Fear puts us on defense. And when we are on defense we tend to think individually. It is for no other reason that we live bombarded by programs and news that frighten us and lead us to discouragement: in this state of mind, we become easy prey.
War is frightening, especially in a world with nuclear weapons of enormous destructive power. Disagreements between distant but powerful leaders can affect everyone. The impact of war is diffuse and widely used by political leaders, who take advantage of emotional fragility to present easy solutions to a complex context.
In these times, Manichaeism emerges as the protagonist: good versus evil and heroes and villains are identified from a superficial analysis that despises a deeper understanding of our reality. It would be important for us to learn in chaos so that situations like this do not repeat themselves, but we insist on repeating history, without learning from it.
The permanent state of tension resulting from fear has led to individual solutions to collective problems. Fighting violence by encouraging people to arm themselves is not in line with the security experiences of most countries in the world, but it serves the interests of groups that see weapons as a condition of imposing their will: the enemies are those who think differently. And that’s not good for democracy.
In the collective dimension, the answer comes through increased military investment. Countries with huge social deficits increase investments in weapons, to the detriment of social areas and the reduction of poverty and inequalities.
The economic crisis that sets in punishes above all the most vulnerable. Unemployment and inflation are on the rise, violence and social tensions increase. In this context, prejudice, exclusion and xenophobia are reiterated. Authoritarian politicians take advantage of this fragile situation to reinforce individualism and competition, at a time when solutions should be collective. Urgency is an excuse for centralized solutions, which do without dialogue and listening, so dear to democratic environments.
The curious thing is that, in addition to generating impacts on democracy, the current war in Ukraine is putting at risk some principles of our development model. By blocking Russia’s resources invested in the financial system, the West breaks the pillar of trust that underpins the system. What are the criteria for blocking resources? Who decides? Who is able to throw the first stone?
No less intriguing was the decision to block companies economically. Regardless of who the victim is, the market always insists on calling itself apolitical, governed by free competition and freedom of action. These are the basis of the system, which allows companies to act independently of prevailing ideologies, in the pursuit of financial results for their shareholders. Because the blockade obeyed the policy, leaving aside the principles of the market. How is the impartiality and independence of companies justified from now on?
It is prudent, therefore, to pay attention to the impacts of the war from a social, political and economic point of view, but also of trust. At the present time, it is observed, with the usual exceptions, that the extreme right has taken advantage of people’s uncertainties and insecurities to present opportunistic proposals that tend to reduce the democratic space.
The growth of Marine Le Pen, in France, and the victory of Orban in Hungary, should serve as a warning for proposals that defend democracy, from whatever party, to succeed. It is up to the population to identify the original representatives of the anti-democratic extreme right or those who disguised themselves as liberals, but carry their DNA. Only in this way will we be able to prevent setbacks from continuing to reign and that we can start the recovery in the direction of a democratic path that faces our real problems.
