Bolivia, it is necessary to overcome anti-politics

By: Hugo Marcelo Balderrama - 17/11/2025

Guest columnist.
Share:     

At the end of September, during a family lunch, one of my nephews asked me, "What do you think will happen after the October elections?" His mother immediately cut him off, saying, "We don't talk about politics at the table. Don't bother your uncle." Since I'm a firm believer in family autonomy, I chose not to contradict my cousin.

Episodes like the one described above are more common than they seem. They are not limited exclusively to family events, but are almost universal, even in academic circles. However, this anti-political attitude is very dangerous, as it leaves nations defenseless against those willing to use politics to concentrate power—unscrupulous adventurers, as the great Hayek would say.

A valid question arises here: what are the consequences of this anti-political attitude?

The professor of International Relations, Angelo Codevilla (+), in his book: The character of nations, explains that the Social Sciences start from two opposing premises: one from Rousseau's idea about the natural goodness of man; the other assumes the opposite version: man is bad by nature, ergo, his capacity to do evil must be limited.

The consequences are straightforward: if we believe in the inherent goodness of humankind, then we will place no limits or barriers on power. However, if we are certain that humankind is capable of committing the most despicable acts, then logically, we will limit the exercise of power with every possible mechanism.

Codevilla concludes that anti-politics is a direct result of assuming Rousseau's thesis, since, if my leaders are good, it makes no sense to worry about what they do.

However, reality reminds us that human beings are capable of the greatest evils and that neglecting this brings terrible consequences, let's see:

At the beginning of the new millennium, Bolivia and Chile were not far apart in the Heritage Foundation's Economic Freedom Ranking. Tragically, in October 2003, Bolivia suffered a coup d'état and, with it, entered the criminal franchise of 21st-Century Socialism.

Sad was the fate of those of us who announced the path we were taking with the October Agenda and our submission to the Cuban dictatorship. I still remember an International Law professor telling me, when I was pursuing my second university degree, "You haven't gotten over the Cold War. You're still seeing the living dead," or the ridicule a group of friends and I endured on our TV program. Years later, I understood that universities are Rousseauian; that's why they are the world's great factory of socialists. But that's a topic for another article.

Now the country has over 60% poverty, fuel shortages, a dollar scarcity, double-digit inflation, and a complete absence of democratic institutions. Our families and our assets were decimated during two decades of Castro-Chavismo.

Today the danger is greater; it's called Globalism. A project that doesn't just aim to control human beings, but to redesign them according to a vision imposed by a plutocratic elite. In this regard, Agustín Laje, in his book Globalism, explains:

The anthropology underlying Agenda 2030 is one in which man has no family. The figure of the father does not appear even once, neither in the objectives, nor in the goals, nor in the resolution. The figure of the son or daughter is also absent. The word "mother" is used only once, and that is to refer to "Mother Earth." As for the word "family," it appears only once in a context of little importance, and its derivative "family" appears twice as "family planning." In short, the man of Agenda 2030 has no family, no homeland, and no God; thus, he lacks a strong identity from which political and moral energies can arise, as well as an unwavering will for self-determination.

Now you understand that even if you don't get involved in politics, politics will still interfere in your family, your assets, and even your bed. Overcoming anti-politics is the first step toward having free nations.

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».