“Unchained garbage”, “disgusting”, “trucho gaucho” and “satrap” were some of the epithets that Senator Graciela Bianchi and the communication coordinator of the pink campaign, Esteban Valenti, shared during the months of campaigning for the referendum on the Urgent Consideration Law (LUC).
Exchanges via social networks have multiplied in recent times and have had various protagonists at the center of the scene. Accusations of lies and comments sometimes on the edge of disqualification. On both sides, the campaign for the referendum It went well beyond the discussion on the 135 articles and charged from the different political sectors with a more irritated tone than usual.
Although electoral struggles tend to exacerbate spirits and widen differences, the climate prior to the last Sunday in March revealed a phenomenon that some experts have been warning about for a long time. “We live in a world in which tension is the rule, discussion is a habit and constructive dialogue is a rarity”wrote the political communication expert Julián Kanarek in his book Transcending the reagent that was published last year.
With social networks that are increasingly important in public discussion and in the media apparatus despite having a marginal impact on the bulk of the population, several analysts consulted by The Observer They agreed on the risk involved in the proliferation of more categorical speeches in the political cast, while highlighting the polarization they generate in the people. However, they added that the most confrontational trends are not new or exclusive to digital platforms and that they are now amplified by the extension of Internet use.
speeches and explanations
For the analyst and expert in political communication Federico Irazabal, digital platforms are “kid’s dream” for the leaders because they allow a permanent interaction with the citizens, but in Uruguay they are used very badly. In dialogue with The Observersaid there is “trolls parliamentarians” whose behavior can be explained by the interest of politicians to differentiate themselves from each other.
But this tone of categorical messages and strict preaching does not come with the internet nor are they new in politics. According to the communication consultant and director of the Signo agency, Iván Kirichenko, the use of a confrontational tone is “a common political communication tool” that can respond to different objectives.
One of the possibilities is the game of “the good cop and the bad cop”, indicated Kirichenko, where within the same sector some adopt a more confrontational discourse as part “of a collective strategy” that allows them to “say things that not everyone could say”; something that directly impacts the internal, the electorate and those who make decisions. Another hypothesis is that they serve to neutralize internal opposition or in negotiation situations, she explained.
Although these accents are far from the implications that they carry in other countries, the reading is that the most radical speeches are irremediable. Political scientist Antonio Cardarello pointed out to The Observer that within the political class these speeches are understood as “a necessary evil” because the view is that the adversary must be confronted from all tribunes. “For the parties, it is beneficial to play in both arenas: one more categorical and the other more dialoguing,” he indicated.
In the same sense, Kirichenko defined this type of positioning as “inevitable” because they are “very effective in mobilizing militancy and connecting with publics concerned about a particular issue.”
Bianchi’s stance
“What is politically correct is dangerous because it favors the advancement of autocracies; the Republic defends itself clearly and courageously,” he wrote. bianchi on Twitter last Thursday. The nationalist senator is one of the leaders who maintains a high profile on social networks, something that even led the president of the Broad Front, Fernando Pereira, to request “some indication” in that regard from the Executive power.
In dialogue with The ObserverBianchi said he was not in politics to “do public relations” and that being politically correct implied “being condescending to the most radical sectors of the Broad Front”, while stressing that he is not interested in “politically measuring what is convenient for him and what is not.” The white legislator considered that “what is tense is reality” and, in that sense, she rejected that she had a confrontational style. She actually called it “clearer” than others.
Asked if she was self-critical about the tone used during the referendum campaign, the senator dismissed it outright and said that everything she said was expressed because she felt it, as well as because “republican values” are at stake. “I am a woman of strong character and clear ideological definitions. And I am aware of the risks that Ibero-America runs with respect to autocracies and democracies”, justified Bianchi regarding the trend of recent months.
In addition, he said that he would love to reach agreements with the left, but that “it is impossible with this Broad Front”, beyond the fact that, he clarified, he does not have personal problems with opposition politicians, but with his ideas.
beyond the internet
In the middle of another Holy Week, but 82 years ago, Deputy Washington Beltrán wrote an editorial in the newspaper El País –of which he was one of the directors– in which he was dispatched against former president José Batlle y Ordóñez by: attributing him to being a “champion of fraud” and falsifying elections. The Colorado leader beat him in a duel and the Nationalist leader ended up dead.
Although the contexts are very different, Cardarello argued that the case is a demonstration that “There was always a certain level of aggressiveness.” But social networks have a peculiarity that twists the scenario a little more: as Kanarek explains in his book, digital platforms “are algorithmically designed to retain us as long as possible and for this they have found in controversy, debate and tension a functional dynamic to your business”.
In any case, the experts identify that these discourses on networks permeate reality and also get into the exchanges that take place in political discussions in the real world, through press statements or even in the debates that take place. made in institutional settings.
Asked about the consequences that these speeches may entail, Kirichenko replied that there may be effects both for the leaders themselves and for the system in general. In this sense, the communication consultant argued that facing a confrontational attitude implies “a greater risk” for the leaders because, although it can connect with a certain public, it is also exposed “to damaging their personal and even collective credibility.”
In this sense, the expert emphasized that the Uruguayan electorate has proven to “punish extreme positions” and “reward the capacity for dialogue”, for which political communication does not consider it advisable that the first level of leadership adopt positions that are extremely confrontational. For Cardarello, meanwhile, the aggressive tone “is not beneficial to safeguard” the system
