Somos una revista independiente que sobrevive gracias a tu apoyo. ¿Quieres ser parte de este proyecto? ¡Bríndanos un café al mes!
Mariza Bafile

Politics versus Populism

Translated by Sasha Reiter


Dressed in white, sober, smiling and serious at the same time, Hillary Clinton, rose to the podium of the Democratic Convention and accepted the candidature for the United States Presidency. For the first time, a woman has succeeded to break the glass ceiling of masculine power in this country, marking a before and after in her history.

Hillary Clinton knows her capacities and limitations well. She knows that she does not have gifts of fabrication like her husband, nor the power to move the masses like Sanders or Obama. She is not interested in handling the populist language. She is, however, an extremely prepared person and she is familiar with national and international policy like few others. She was a young college student when she began to fight for a more just country. She was the first to fly the flag of health reform and has defended the rights of the most weak, of children, of the disabled, of immigrants, of African Americans and of women. We remember the words she spoke in 1995 in Beijing, during the Fourth World Conference on women, and that she repeated in front of the audience of the Democratic Convention: the rights of women are human rights.

Hillary Clinton, who in her private affairs with people of all kinds is warm, concerned and kind, in public appears much more reserved and cold, an attitude that many criticize her for. The truth is that any woman who must build a space in a male dominated place, knows how difficult it is to avoid her femininity being confused with disability. This quality, especially for a politician, could be lethal.

Nevertheless, during the Democratic Convention, Hillary knew how to reach the hearts and the minds of the people, of all, regardless of their political preferences, religions, sexes, nationality and migratory state.

She did not use screams, rather clear words. She did not present a doomsday scenario, she pointed out the progress that has been made in the eight years of Obama’s presidency, but also the problems that still exist and demand solutions. She did not launch proclamations, she listed the most important points of a structured and serious program. She took on as her own the battles of Bernie Sanders, she spoke of inclusion and not exclusion, of alliances and not walls, of peace and not war. Meanwhile in the streets, thousands of people participated in the march organized for Food & Water Watch, asking for clean energy and protesting against fracking and its devastating effects to the environment. Hillary promised attention to environmental issues and policies to regress global climate change. She did not speak in the singular, rather, she spoke in the plural. “Her” country, the country that she wants to build with the contribution all are responsible for, is inclusive, open, respectful of all its differences, solid in its international relations.

Neither her words, nor her tone of voice, nor her gestures were those of a populist. Hillary Clinton took on the candidature to the White House with the responsibility and seriousness of a statesman.

After attending to so many vulgarities on behalf of the other candidate, after living through, as Latin Americans, the consequences of the lies of populists, so skillful at manipulating the most genuine sentiments of the people; the speech of the Democratic candidate to the White House, opened a hope. Even in a world that swallows everything in one second, that searches for the immediacy of infeasible promises, it is possible to witness the return of politics, good politics.

In spite of everything, the path toward the Presidency, for Hillary, is very steep and the next months will be hard. She should confront dismal, slanderous attacks; she would be a victim of a dirty war without being safe from assaults. As demonstrated by the hacker intrusion, possibly Russian, in the information systems of the Committee of the Democratic Congressional Campaign. Hillary should also overcome the shadows of past errors and disperse the distrust that still exists in her own electorate. She would need to redouble efforts for the simple fact that she is a woman, because the hole that she has made in the glass ceiling with her candidature does not assure her definite fracture. It could simply be a hole that is refilled, stronger than before.

In this moment, there are 14 women occupying the office of President or Prime Minister in one of the 196 countries of the world. It was 15 before the beginning of the impeachment process against Roussef. Isabel Perón, in Argentina, who was the first woman Chief of State in the world, while the first to occupy the chair of Prime Minister was Sirimavo Bandaranaike in Sri Lanka.

The most recent election is that of Theresa May, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the only woman after Margaret Thatcher.

The election of Hillary can signify a great milestone for the women of a country marked by inequalities in the workplace and with a high index of gender violence. Also, to occupy the Presidential chair of a nation like the United States, that plays a very important strategic role in an international level, would signify a step forward in the rights of all women, wherever they may be. However, to say that you must vote for Hillary, simply because she is a woman, would be reductive and unjust.

Hillary is, above all, a politician with great experience, prepared and serious. She is a person who, regardless of her gender and her private life, is qualified to assume a responsibility as large as is the government of a country that can determine the future of mankind. Plentiful are the things in play in these elections and plentiful are also the day to day problems thousands of people have to resolve between anger, fear and hopelessness. Different, so different, are the paths that the two candidates propose to face those challenges. Democrats and Republicans have always had different visions, but never have they reached a polarization so radical.

Politics is set against populism. The responsibility of reason versus the passion of the gut. The games are open and the result, dramatically unpredictable.

Hey you,
¿nos brindas un café?