On February 6, in front of no less than 25 candidates from left to right, the Costa Rican electorate entered the “cereal aisle” to end up realizing that, despite the diversity of packaging, there were no major differences.
Those chosen were a populist and anti-system right-wing candidate, Rodrigo Chaves, and a former president, José María Figueres, who represents a party with a center-left tradition and social-democratic bases, but which today can be classified as a center. -right.
The election between a candidate accused of corruption and complicity in all the ills of the country, and another without greater experience in public administration and accused of sexual harassment, implies a particularly difficult decision for Costa Ricans, as it translates into choosing more of the same or taste a new flavor like populism, with all the risks that entails, with an inexperienced, messianic, boastful, authoritarian and bully candidate.
The political context is complicated. Costa Rica has an unpopular government that has carried on an ineffective fight against historic poverty.
Costa Rican institutions and traditional values of solidarity and social justice have come under attack, while the increasingly unequal society is tired and worn out by the pandemic and corruption. This has been fertile ground for the germination of Trumpism in the country.
As in the United States, Poland, Brazil or El Salvador, a messiah has emerged in Costa Rica who relies exclusively on solutions to solve the country’s problems.
Leveraging an almost virtuous use of social networks and full of half-truths, Chaves presents himself as a viable alternative and capitalizes on discontent.
The democratic system is at risk when the people, anxious and fickle, lend themselves to populist manipulation of speeches without conviction that invoke change with siren songs.
The temptation of a strong hand at the helm is great and makes us temporarily forget that the solution to the problems of democracy is more democracy.
However, change for change’s sake never brings any good. Just look at the disasters and the worsening of crises in the countries where trumpism was established.
The reality is that this steady hand must operate in a system full of counterweights that keep it in check.
However, the defense against the dismantling of institutions is not always effective, since invariably the messiah has the support of elements that, inserted in the institutions, become agents of change. And therein lies the main danger.
Trumpism is characterized by giving voice to extremism, by sowing polarization, by building a parallel reality and by undermining the institutional and moral foundations on which the society of law in which we live is supported.
And in this context, the meticulous use of social networks makes it possible to manipulate sectors of society to favor the interests of the messiah and his followers.
Another characteristic of Trumpism is the blind loyalty of the followers despite the blatant lies of their leader. This was evidenced by the electorate’s timid reaction to a series of unsupported accusations by Chaves.
This is a recurring attitude among followers of populist leaders who want to cover the sun with a sieve while idolizing the bully.
How far does cynicism and disappointment go? Could it be that, like Trump himself, Chaves’ apparent professional success has given him the license to do and say whatever he wants, regardless of the consequences?
Due to his profound ignorance of the public service, Chaves allows himself to make absurd and incendiary statements and proposals that are passionately embraced by an increasingly weakened people.
This vulnerability leads us to think that Costa Rica has gone from being that idyllic nation of citizen solidarity and justice, and institutional respect, to becoming a –polarized and divided– nation of questionable values.
This sad phenomenon has deep roots. The inability of successive governments to solve the most basic problems and the mismanagement of the public treasury created the conditions for the development of a Costa Rican trumpism.
Finally, the press is not blameless either. The inability to question unfeasible proposals is combined with the circulation of unfounded content.
And, similar to the North American press, the Costa Rican press irresponsibly oxygenates the message of discord, simply because it sells.
I want to think that this is nothing more than a passing cloud and, borrowing the words of the Costa Rican poet Isaac Felipe Azofeifa, I hope it is nothing more than a prelude to a new dawn.
