THE RISK OF NEOFASCISM IN THE U.S. BACKYARD

THE RISK OF NEOFASCISM IN THE U.S. BACKYARD 

By Samuel Perez-Attias* 

A small group of the elite that concentrates a big share of power in Guatemala, who has enjoyed the benefits of a system that enhances inherited privileges has closed has closed ranks and joined forces with other forces that see their sources of power violated as a result of the impunity prevalent in this country. The fear of losing privileges makes that elite to see justice as an enemy to overcome, that fear causes the elite to react like cornered beasts or boisterous children.
The fear of losing privileges causes the elite to be grouped with some natural allies, but also with other sectors that in other contexts they may have abhorred. Justice in Guatemala begins to enter the room of those who only saw it pass from their seats secured by the strength of the impunity they had built for centuries in the country.

Today they see how the structures of that fortress begin to collapse. When that privileged elite sees its worst nightmare become reality, it reacts with what at first seems like a tantrum, but it reflects anger, worry and fear. The tantrum of the privileged elite must be taken seriously. It is not the tantrum of a child who wants a toy. It is those who, accustomed to always having what they want, have accumulated a large proportion of power, which is nothing more than the economic, political and social structure of the Country.

The privileged elite is not a necessarily homogeneous group, it is an ultra-conservative faction of like-minded military men who now face trials for corruption, massacres, injustices and crimes against humanity. It is a faction of the Creole elite and owner by inheritance, of large tracts of land, wealth and privileges product of a State designed by their own ancestors, in their favor and ad-hoc to their well being. It is a faction of families that own oligopolistic industries that with a thundering of fingers can generate a crisis of scarcity, an economic recession, detonate an inflationary process and / or leave many unemployed in order to destabilize some government or process of change that threatens them and attempts with their privileges. They also have a powerful media machine in their favor, including the coercive power they have with media, threatening to withdraw their patronages to mainstream newspapers and TV channels if necessary.

The privileged elite is a group with strong ties, ergo, influence with religious groups, politicians and foreign companies and interests.

The elite with its networks, foundations, guilds and NGOs exert direct and indirect pressure, gaining adherents to its agenda by giving arguments of causes that do not necessarily reflect their interest. Today we learned that Genocidal practices were the consequence of feeling isolated from the international community during the internal conflict in Guatemala last century. Doing things “our” way, or perhaps, the way that strong ultraconservative elite that has ruled Guatemala wanted it to be.

The tantrum of the elites reaches absurdity when they manage to manipulate and influence high-ranking government officials to expel and erase everything that may threaten them, even if this implies violating the processes that benefit the rest of the country and, consequently, their own stability. Anger clouds their reason. In the end, the tantrum has been their habit all their life.

Although it is true that very few people care about what is happening in Guatemala, it might be a good idea to see it as a risk of the rise of a neo-fascist state at the U.S. backyard, with barbaric consequences as history has taught us.

#HappeningInGuatemala

_______________________________________

The Useless Fool

By: Samuel Perez-Attias*

_______________________________________

“It was to be expected: the construction of democracy in Guatemala is a difficult task. However, being difficult does not mean that it is impossible.

How did Jimmy Morales, Guatemalan President, get into power?

From an individual perspective, it can be inferred that he arrived as a puppet : without a government plan, without capacity, without leadership. He was the perfect puppet for those who have the power to manipulate the threads, as journalist Marielos Monzón wrote in her column last August.

From the perspective of a certain part of the citizenry, Jimmy Morales was the figure that rescued the institutional order after the crisis of 2015, in which the former president, Otto Perez Molina resigned.

From a political perspective, Jimmy became the perfect useful fool for those who saw their power quotas threatened if the team headed by Sandra Torres came to the presidency. It is likely that Jimmy was the least bad option for certain powers that supported the failed attempt of Manuel Baldizón and his henchmen. 

Seeing that he could not continue in the electoral race, they manage to kidnap power again democratically through the capture of the FCN political party and the current president Morales. In a year and a few months, the pieces were accommodated.

Having access to institutional power through FCN deputies (elected and retired) in Congress and key positions in the Executive, including the president and members of the cabinet, informal power is formally consolidated again.

However, there remains an enemy: the justice system, which has been strengthening.

In particular the direction of the commissioner against Impunity, Iván Velásquez in dismantling clandestine security structures and illegal security forces.

Both the former Attorney General Paz y Paz and the current one, Thelma Aldana, and a number of legal professionals at the same time assumed the construction of the institutional structure, the reorganization of the system (prosecutors and judges such as Miguel Ángel Gálvez and Claudia Escobar) and the fight against impunity in the country.

For the first time in the history of the country, a president, a vice president and a large part of his cabinet, as well as deputies, businessmen and members of other social and political institutions traditionally untouchable in the country, face criminal proceedings in Guatemala for corruption and links with bodies illegal and clandestine structures. Some are in exile, fleeing from justice, including members of traditionally powerful families at the economic and political levels.

There is great misinformation, on the one hand, by means that are favorable to these dark powers and, on the other, by spokespersons of traditional and emerging powers, entrenched in parallel in the State and in the economic, social and political dynamics normal.

Observing the bulls from the slaughterhouse is different from being in the ring. Soon they might see themselves running off the bull in the sand instead of watching the bullfight from their comfortable VIP chairs.

When being cornered and without many handles, they resort to crude strategies: to build the enemy. And that's where the media strategy begins. With a couple of controversial spokespeople, and a not so smart manipulation of media, social media and propaganda, the aim is to raise profiles of more puppets, this time to build an imaginary through narrative. Now the CICIG, the MP and the whole process of justice are the enemy.

The ideal imaginary in a country still wounded by internal war and misinformed is to go to the Cold War speech: "The Left Lurks." We turn to the discourse of nationalist and patriotic fervor: "Outside foreign interference." With a poor and desperate population we turn to the discourse of religious conviction: "The president is the anointed and his decisions are messianic." All these are discourses that appeal to the ignorance and the emotionality of the uncritical, ignorant, desperate and uneducated citizenship. They work in the incautious minds.

Already with virtual interlocutors (whether real or artificially created in networks like sounding boards), the breeding ground is used to move the puppet elected president.

However, the puppet also has a tail that will bruise him. Living in a country where impunity was the norm makes any reckless person fall into the cracks.

The puppet's family is accused of corruption, but the straw that spilled the glass was precisely that the threads that move the puppet begin to be visible. Now the powers that move it are threatened.

Who was the useful fool in 2015 takes unhappy political decisions probably advised by that structure of power that moves threads, which does not want to allow the strengthening of justice to continue its course and continue to crumble the solid building of impunity that has allowed them to continue capturing the state for their benefit.

The useful fool made erred decisions when traveling last August to the U.N. and allegedly requesting the expulsion of the Commissioner Velásquez, but finds no echo in his unfounded petition.

According to the U.N. news webpage, Secretary General, Antonio Guterrez was shocked to learn that the President of Guatemala, Jimmy Morales, has issued a statement declaring Ivan Velasquez 'persona non grata' 

Go then to plan B, announcing in a video the expulsion of the Commissioner yet, without the support of a large part of the population that elected him.

Last week, CICIG evidenced the links of some mega-rich businessmen involved in the illicit financing of FCN party, just before the elections. Businessmen funneled more than $1 million to Morales' National Convergence Front party, which carried him to the presidency.

The businessmen accepted the allegations and asked for public indulgence in a press conference last Friday.

The decisions of the puppet keep positioning Guatemala as an unstable and untrustworthy country for investors and international public opinion.

Protests in the streets keep taking place and the international image of a “rotten country”, according to F. Fukuyama, is where Guatemala stands now. 

SER DE “IZQUIERDA” COMO INSULTO

SER DE “IZQUIERDA” COMO INSULTO 

Samuel Perez Attías 

En defensa de la libertad de opinar, de tomar posturas y de ser radical en ellas.

Hace pocos días, JL Font, en entrevista en radio, le hizo una pregunta a la Sra. Fiscal General, Thelma Aldana sobre su postura política al haber personas que utilizan el argumento de que “es de izquierda” para insultarla o descalificarla.

La respuesta de la Fiscal fue categórica pero bastante sabia. “Hay quienes creen que ser de izquierda es un insulto cuando no es un insulto ser de izquierda”.

Parafraseándola y agregándole mi visión personal a esa genial respuesta, posteé un tuit donde amplío la idea diciendo que no solo no es un insulto ser de izquierda como tampoco lo es identificarse como de derecha. Cada quien tiene derecho a pensar como desee.

Más que entrar a la interesante discusión sobre qué significa ser de izquierda o derecha en estos tiempos, me centro en el argumento de la idea arriba mencionada: Usar como un insulto la forma de otras personas de identificarse con una postura política -aunque no la entiendan, o precisamente por ello- demuestra más bien ignorancia, poca buena voluntad o perversidad. Talvez más que ser “de izquierda” o “derecha”, el problema sería que quienes se identifican con esa “X” o “Y” postura no la entiendan y solo repitan lo que creen que esa forma de pensar implica sin mucho más reflexión o cuestionamiento. ¿Sabemos realmente que significa identificarse como “de izquierda” o “de derecha” en el contexto guatemalteco? ¿Son posturas genéricas o contextuales? ¿Es el espectro político necesariamente binario? ¿Cómo se matizan dichas posturas en el espectro?

Las reacciones no tardaron.  Salieron comentarios como “Sí. Para mí es un insulto que me digan que soy “de izquierda” porque la izquierda refleja el Comunismo, al Che Guevara, los asesinos de la guerrilla y a Hugo Chavez destruyendo Venezuela”…  hasta “La derecha es un insulto, porque la derecha defiende al Cacif y a los empresarios y apoyar al neoliberalismo demuestra una falta de ética, adoctrinamiento o ignorancia”… (Sugiero reparar un poco en releer dichos argumentos, su relevancia y su validez). 

¿Es la izquierda defensora del comunismo? ¿Es la derecha necesariamente defensora y proponente del neoliberalismo? ¿Según quién? ¿A qué país o  modelo de Estado se refieren cuando hablan de propuestas políticas de “derecha” o de “izquierda”? ¿A qué llaman “Izquierda” quienes se identifican como de derecha? ¿Al fundamento filosófico que soporta a las políticas de la izquierda  Europea, Canadiense, Venezolana o Guatemalteca? ¿A qué llaman “derecha” quienes no se identifican con ella? ¿Al capitalismo? ¿Cuál capitalismo? ¿Al capitalismo de Estado Chino, al sistema social de mercado Danés, la Social Democracia Alemana del sigloXX, al modelo oligárquico Guatemalteco o al modelo de economía mixta Uruguaya, Estadounidense o Costarricense? ¿Bajo qué parámetros se está midiendo ese supuesto binario espectro ideológico? ¿Cuáles son la variables que identifican una y otra visión? ¿Es la derecha progresista una alternativa a la derecha conservadora? ¿Es la izquierda liberal una alternativa a la izquierda conservadora? ¿Qué es ser de derecha progresista y qué es ser de no-derecha? 

Lo que evidentemente no comprenden estos expertos, es que al asumir sus posturas como un paraguas de verdades absolutas y utilizar dicho sesgo como motivo de insulto, limitan la posibilidad del dialogo maduro, de la discusión racional incluso entre extremistas y del entendimiento, jugándole el juego a quienes les conviene mantener a una población divirtiendo su ego en la defensa de dicotomías creadas para tal fin: para entretener.

Tanto derecho tiene una persona de pensar de una forma como de otras. Tanto derecho tiene una persona para identificarse con un pensamiento filosófico-político (o ideología) como de no hacerlo, negarlo, rebatirlo o identificarse con otro. Cada idea tiene su argumento y cada postura política su propio fundamento. Descalificar simplistamente como un insulto a alguien por auto identificarse como “de izquierda” aporta poco en la discusión colectiva. Pero, ¿Acaso no es lo mismo si se hace a quienes se autodefinen como “de derecha”? Sin escucharnos, sin conocer posturas radicalmente diferentes y diversas, sin comprendernos como consecuencia, lo que logramos es cavar trincheras de pensamiento autárquico, aislado. No es malo para el crecimiento personal, pero limita la capacidad de incidir cuando se trata de aplicar la diversidad de ideas en la praxis, bajo un supuesto de integración y horizontalidad, es decir, de diálogo. Ignorar las posturas de quienes se autodefinen como se quieran definir en un espectro más que binario, simplificando un debate en extremos dicotómicos es útil para seccionar a la población y categorizar un sistema político también binario, pero fútil para madurar como civilización Democrática a lo interno de las discusiones de políticas públicas. 

La libertad individual y/o de asociación colectiva implica la diversidad de opiniones, convicciones y posturas en un conglomerado social. Una sociedad homogénea, con pensamiento homogéneo, con valores homogéneos y posturas políticas homogéneas es síntoma de una sociedad cautiva, esclava de un poder dominante o hegemónico.  Para entender las políticas de Trump en EUA, de Jimmy en Guatemala, EPN en Mexico o de Hugo Chavez en Venezuela, debemos entender los valores que les mueven, el porqué de sus intereses, comprender su visión del mundo y aprender de su marco filosófico de vida. Cómo hacerlo si no les conocemos? Como hacemos si no les escuchamos?  ¿Cómo hacerlo si nos limitamos a descalificar su pensamiento y su práctica al arrogarnos sapienza absoluta?

Es afortunado que cada quien tenga libertad para decidir sobre lo que considera su propia verdad. Ojalá sea ésta construida en un marco de diversidad de ideas y dialogo fluido. Lo infortunado es, más bien, “dividir a unos contra otros” usando como argumento el insulto y la descalificación sin explorar las razones de la diversidad de opiniones. Diversidad que va más allá del simplista espectro binario: “bueno o malo”, “blanco o negro”, “izquierda o derecha”, “comunismo/capitalismo”.

Si somos lo que sabemos, entonces somos lo que creemos saber que somos. Una persona libre no debiera conformarse con saber lo que sabe. Una sociedad libre no debiera ver con normalidad que unos usen la forma de pensar de otros como un insulto. Una sociedad democráticamente madura no debiera tolerar el insulto a otros por la forma de verse, de pensar, de vestir, de escoger con quien quieren compartir su vida, por la forma de expresar su sexualidad, su cultura, su idioma, por cómo decidir a quién querer, por la forma de entender su propia existencia o de cómo piensan. Una mente libre desafía sus propias respuestas cuestionando y cuestionándose constantemente. La verdad está, más bien, implícita en su búsqueda. Una persona libre no deja de hacer y hacerse preguntas cuando cree tener todas las respuestas. Usar la ideología de una persona como motivo de insulto para descalificarle sin mucho más argumento refleja ignorancia, ingenuidad si no una intención perversa.