Lawfare is not a phantom, but a translucent concept that crosses Latin America. This is an idea that has been incorporated by the left into Latin American politics in recent years. And, according to Wikipedia, it is defined as “judicial persecution, instrumentalization of justice, judicialization of politics, legal warfare or judicial warfare (in English, lawfare). It is an expression used to refer to the abusive or illegal use of national and international judicial bodies, maintaining an appearance of legality, to disqualify or provoke popular repudiation against an opponent”.
It seems, according to documents, that the concept and its political instrumentalization were designed by a US military in the context of criticism of the United States in relation to human rights violations in its military interventions in foreign countries.
What is certain is that the political concept was forcefully incorporated into Latin American politics a few years ago from the political or legal judgments of Rafael Correa, Dilma Rousseff and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in their respective countries. Currently, the term is being incorporated by Cristina Kirchner and the Argentine officialdom to define the judicial processes that corner the vice president.
The incorporation of the term by sectors of the left has been used to point out certain judicial processes as political forms of the right to persecute and proscribe leaders, which is not being judged along these lines. But due to its origin, the term was marked in the imagination of Latin American politics as a concept used by the left to refer to an instrument of the right.
This vibrant incorporation of the concept into Latin American politics deserves to address two issues. On the one hand, the political subjectivity of the term, given that it was incorporated from the discourse of the “left” as a weapon from the “right” to persecute political leadership, implies that, ultimately, the concept of lawfare was interpreted in a single direction. In fact, although Donald Trump has used it to discredit the evidence against him, the Latin American “right” has not incorporated it into their political lexicon, assuming that it is just a fallacy of the “left”.
On the other hand, given the possible political intentionality in the use of the term lawfare, – it is enough to mention it to absolutely discredit any legal action on politics – it becomes very difficult to define which legal action has solid legal bases and which is simply used as a political weapon. . But the annulment of the sentence of ex-president Lula in the case led by ex-judge Moro in the scope of the Lava Jato case, precisely because of the application of lawfare, confirms its existence and justifies its incorporation.
If we review the Latin American political map, even before the concept of lawfare became popular, there is a long list of former presidents considered to be right-wing who were indicted and removed from the political arena.
Carlos Salinas de Gortari, former president of Mexico, was prosecuted for corruption crimes along with his brother during his six-year period (1988-1994). Fernando Collor de Mello, former president of Brazil, suffered a political trial for corruption (impeachment) that removed him from the presidency early in 1992.
Carlos Saul Menem, twice president of Argentina (1989-1995 and 1995-1994), was later prosecuted, accused of various corruption offenses and briefly imprisoned. He later ran for senator (was elected) to benefit from political privileges and be exempt from further judicial penalties.
Alberto Fujimori, thrice elected president of Peru and who fled the country when several legal proceedings were opened against him, is currently in prison in his country. Gonzalo Sánchez de Losada, twice president of Bolivia (1993-1997 and 2002-2003), was later tried and convicted in his absence given his permanent stay in the US, while Abdalá Bucaram, president of Ecuador, was removed from office in 1997.
The list goes on and extends to most countries in the region. And although in most cases there seems to be no doubt as to the substantiation of the charges that brought these former presidents to trial in the face of corruption flagrant, incorporating the term lawfare into regional politics, the question arises: were any of these accusations judicial persecutions? If the term had already been introduced in regional politics, would it have been used by the accused and his political structure?
Lawfare, in addition to the enormous difficulties in confirming it, exists and is not the patrimony of any ideology. However, nowadays, its unidirectional use calls into question its real nature, its legal basis and, therefore, its political legitimacy.
With a wealth of experience honed over 4+ years in journalism, I bring a seasoned voice to the world of news. Currently, I work as a freelance writer and editor, always seeking new opportunities to tell compelling stories in the field of world news.
