"Freedom is incompatible with democracy"It seemed like a joke from the Trumpian universe, designed to create noise and legitimize the president's nihilism and the conviction of the oligarchs who surround him that, for them, there are no limits: they can get away with anything. But the idea is spreading with a disturbing contagion effect, as if it were meant to be the new economic, social, and communicational one.
Until now, democracy has been the regime in which freedoms have been best able to flourish; each individual must define the framework within which this freedom is possible. Freedom cannot be unilateral nor can it give free rein to the subjugation of others, although, in recent times, new elites seem to have made this their way of being in the world. This is due to a very elementary, very basic fact: no two people are alike, and therefore, in any relationship, there are differences in potential, sometimes enormous." Esther Vera, in a recent articleFreedom—the heritage we must protect if we want to remain free—requires the recognition of the other and is therefore incompatible with the logic of those who think there are no limits. Have they still not grasped the precariousness of the human condition? But beware, because any attempt to stop can be high-risk, especially at a time when control of opinion is being transferred to the digital realm, where the impulse that is allowed reigns supreme.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau said that one's freedom ends where another's begins. Let's put it positively: freedom acquires meaning in relation to others. The exercise of freedom is not a solitary delusion: it is a fact that weaves relationships between people and, therefore, creates community. No two people are alike, but this does not absolve us of responsibility; on the contrary, it demands more. There is no freedom without a shared framework. The rest is the law of the strongest, that is, the law of the jungle (no offense intended to animals).
We are at a point where democratic societies are an overwhelming minority in the world. The promise—or illusion—of the fall of the Berlin Wall has quickly faded. The wave stopped soon. And the legacy is heavy. This failure has spurred on the superpowers of the so-called First World. In neoliberalism, those in power react to any limitation and, therefore, oppose recognizing the rights of others and policies of equality. And it is not enough for them to play with the advantages they have acquired; they want to tilt the institutions in their favor. How? By renouncing democracy and, therefore, the recognition of equal rights and duties, and with free rein to impose their hegemony, without limits. And so we have arrived at the current trend: freedom (for those who can afford it), yes; democracy, no. And we have already had a couple of years with Trump flouting the law left and right. And just now the courts, public opinion, and American institutions are beginning to show some signs of reacting.
How many crimes has Trump committed without anyone raising their voice? And always with the same alibi: we are the saviors of the nation (and the world: free rein in Venezuela, for example) and democracy is an obstacle. A strange redemption that corners citizens and is in open conflict with anyone who opposes it. Except, of course, for the other indomitable powers. Before whom does Trump remain silent? Before the great American and Chinese magnates. And Europe, increasingly subservient, doesn't dare to speak out, as if it were waiting for American society to break the silence. A lost opportunity to recover dignity and autonomy. The Trump virus has contaminated a good part of the economic power structure and the conservative sphere.
