"The 'new right' shares a deeply anti-feminist discourse"

---

Transcript of Karina Batthyány's column
in InfoCLACSO – November 1, 2023

The right-wing movement dominates the agenda in every sense: the agenda on the streets, in the media, in everyday conversations, and in workplaces. What's at stake in Argentina is a choice between two very different models. One of them is represented by Javier Milei, who even calls into question the very foundations of the democratic system in some of the arguments heard throughout this campaign.

Taking a step back from Argentina, let's consider the regional phenomenon a bit more. Because while there's a saying that Argentinians often repeat, "You wouldn't understand," it can actually be understood within the regional context. Of course, each country has its own particularities.

Argentina is part of a Latin American regional context in which we are witnessing the rise of right-wing movements, a complex phenomenon that we must analyze by incorporating a series of factors. The first of these is that it is a regional phenomenon that completely transcends it. We also see it in Europe, for example, as in the case of Italy or with manifestations in Germany, among others. We should also consider the upcoming elections in France or Spain, and we could continue giving examples.

We are witnessing a surge in right-wing expressions worldwide. Looking at our region, these right-wing movements are clearly a heterogeneous phenomenon, encompassing traditional political parties and more recently formed ones, as well as broader political movements representing diverse tendencies.

It's important to remember that we have two expressions of right-wing politics: the more traditional, partisan kind, and what could be described as more populist right-wing movements. The latter have experienced the greatest growth in our region in recent years, as seen, for example, in the phenomenon of Jair Bolsonaro (in Brazil) or in the electoral support Javier Milei received in the first round of voting in Argentina.

There is a resurgence of right-wing movements in Latin America that, in every case, represents a challenge to democracy, at least to liberal democracy or the democracy currently in place in most of our region. This is because it directly calls into question democratic expressions, civic rights, and the rights associated with individuals, which have been hard-won achievements in the accumulation of democracy in our countries; in the case of Argentina, for 40 years.

Regarding populism, we must not forget that these new right-wing movements employ populist rhetoric that appropriates demands from popular sectors. This includes several key characteristics: they are strongly nationalist, defenders of the national identity, where the issue of migration becomes a threat. Furthermore, these right-wing movements are profoundly anti-establishment.

And when we say this, we're also talking about their profound anti-state stance. They maintain a strong critique of the state's role and all the public policies it promotes. Furthermore, they consider corruption a common element of political expression. We can't deny that corruption exists in politics—in some cases. But it's one thing to analyze corruption as a phenomenon that can occur, and quite another to portray it as the norm, a characteristic of what in Argentina is called the "political class."

To claim that the entire political system is corrupt, that is, to extend this idea of ​​corruption to the entire political class, implies, among other things, a profound questioning of the democratic system, because political parties are at the base of the expression of this system.

That's why I, personally, am concerned about this type of rhetoric. Because it attacks the foundation of the democratic system, which is the political parties, and erodes the trust of the citizens, who precisely elect these political parties for their representation. Furthermore, these new right-wing movements, which are not so new or novel in this sense, clearly defend neoliberalism to the extreme.

They are profoundly neoliberal because they advocate for reducing public spending and minimizing state intervention or the state's role in our societies. This implies extreme privatization of state-owned enterprises, public services, natural resources, and even things one would never imagine in Argentina, like privatizing the sea. It means putting markets once again at the center and as regulators of all aspects of our daily lives.

Another characteristic they share is authoritarianism. These new right-wing movements have a clearly authoritarian tendency, reflected in their rhetoric, but also in their advocacy of repression and their emphasis on security as a core value. Therefore, to achieve this security, anything seems justifiable, even the most extreme repression and the undermining of basic democratic institutions. I'm referring to the challenge to the powers of the State—that is, the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive branch.

We must be very careful, because this authoritarianism implies the rejection of certain shared values ​​that have been painstakingly built over a long period in our societies, such as those generally associated with new rights or social rights. I'm thinking of diversity, the LGBTQ+ movement, feminism, environmentalism—in short, the entire agenda of new rights that is being rejected through authoritarian means.

There's also the issue of identity. There's a defense of certain values ​​as constitutive of that cultural identity, that national identity, which is fundamental in the discourse and mobilization of some sectors that support these right-wing or new right-wing movements in this identity construction. Of course, this is tied to very conservative and strongly traditional values, such as the traditional family, the concept of nationhood, and once again, the rejection of anything foreign, foreign, migrant, or anything different.

We have seen examples of this in Brazil with Jair Bolsonaro's nationalist and anti-immigration rhetoric during his presidency. Nor should we forget the former president of Chile, Sebastián Piñera, who exemplifies neoliberalism taken to the extreme in the policies he implemented regarding privatizations and the market as the center of everything. In Peru, we also saw the electoral campaigns of a few years ago with Keiko Fujimori, daughter of Alberto Fujimori, representing these new right-wing movements.

One thing I've been thinking about for a few months now—and of course, many analyses agree on this point—is that there's a common denominator among all these right-wing movements, a characteristic that stands out when you start analyzing them case by case: antifeminism. These new right-wing movements have adopted a profoundly antifeminist discourse as part of their political strategy and as part of their core ideology. This discourse is based on the idea that feminism is a radical approach that threatens the traditional values ​​of our societies, the family, religion, life, and traditional values. And it constructs a series of deeply antifeminist arguments, or arguments to attack feminism, which, in the case of Latin America, even involve what is known as "gender ideology."

Furthermore, it's not just treated as an ideology, but an imported one, completely foreign to our Latin American culture, and an attack on life itself, because it promotes abortion, promiscuity, and the destruction of the family. It seeks to impose an agenda whose ultimate result will be the discrimination or elimination of men. This is a recurring theme in these discourses that are emerging in all our countries. In some cases, they are more successful or riskier, as in Argentina, where they are even a factor in the final presidential race. In others, they occupy a secondary position, as in Uruguay, where these discourses are present in the legislative chambers.

Let's remember that Uruguay's military party, Cabildo Abierto, holds three seats in the Senate (out of a total of 30). There, they represent the party and promote this type of clearly antifeminist rhetoric, which has had a direct negative impact on the rights of women in Latin America and the Caribbean. Furthermore, it has contributed to stigmatizing feminists and the Women's Movement, attempting to delegitimize the demands that women in Latin America have been making.

– There is a lot of male leadership within these new far-right movements, but lately we've seen many cases of women like Marine Le Pen in France, and even Victoria Villarruel in Argentina. These are women advocating for these anti-rights agendas, which have been won by sectors of feminism in our region…

– That's why I was talking about feminists and not necessarily just women. Because being a woman doesn't guarantee being a feminist, just as being a man doesn't guarantee being a sexist…

– But do you think that these female leaders within the framework of the new right also arise from a need to include other women? Or what effects do you think these new leaders might have?

– Clearly, it reflects the progress and the unstoppable changes in social structures and systems that lead to greater participation of women in all spheres of life, not only in the private but also in the public. It's not the arrival of a female figure per se, but rather how feminist ideas are presented and how they are attacked. Of course, men who defend these feminist ideas are also attacked.

Ultimately, let's not forget that when we talk about feminism, we're talking about a feminism for everyone. Because there are also different currents within feminism, such as liberal feminism, known theoretically, based on Nancy Fraser's categorization, as the feminism of the 1%, which defends these liberal ideas, or whose only concern regarding inequalities between men and women is in the market in a broad sense. Particularly, in the labor market, that is, the gender pay gap and the different occupations available to men and women.

Here we're talking about a feminist perspective from a legal standpoint, and rights in their broadest sense. The anti-feminist discourse that's gaining ground in our region is against that and represents a challenge to the advancement of this new agenda of social rights in general. Furthermore, it's generating a climate of hostility toward feminist women in the region that we thought we had overcome. Because when feminism first emerged, those who identified as feminists were viewed with a certain distance and hostility.

The Feminist Movement has made tremendous progress in Latin America in placing certain issues on the public agenda. And now comes this backlash, made up of both women and men, that aims to reverse all the progress made on that agenda. What worries me most is that they intend to roll back the culture of equality in its broadest sense and in its various dimensions, a central one being respect for the rights of women and gender minorities.

– In the context of this possibility of a very brutal setback, what is your analysis regarding the impact of universities and the social sciences in particular?

– To analyze past cases, we saw the impact clearly in Brazil. Where this type of rhetoric takes hold, it immediately leads to cuts in public services across the board. The first step is cutting funding for public universities to stifle those institutions. We are also seeing this in Uruguay, where for the first time the University of the Republic has not only received budget increases, but its budget has been frozen, which, due to inflation, implies a reduction in real terms. This is despite the fact that the university is growing in terms of enrollment, course offerings, and curriculum. This has a direct impact on the public sector and on the public sphere of education.

If we look more closely, taking Brazil as an example, it wasn't just the public education system, particularly the university level, that was cut back or stifled. Within that system, training and research opportunities in the social sciences were also shut down because they were deemed to focus on ideological rather than scientific knowledge. In other words, the social sciences were seen as producing ideology to justify progressive movements or policies, not scientific knowledge. Therefore, the system was effectively strangled, restricted, and even closed down; disciplines were eliminated, and funding was slashed.

All of this should put us on high alert and deeply concerned. Let's remember what happened during the pandemic, when at first the social sciences were somewhat sidelined, but later it became clear that they were essential to understanding what was happening. Not to understand it from a health, medical, or epidemiological perspective, but rather in terms of the social consequences of the lockdowns and the changes in daily life that we all experienced. The social sciences proved to be absolutely crucial at that time.

Therefore, this rollback of new social rights is not a threat, but a possible reality. We have already seen what happens in countries where this type of rhetoric is successful and comes to power. I repeat: let's consider the recent experience of Brazil and what the country became under Jair Bolsonaro's government. Bolsonaro's Brazil turned its back on practically the entire region with nationalist rhetoric. Today, we know that if our countries are not involved in regional integration processes, they are condemned to isolation, unable to overcome their economic and social problems. The atmosphere in Argentina regarding what might happen on November 19, 2023, is one of great concern.

---

---