Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
The search for “eternity” has been a fundamental human aspiration deeply rooted in our history and culture. As Jorge Luis Borges once expressed, “Eternity frightens me”, a sentiment that resonates with many. Yet, all human cultures have longed for some form of eternity, whether in their constructions, art, or beliefs. The three monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) indoctrinate their conviction of “after-life”, or eternal life after physical death. Reincarnation has been present in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, and some tribal African and American religions, underscoring the universal nature of this aspiration.
The same aspiration has been expressed in world literature. Stories like Johann Wolfgang Goethe’s Faust, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, or Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein are all books that speak of this human aspiration to find a form of “endless life” that allows us to overcome Borges’ fear of eternity.
What remains to be thoroughly explored or systematically understood is the desire of political leaders to cling to power eternally. The immediate and handy example is the desire of President Maduro to remain in power in Venezuela as if it were a divine mandate. However, there are numerous examples of what can be termed an enlightened leader syndrome. Stalin, Hitler, Perón, Putin, Fidel Castro, Stroessner, and Evo Morales, among many others, living and dead, did not want or do not want to give up power. Even Trump, stepping forward like the dangerous buffoon he is, urged a Christian group to vote for him so that “in 4 years, there will be no need to vote anymore.” The implication is alarming: Trump intends to stay in power forever, a prospect that should raise serious concerns about the future of democracy.
In Venezuela, the dictator Maduro, after being in power for 25 years, has threatened civil war if he loses the elections. He has forbidden the presence of international observers. Polls give a comfortable lead to the opposition, but many think that Venezuelan Bolivarianism will declare itself the winner and that the electoral body, controlled by the government, will do the same. When writing this column, there is still no data on the results. It is simply known that the lines to vote are long, and Venezuelans are eager to change the course of their country.
This is the closest example we have of a ruler clinging to power. He obviously thinks he has some kind of “divine” mandate that allows him to assume that he, and only he, can run that country. It is common in power-addicted leaders who think that only “their” program is good for the country.
This clinging to power is also a product of the profound human contradiction expressed by Borges. Eternity is frightening because there is a well-founded doubt that it does not exist and that, therefore, it is unattainable. But politicians are among the beings most blinded by narcissism. They are not philosophers or deep thinkers, nor do they write down their ideas but take them from others. Therefore, they believe they can achieve eternity in life. They live in the seduction of immediacy and of everything that touches the skin and the surface. The management of power demands this immediacy. They need to gain, however, the ability to visualize the broad groups to understand the common good and the general interest. Everything is reduced to the immediate political interest of the leader, which is an aberration.
This phenomenon of blindness in politics is not isolated. It is a widespread issue that can be observed when a political leader seeks to distort the exercise of power to concentrate everything in his hands, eliminating the processes of consensus building between divergent points of view. The idea that it is preferable to have a one-idea society is a way of imposing the absolute hegemony of power. It is the prelude to authoritarianism and, in some cases, fascism. This concentration of power in the hands of a single leader is a dangerous trend that should be a cause for concern for all who value democracy and freedom.
Plan C, proposed by López Obrador and adopted by Sheinbaum, is a profound conceptual error because it seeks to eradicate through a legislative act, analysis, discussion, and debate in society. It assumes it is possible to build a society submissive to their idea in Mexico. Their blindness does not allow them to see that Mexico is on a different path, one of diversity, inclusion, and democratic debate. Their proposal is the product of leaders blinded by the fear of the temporary nature of the exercise of power, which, they suspect, will force them to early accountability. Hence, the frantic race to remain in power at any cost.
[email protected]
@rpascoep
Further Reading: