'Mujica envisioned the small nation as a kind of moral reserve'
Columnist Mac Margolis, from Estadão, says that, with the charm of a man out of his time, the words of the Uruguayan president resonated most at the UN meeting: “An inspired speaker, Mujica outlined a better world on the nation's podium, without rampant capitalism and greed; 'If we aspire to consume like an average American, three planets would be essential for us to live,' he said.”
247 – Uruguayan President José Mujica's speech at the UN continues to resonate on social media as the most surprising of the United Nations General Assembly. According to columnist Mac Margolis of Estadão, he painted a picture of a better world, free from rampant capitalism and greed, from the national podium. Read more:
The world according to Mujica
It wasn't Barack Obama's anticipated speech that moved the world last week at the UN General Assembly. Nor was it Dilma Rousseff's outcry. The words that resonated most in New York, before igniting social media, were those of Uruguayan President José Mujica.
His agenda had little to do with the concerns of the moment, such as the war in Syria or the American espionage scandal that so outraged Brasília. Snooping into Uruguay? "That would be a waste of time," he says. "I come from the South," he began his speech. The reference was to his southern country, but it also alludes to the discreet position he occupies in the world scene, outside the radar and conflicts of the great powers.
Thus, Mujica projected his small nation as a kind of moral reserve. If today emerging countries claim their place in the sun, Uruguay prides itself on its humble location, "at the corner of the Atlantic and the Plata," a marvel only in terms of the social agenda.
Mujica exudes the charm of a man ahead of his time. The vision of this 78-year-old former guerrilla fighter, who gave up the presidential residence, eats vegetables grown in his own garden, and donates a good portion of his salary to charity, comes from further back. A vision from the 70s.
An inspired speaker, Mujica outlined a better world from the nation's podium, one free from rampant capitalism and greed. "If we aspire to consume like the average American, we would need three planets to live on." And how can we save the planet, he asked, if "every minute we spend US$2 million on military actions?" His solution: "Mobilize the major economies not to create disposable goods with calculated obsolescence, but useful goods, without frivolity, to help uplift the world's poor."
The gospel according to Mujica sounds as beautiful as it is distant from the reality of Latin America, where most of the "excluded" yearn to participate in capitalism. "Latin America today wants more, not less," says Bernardo Sorj, a Uruguayan scholar. At the same time, his anti-capitalist discourse is relevant today. His indictment of greed and the excesses of money resonates widely, especially in the electoral arena.
From Mexico City to Santiago, political parties parade their carnival of acronyms, but none dares to assume a liberal identity. In 1992, when historian Francis Fukuyama declared the "end of history," he was referring to the end of the ideological clash of the Cold War that divided countries between communism and capitalism. A victory for the liberal consensus, said Fukuyama, because the dirigiste alternatives collapsed with the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Except in Latin America. Here, the aversion to liberalism is a continental consensus. Of course, the sale of state-owned elephants, the end of the monopoly in the oil industry, and trade liberalization boosted commerce and created jobs, but this is not spoken aloud, much less during free election broadcasts. To embrace the liberal banner in Latin America today is like confessing to pedophilia. Political history in the region is over. We are all social democrats.
There are several explanations for Latin American conformism. Social inequality is labeled as a scourge of the markets. The collapse of global capitalism in 2008 did not help. Worse, in many countries, the right wing, fond of liberal discourse, became partners with the military, even when dictators chose to expand the state.
But it also has to do with the inertial force of a bloated state, greedy for taxes, that occupies the space of private initiative, rewards friends, and controls unions and jobs. Hostages of the giant, with Stockholm Syndrome, we become attached to its shadow. A claustrophobic utopia of the 70s.