Democracy must be considered a human right: Francisco Valdés Ugalde

The bad way of exercising the government has generated populist expressions that garner the sympathy of a good part of society, they come to power and once there, they not only exercise it as before, but more despotically, more patrimonialist and, in addition, they launch against the institutions that regulate access to power, to erase them from the map and stay there, raises Francisco Valdés Ugalde.

In an interview, the renowned academic from UNAM’s Institute for Social Research, states that, on a global scale, citizens demand their participation in decision-making to address public problems and access to the exercise of rights and public goods, which it implies social reforms that the governments in turn are not willing to promote.

Valdés Ugalde is the author of the book “Essay for after the shipwreck”, edited by Debate, which is about to be presented in the coming days, which contains a prologue by sociologist Roger Bartra. In it, he offers an analysis of the situation of democracy and a reflection on the risks it faces and its challenges.

Within this framework, he proposes that democracy should be considered a human right, at this time when it seems to be heading towards a shipwreck.

—What explains the expansion of despotic authoritarian regimes?

—We have a great democratic demand for the inclusion of citizens in the determination of public decisions.

And for this, in democratic transitions, such as the one that occurred in Mexico, at the end of the nineties of the last century and throughout the rest of this century, we have changed the rules to gain access to power, but we have not sufficiently realized that the rules for the exercise of power that were inherited from the past, included corruption, patrimonialism, despotism; very backward ways of exercising political power, and that began to generate great discontent.

What we have lacked is a reform of the exercise of power in the State and that the rights of citizens have greater entrenchment precisely in the Constitution and in the State, not only so that they appear in writing, but so that the powers actually comply with those mandates and norms established in the Constitution.

The bad way of exercising power has generated these populist expressions, which garner the sympathy of a good part of society, come to power and not only exercise it as it was exercised before, but more despotically, more patrimonialist and also launch themselves against the institutions that regulate access to power to erase them from the map and stay there.

—Then the problem is not democracy, but those who, using democracy, come to power, right?

—It’s two things. One, those who are using democracy are there and, two, that we have not led democracy to seriously permeate the political structures of the State, in such a way that justice is done, legislated well and that the executive powers of the three levels of government actually produce the public goods that society requires.

For example, this current government (the one headed by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador) claims to be from the left and has not carried out a tax reform.

We have a private sector that continues to think that low taxes favor development, because wealth is spread that way, and what we are seeing is the opposite.

—What is it that legitimizes this type of government? I think of the case of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, that his government is poorly qualified, but he continues to enjoy high popularity.

—On the one hand, the popularity of the president is there, nobody can deny it. Much of this popularity has been earned by his style of governing, with sectors of the population considering that a strong man, a warlord, a character of this ilk really meets the expectations of the people. But, if we see in the same polls, the level of approval of government policies in practically all groups is disapproved of the government.

I think there is a great fear in the governing group that, in 2024, the vote will change direction, which is why they want to avoid fair elections.

There is no other explanation for Plan B (of electoral reforms), other than to control the elections to stay in power by manipulating the electoral results.

—In this text there is a concern regarding the threats to democracy. Where is the accent in this work?

—On a global scale and, especially in Latin America, we are seeing a clash between the political conflict that, in effect, occurs between parties, in parliaments, in the groups that dispute the possibility of governing and the rules that allow the advance of rights.

The demand for greater rights, for greater satisfaction, for greater public goods, implies social reforms that governments are not addressing and, therefore, they allow themselves to be manipulated and protect the hardest economic and social interests, which want to remain unscathed in the power, even if they are highly inefficient.

The democratic agenda faces the problem of reforming the way in which political power is exercised, because in the United States, France, Germany, Hungary, Turkey, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela, El Salvador, and in Mexico, we are seeing phenomena that are very similar. People want to participate in the political decision and do not find that their representatives are capable of carrying out the transformations they want.

—Why should we analyze the possibility of considering democracy as a human right? I ask because surely there are those who say the situation is so difficult that I don’t care if it is a democratic or authoritarian government. What I want is for it to put an end to insecurity, violence and to create conditions so that my family can prosper.

—It is true, many people think that way and the polls also show it, but what I think is that it depends on how we see democracy.

If we simply see it as elected governments, or we see it as a system capable of guaranteeing the greatest equality between citizens and the greatest equity, from the point of view of decision-making.

Democracy has always made decisions by majority, different forms of majority, but if the majority does not make decisions in favor of social equality, of political equality for all citizens, then democracy itself is compromised.

And it is, precisely democracy, the transport that can lead us to a change in social conditions.

This belief that an authoritarian government is going to solve problems better is actually postponing the solution to the problem.

Today we must take into the center of our considerations what is fundamental to the order of the second post-war period, which is human rights, all of them, from civic to political, such as the right to life, to security, to economic, social and cultural, which imply that we all have work, that no one is left without food, that no one is left without housing or access to health, and that implies a great collective effort.

diego.badillo@eleconomista.mx