Freedom Also Dies Through Ungovernability

When dogma replaces the democratic method, the State is trapped between paralysis, political messianism and the loss of real freedom.

The Blockade of Governance Destroys Freedom
By Dr. Nelson Jorge Mosco Castellano

The corporation of blockade and the symptom of sterile messianism
The contemporary political landscape has become a theater of shadows where public management is no longer measured by its tangible results, but by the purity of its ideological liturgies.
We live in the age of abstract polarization. A permanent staging in which two minority yet noisy factions have hijacked public conversation: on one side, furious statism, which conceives the public apparatus as factional booty and an end in itself; on the other, a radical, dogmatic liberalism that confuses necessary institutional reform with an impulse toward total demolition.
This collision is not cost-free. It has a direct cost on institutional architecture and, fundamentally, on the daily functioning of governments.
Politics has ceased to be the art of the possible —or the technique of administering scarcity— and has become a war of moral trenches. In that mud, technical pragmatism and legal certainty are the first victims.
The pendulum of the trenches
To understand the obstruction of the State, one must look at the dynamics of the pendulum. Governments require, by definition, a high degree of underlying continuity. The construction of infrastructure, the modernization of fiscal control systems, educational reform or macroeconomic stabilization do not mature within a five-year term; they require intertemporal agreements.
However, the logic of extreme polarization imposes a constant “design trauma.”
Let us look at it closely.
The furious statist operates under an almost mystical premise: the success of a government is evaluated by the size of its organizational chart and the volume of public spending. It does not matter whether ministries duplicate functions or whether public companies are black holes of inefficiency; for this view, any attempt at rationalization or audit is denounced as an attack on the “social role of the State.”
Spending is not a countercyclical tool or a mechanism of equity; it is the metric of its own morality.
On the opposite sidewalk, radical liberalism commits an error of inverse symmetry. Its approach to the res publica is not that of a surgeon seeking to remove unproductive fat in order to save the organ, but that of a demolisher who assumes that the State is an intrinsically perverse conceptual enemy.
By approaching management with that premise of tabula rasa, they despise professional bureaucracy, dismantle indispensable oversight agencies and confuse intelligent deregulation with normative anarchy.
The result is a violent pendulum. What one administration builds, the next refounds.
The rules of the game change at the speed of a tweet, destroying predictability. No investor, national or foreign, risks capital in a country where property, contracts and regulatory frameworks depend on the dogmatic mood of the ruler of the day. Basic management becomes a matter of survival.
Dogma against data
There is a second factor that paralyzes modern administrations: the replacement of empirical evidence by confirmation bias.
Today technology offers tools of unprecedented power to bring transparency to management. Digitalization, automated audit systems through artificial intelligence or the traceability of public funds would make it possible to optimize the State, reducing superfluous political spending without leaving the vulnerable unprotected.
But dogma is refractory to data. When a technical audit shows that a social program is being misappropriated or that a corporate subsidy is inefficient, radical statism blocks reform by invoking reasons of sovereignty or social justice. They prefer to protect friendly corporatism rather than accept the truth of the balance sheet.
The radical liberal, for his part, falls into his own cognitive trap. If technical design shows that the proper functioning of an open market requires a strong and transparent regulatory agency to prevent monopolies and guarantee competition, the dogmatist rejects it outright.
For him, all regulation is “interventionism,” preferring the opacity of disorder to the efficiency of the norm. Thus, the modernization of the State becomes trapped in an ideological pincer: one side does not want to audit for fear of losing power; the other does not want to regulate for fear of contaminating its theoretical purity.
The void and the hour of the alchemists
The inevitable consequence of this blockade is legislative paralysis. In any republic worthy of the name, budgets and structural laws require negotiation.
But in the ecosystem of polarization, transaction is seen as sin. Yielding an inch in a parliamentary committee to unblock a law is interpreted by one’s own bases as a betrayal of dogma. Politicians prefer the applause of their intense minority on social networks and in polls to the success of a law approved by consensus.
It is precisely at this deadlock, where traditional institutions prove sterile in resolving an expensive and inefficient country, insecurity, poverty or the deterioration of public services, that the rupture of representation occurs.
Civil society, exhausted by a political class that spends its energy on Byzantine debates while reality deteriorates, begins to experience a deep institutional fatigue.
It is the hour of the outsiders.
The outsider is not a cause; he is the symptom of a dysfunction.
He emerges as the natural product of a system that has stopped tuning in to citizens’ demands.
His physiognomy is well known: he presents himself as a surgeon outside the political body, uncontaminated, whose main credential is total impugnation. He does not promise to administer better; he promises to destroy the temple.
At first glance, his discourse offers the illusion of action. Faced with the complexity of fiscal reforms or the subtlety of the balance of powers, the outsider simplifies. He offers magical solutions, shock slogans and a messianic rhetoric that channels the anger of the street.
Citizens, frustrated by years of parliamentary inaction, surrender to the promise of the strong leader who will move forward “with or without institutions.”
The trap of ungovernability
However, recent history shows that these phenomena usually lack a real positive alternative and end up devoured by the same paralysis they promised to combat. This is what we may call the trap of the brake on governance.
The outsider becomes a decision-maker and a brake; nothing satisfies him. He cannot define himself as a statist because he radically criticized statism; he cannot affiliate himself with liberalism because he has branded its deviations and exposed its human weaknesses.
He condemns politics to legislative orphanhood. The outsider comes to power on the back of a wave of public opinion, but without a robust party structure. He finds himself facing a fragmented and hostile discursive activity.
In a republican democracy, this scenario would require superior skill to weave coalitions, negotiate allocations and build circumstantial majorities. But the outsider is trapped in his own narrative: if you negotiate with Parliament, you become what you promised to destroy.
Permanent conflict replaces coalition, and the legislative process is shut down.
The republican labyrinth
At the end of the road, the panorama is bleak. The state machinery continues to function by inertia, but direction is lost in the background noise of a Twitter-like fight.
The great challenge of modern republics is not to resolve the historical tension between market and State; that discussion is legitimate and healthy.
The real drama is the loss of the democratic method: the capacity to process dissent through clear rules, respect for checks and balances, and a minimal dose of technical pragmatism.
As long as extreme factions continue to prefer the purity of dogma to the success of management, and as long as society continues to seek salvation in the magic of converts, governments will continue marching toward paralysis.
And in that labyrinth, the one that ultimately loses is the real freedom of citizens.

Dogma and paralysis
State and method
Outsiders and freedom

Continue reading in Global Order and Geopolitics