking of the Chilean people’s perspective, particularly that of this generation. People under 40 now carry knowledge that cannot be gained through reading alone but through lived experience: we now understand the purpose of an explosion, a rebellion, and a forward leap, the beauty of which has also been its burden. Chile has proposed changes that may only be feasible in 30 years or more, yet are currently the subject of misunderstanding. Many Chileans paid for their boldness with an eye lost, with death, with media lynching, and with state neglect.
Regarding the right’s victory after this entire process and suffering, there is a third key aspect that is inseparable from the analysis:
3) What the Chilean people demanded in the streets was not merely a change of government, but a Revolution. Indeed, there was a change of government, and in theory, the left came to power. However, it turns out that some “leftist” governments – not only Boric’s – aimed merely to succeed in the capitalist game of economic freedoms, but that is not a Revolution. The goal of revolutions is not to manage capitalism better than the right does. It was (or should have been) supposed to end capitalism. But for that, one must take the risk.
Of course: making a revolution is not free of charge. Revolution is not pleasant but painful. A final note: if the enemy applauds you (as both Biden and Trump have applauded Boric for being a “good democrat”), it is because you are doing something wrong.
*
In the context of temporary defeats, it’s also worth recalling a pivotal moment in our continent’s history.
In 1814, Simón Bolívar, the great Liberator, was defeated and expelled from Venezuela. He was defeated by José Tomás Boves, who, in addition to being a military genius, hated the criollo aristocracy (of which Bolívar was a part). Perhaps it should be said that his hatred for the aristocracy contributed to him becoming a military genius. The fact is, Boves channeled all the anger and resentment of a people who had been humiliated and exploited by the bourgeoisie of the era and took the Republic away from a bunch of elite young men who had come with libertarian ideas heavily influenced by European intellectuals and so on (any resemblance to certain leftists is indeed too close).
In theory, at that moment, the people defended the Spanish Crown, but in reality, what they were doing was fighting against the bourgeoisie.
Bolívar exiled himself in Jamaica, where he was contacted by the great Pétion, the first President of the first free Republic in Latin America: Haiti. Pétion offered him his full support on the condition that Latin American independence included the abolition of slavery, a detail that had “slipped” Bolívar’s mind.
With this new demand, Bolívar formed the true Liberating Army, which included the dispossessed, Blacks, Indigenous people, and all those who constituted the populace at that time. In less than 20 years, they liberated six countries and defeated one of the strongest powers of the time.
Perhaps certain leaders in the region need a good shake-up from a Pétion to remind them that without the people they now label as fascists and ignorant, nothing will be achievable.
There are setbacks, advances, stumbles, falls, and rises: this is called History. Lenin said: one step forward, two steps back. The processes of emancipation continue, sometimes in power and sometimes in resistance. Returning to the disappointment, let us note that there, far to the left, our heart bleeds, but it does not die.
By Taroa Zúñiga Silva and José Roberto Duque
La entrada Chile: A Bleeding Heart Yet Resilient Amidst Political Challenges se publicó primero en El Ciudadano.
🔥 Ver noticia completa en ElCiudadano.cl 🔥
