The Problem Is Not Populism

Published in Crónica
(Mexico) on 06 December 2018
by Luis David Fernández Araya (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Megan Dicken. Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
In the eyes of Joseph E. Stiglitz, winner of the 2011 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, a populist stance is not bad in and of itself, as long as it is dedicated to addressing the most relevant social problems. And he is not wrong, because populism has been a recurring political position dedicated to enumerating the most relevant shortfalls. However, the risk lies in those who have climbed aboard with respect to issues that hurt societies the most and propose measures that are unrealistic. That is, the problem is not that populism accepts that there are social burdens and identifies them. The problem is that, when the populist believes he is the modern Messiah, an anointed one, a saint who will miraculously solve the people's problems, he ends up confusing problems with solutions.

A populist stance recognizes that current economic models have brought inequalities; however, based on factors such as ignorance and an election pitch attractive to the poor, they hang on to these problems so they can enter the political arena in exchange for gambling with the needs of society. There are problems of social order, some more marked than others, under a scheme where there are winners and losers. Yet it is not entirely the fault of globalization or free trade, because everything here is in play; from corruption, impunity, social benefit-sharing schemes and broad inequality gaps to the legacy of social policies that do not result in lifting up the poor, but merely take advantage of social anger.

The problem is not that the populist talks about things as they are, but that he repeats empty and automatic recipes. For the populist, the poor person is the right product to use in his speech, inequality is the right element for his argument, and the closing of trade barriers the right item for his platform. He takes advantage of society’s ignorance. One of the reasons why Donald Trump won was exactly that. He took advantage of the anger that came from the crisis that arose in his country in 2008-09. Many people still suffer from the hangover of that debacle. The problem, then, is not recognizing the problems. The problem is not populism, but the populist.

Those characters who invent alternative solutions to the free market as magic formulas resemble public policy magicians, equipped with bright ideas. While the free market model has produced countless poor people, at the other extreme, we find those denying any alternatives as a third option. The fallacy lies in the fact that they cannot just save us with proposals pulled out of thin air, which may seem strong in the face of historic social shortcomings that are sustained by the hopes of the poor. What would happen if we dedicated ourselves to the necessary means to overcome social deficiencies instead of just working to put them off? The root of our poverty lies in our inability to question who benefits from remaining in a state of permanent deprivation.


En la mirada del Premio Nobel de Economía 2011, Joseph E. Stiglitz, una postura populista no es mala en sí misma, siempre y cuando esté dedicada a atender los problemas sociales más relevantes. Y no se equivoca, porque el populismo ha sido una repetida posición política que se ha dedicado a enumerar las carencias más relevantes, sin embargo el riesgo radica en quienes se han subido al barco de los temas que más le duelen a las sociedades y proponen medidas fuera de la realidad, es decir, el problema no es que el populismo acepte que existan lastres sociales y los enumere, el problema es el populista al creerse el moderno mesías, un ungido, un santo cuyos milagros sacarán del problema a la gente, lo que termina por confundir problemas con soluciones. Una postura populista reconoce que los modelos económicos actuales han traído desigualdades, sí, no obstante, basada en elementos como el desconocimiento y un mercado electoral tan atractivo como la pobreza es que se cuelga de dichos problemas para subirse al ring político a cambio de jugar con las necesidades sociales.

Existen problemas de orden social, unos más marcados que otros, bajo un esquema donde hay perdedores y ganadores, pero ni todo es culpa de la globalización ni del libre comercio, porque aquí juega todo, desde la corrupción, la impunidad, los esquemas de reparto de beneficio social, las amplias brechas de desigualdad hasta las herencias de políticas sociales que no terminan por sacar al pobre de su condición, y que únicamente se aprovechan del enojo social.

El problema no es que se digan las cosas como son, sino que el populista repita recetas vacías y automáticas. Para el populista el pobre es la mercancía adecuada para su discurso, la desigualdad su argumento, el cierre de barreras comerciales, su plataforma.

Se aprovecha del desconocimiento de la sociedad, una de las razones por las cuales ganó (Donald) Trump fue ésa, que se aprovechó del enojo que provenía de la crisis nacida en su país en 2008-2009, donde mucha gente aún sigue padeciendo la cruda de esa debacle. El problema pues no es reconocer los problemas, el problema no es el populismo sino el populista.

Aquellos personajes que van inventando soluciones alternativas al libre mercado a modo de fórmulas mágicas, se asemejan a magos de las políticas públicas, armados con ocurrencias, es decir, si bien el modelo de libre mercado ha generado su incontable lista de pobres, en el otro extremo encontramos a la negación de alternativas como una tercera vía.

La mentira radica en que no sólo no pueden salvarnos con propuestas al aire, que se hacen fuertes frente a las carencias sociales históricas, sostenidos por los pobres, por sus esperanzas.

¿Qué pasaría si a las carencias sociales se le propusieran mecanismos para salir de esa condición y no sólo nos dedicamos a postergarla?

Porque la raíz de nuestra pobreza radica en la poca capacidad de preguntarnos a quién conviene que sigamos en esas condiciones de carencias permanentes.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Austria: Soon Putin Will Have Successfully Alienated Trump

Australia: At Debt’s Door: America’s Superpower Is Waning and Trump’s Part of the Problem

Poland: Trump Sets up Power Directorate: Brussels No Longer Rules Europe

Taiwan: 2 Terms Won’t Satisfy Trump

Topics

Austria: Soon Putin Will Have Successfully Alienated Trump

Canada: Scorning Trump’s Golden Dome Would Be a Mistake

Australia: Which Conflicts of Interest? Trump Doubles Down on Crypto

Russia: Will Trump Investigate Harris? Political Analyst Responds*

Germany: Ukraine War: Cease-fire Still Out of Reach

Japan: Expectations for New Pope To Mend Rifts among American People

OPD: 16 May 2025, edited by Helaine Schweitzer

Related Articles

Austria: Soon Putin Will Have Successfully Alienated Trump

Canada: Scorning Trump’s Golden Dome Would Be a Mistake

Australia: Which Conflicts of Interest? Trump Doubles Down on Crypto