In many democracies, the alternation between right-wing and left-wing governments does not occur under symmetrical conditions. This asymmetry is reflected in the organic and structural nature of the parties: the right tends to be more cohesive, with strong leadership and shared strategies, while the left is characterized by greater internal fragmentation, more marked ideological diversity, and a permanent—and often paralyzing—debate between nuances and internal currents.
This difference is not only cultural; it often has material roots. The right maintains greater proximity to capital, large business groups, and the media, which gives it greater capacity for public outreach, more campaign resources, and a more homogeneous narrative augmented by the main speakers of public debate.
The left, more closely linked to social movements and grassroots networks, has more difficulty articulating a unified and lasting discourse. In these times, this means that, despite gaining power, they often do so in weaker coalitions, which can be perceived as unstable or less efficient.
This dynamic means that the left comes to power in conditions of structural inferiority, often after the erosion of right-wing governments, but with difficulty consolidating. The right, on the other hand, presents itself as guarantors of order and stability, being able to return to power more easily, thanks to its cohesion and the tacit or active support of dominant economic interests.
Thus, the alternation of power, which should reflect democratic pluralism, is affected by a structural asymmetry that systematically favors the right. Making this reality visible is key to deepening the democratic quality and transformative capacity of political forces.
