FROM THE OUTSIDE: Matters of perspective

Por

José Carreño Figueras

Compartir

Publicado: 10/12/2024 · 10:05 a.m. MX | Actualizado: 10/12/2024 · 10:05 a.m. MX

Who would have thought that after decades, even centuries, of trying to bring absolutist governments of kings and authoritarian rulers under control, monarchies would make a comeback through elections? Perhaps democratic at first, but later rigged and fraudulent when necessary to revive the concept of “lese-majesty.”

According to at least one legal dictionary, “lese-majesty” refers to “a crime committed against situations, figures, or individuals of great prestige or authority (...) In monarchic countries or nations, a crime is committed against the king or their relatives.”

Some definitions might be more inclusive, extending to parties and governments—understood as the individuals in power and their actions. Accusations of “treason against the homeland”—deliberately written in lowercase to underscore the abuse—serve as a convenient substitute for punishing challenges to the infallibility or decency of leaders or the relevance of their proposals without directly invoking lèse-majesté.

Sigue leyendo:

Estudio: Riqueza de los multimillonarios creció tres veces más rápido en 2024 que el año anterior

This concept allows figures like Daniel Ortega, Nicaragua’s current president and presumed sovereign, to label his brother Humberto as a “traitor to the homeland” not because he betrayed the country, but because he disagreed with him. Similarly, Ortega’s repressive apparatus targeted Nicaragua’s first “Miss Universe,” Stephanie Palacios, and her associates simply because she had previously participated in a pro-democracy demonstration.

Nothing is more insulting than asking an autocrat to keep their word.

Saying that Nicolás Maduro and his government stole the elections in Venezuela could be considered “treason against the homeland” because it might be interpreted as supporting economic sanctions from other countries, especially the United States. Even without explicit support, it doesn’t matter—it can be linked anyway. That’s what the prosecutor’s office is for: to interpret matters to suit the government’s interests.

But the fact remains: it’s a fraudulent government, even if the “left” in Latin America wants to close its eyes, mouth, and ears out of “solidarity against the empire.” Congratulations.

And although he is no longer in power, it’s hard to forget Jair Bolsonaro because the return of Donald Trump—and especially the judicial immunity granted by his political invulnerability in the United States—could easily be replicated in Brazil.

These are certainly examples of the absurdity into which some self-proclaimed “leftist” governments, and even some on the right, have fallen. Driven by political polarization, they have abandoned their declared democratic principles after gaining power.

The cries of “fascists” coming from alleged leftist governments or “socialists” from those on the right aim to obscure the fact that the only difference lies in the perspective from which authoritarian measures are justified.

José Carreño Figueras