Mythomania, Relativism and Tepidity: The Erosion of Democratic Credibility

The contradictions between electoral promises, economic responsibility and the exercise of power undermine trust in politics.

MYTHOMANIA, RELATIVISM AND TEPIDITY
The political actions that destroy democratic credibility
By Dr. Nelson Jorge Mosco Castellano

The deception of left-wing economic technocrats
Comrades, fellow party members, Broad Front supporters of all times, compatriots who trusted the promise of a Uruguay with greater justice and more rights.
There are moments in the political life of a country and of our political force when we have to look one another in the eye and say things as they are, without mincing words.
For years we went through the committees, neighborhoods and unions, embracing people and promising a program that kindled hope among the most humble. People were promised that we would eradicate child poverty, that we would ensure decent wages, that we would strengthen public healthcare and FONASA so that no one would be left exposed, that we would give education all the resources it needs, and that we would take care of our retirees, those veterans who gave a lifetime of work and who today suffer pensions that condemn them to hunger.
But then came the positions, the offices of the Ministry of Economy were occupied, and suddenly the narrative changed.
We learned from the very voices of the technical officials themselves that the program was “unaffordable.”
And do you know what is serious about this? Those same technocrats and ministers did not discover the numbers when they took office: they knew perfectly well the state of the public accounts, the fiscal constraints and the country’s macroeconomic reality before writing every line of the programmatic platform.
Knowing full well that the money was not there, because everyone knows the figures of the state economy, they preferred to sign the commitment in order to capture the votes of naïve voters, mobilize the grassroots and win the election, knowing in advance that afterward they would blame the inheritance they received or harsh reality in order to file the promises away in a drawer.
But the disrespect did not end there. A year and a half after becoming the ones managing the economy, they had the audacity to summon those same grassroots supporters and trade unionists—whom they had already told that the money was not there—to the so-called “Social Dialogue”; they sat them down in front of them once again to lie to their faces, assuring them that this time what had been agreed was indeed viable, perpetuating the deception and playing with the good faith of the militants.
It is a mockery of the most basic ethics of the left.
But it is even more serious: the left does not have an absolute majority and therefore requires votes from the opposition. And the opposition swims through stormy waters against its own convictions, lacks a clear alternative plan of action, and deceives its own voters by ultimately agreeing to provide “governability” to a bunch of serial liars.
Version 1: To capture naïve voters (The narrative of illusion)
Comrades, do not give in! The program of change is possible and within reach if we have the political will to move forward. If they summon us to the Social Dialogue, it is because there is a golden opportunity to assert our demands—the promises of the Program that they themselves produced.
How can we say there are no resources when there are sectors of wealth that concentrate everything and do not contribute enough?
If we implement substantive measures, child poverty can be fought by directing massive resources to families, because a country that does not care for its children has no future.
Workers deserve real wages that grow above inflation, and informality is crushed with more inspections and more rights, not by bowing our heads before the “malla oro.”
Education must reach 6+1 percent of GDP.
And what about healthcare and our retirees? FONASA must be expanded, not reduced; more public resources must be put into it so that access to healthcare does not depend on anyone’s pocket.
Retirees, the veterans who built this country, cannot be turned away: they deserve a special payment and a decent year-end bonus that gives them back some joy.
Let us not swallow the story that there are no resources; the money is there, what is missing is the political courage to distribute it with social justice!
WHO HAS NOT HEARD THIS IDYLLIC VERSION IN THE LEFT’S GRASSROOTS COMMITTEES?
Version 2: So that the country does not go bankrupt (The harshness of reality)
But let us put our feet on the ground, because romanticism without numbers ends up destroying the weakest people we want to defend.
If we stubbornly insist on endorsing an unviable Program and what irresponsible people resolved in the Social Dialogue—a festival of promises and inventions that we already know are financially and technically unviable—what we destroy is the engine of the entire economy.
An uncontrolled surge in public spending financed through makeshift measures destroys any stability. Inflation shoots up, and when prices rise, the first to lose purchasing power are precisely the lowest-income sectors, retirees with fixed pensions and workers in the middle sectors.
If we suffocate the economy with greater tax pressure and scare away private investment, businesses close, formal employment collapses and workers end up pushed into informality, losing all social security coverage.
And FONASA? A universal healthcare system cannot be sustained by decree or magical voluntarism; if the State goes bankrupt and revenue falls, providers collapse, high-cost medicines run out and the quality of public healthcare deteriorates for everyone.
Governing responsibly does not mean betraying the ideals of social justice; it means having the courage to tell people the truth in government offices and at dialogue tables.
Because if the country goes bankrupt in order to maintain unsustainable narratives, the first to pay the price are invariably the most humble.
And how do you tie these two flies together by the tail? Who can one believe after such a contradiction, repeated several times over?
As always, the trade union leadership has the answer: WE STRIKE TODAY and continue TOMORROW; after all, the career ladder goes from left-wing trade unionist to minister of anything.

Political promises and credibility
Economic responsibility
Democratic coherence

Continue reading in Global Order and Geopolitics