Jan
19
What is people?
Posted by: Brian | January 19, 2009 | Comments Off on What is people?
Concerning Eva Perón’s text, I would like to highlight three main points. First of all, to define what she calls “the people”, “her people”, she uses a specific lexical field choosing terms such as “race” of the people, or “blood” of the enemies. This gives us an idea of a bounded community, potentially defined by a racial criterion. More than anything else, the people is defined by opposition to a threatening other, and distinguished from its enemies, which would explain the racial reference. I would personally moderate the meaning of the racial aspects of her discourse in the sense that she also suggests that anyone could become an enemy of the people, implying that belonging to her people is mainly the fact of being committed to its cause and willing to be part of it. Another and more important element is the actual assimilation between the people and the working class (which also means the poor, the oppressed and so on). Her text does give the impression that the whole nation should become part of what is truly the Argentine People; the workers. There is her socialist trend, but she insists on distinguishing her from Marxist radicalism. Her Message is particularly impregnated with the social doctrine of the Church, given her concern for poverty and her will to share her people’s pain.
She constantly emphasizes how much she loves her people and advocate for the convincing idea that everything should arise from the people and work for its well-being. She establishes the people as the primary source of power, an idea which constitutes my second point. Her rhetoric allows us to think of a democratic inspiration. She condemns any imperialism and stand up for the sovereignty of nations. Once a nation independent, she claims the importance of putting the people’s will at the centre of every political decision. She asks for elections of leaders and accuses oligarchic powers, especially the hegemony of military and religious high circles in Argentina.
This leads us to my third point, her view of fanatism. According to her, fanatism should be living in anyone who embraces the people’s cause. She condemns all declared enemies and all those that would be driven by selfish concerns rather than the people’s well being. Rather than serving their own privileged interests, religion and the army should be executing the people’s order. She completely despises anyone that would be indifferent to the people’s future, and would neither be an opponent, nor a defender of the people. To her this question is fundamental! She has a very virulent, passionate, and emotional way of expressing her commitment. Her discourse is clearly radical. She uses strong and violent words. She is also a profound hoper concerning the good fate of her people and she is obviously deeply religious, a fact which is confirmed by Dominguez.
Of course, at the first glance, her text appears as full of good intentions! However it is important to have a critical mind and think about the historical reality of the social and political movement she supported. To me, My Message presents numerous ambiguities and contradictions. She seems to be entirely dedicating herself to her people and her discourse is obviously very populist (people versus elite). Unfortunately the World have often observed that populist leaders also often tend to be demagogue because they use the people’s needs to win the power. I think that the distance between ‘doing what the people wishes’ and ‘saying what the people wants to hear’ is very thin. For instance, Eva Perón starts a kind of anti military speech or condemns very strongly every enemy of the people. However she also tries not to be too revolutionary in order to insure popular support. She seems to fear the consequences of her attacks against historical institutions of the country such as the army or the clergy. Similarly, she condemns ambition but her writings seem to describe her as an ambitious woman, very confident in the way she gives her life as an example.
All of this is particularly ironic coming from someone who evolved in the highest circles of the Argentine society. She wants to stand by her people but I really doubt she had never been one of them, despite what she said. The last thing that striken me was her deep admiration and unlimited devotion towards Perón. Although she was apparently really influent within the worker’s movement, all her fight and all her convictions were primarily coming from the man she loved and his own doctrine. Actually, it seems that she had the same profound faith in their charismatic leader as anybody else that supported Perónism. There is the huge contradiction of these regimes I try to criticize here. They claim the people’s power against the hegemony of the elite but everything lies on one man’s shoulders. This situation definitely put democracy in danger!
I am glad we had these two articles to compare because the second one is a fantastic denial and critic of Eva’s vision. Although I do share her socialist inclination, the generosity and the promises of her discourse have a blinding effect. Perón have been supported by the majority of the population during a long time, however populism often mask the reality of regimes that usually need a military order and a doctrinal homogeneity to survive. I would not dare to make such hypothesis concerning Perónism however the least we can say is that they was an opposition in Argentina. People such as Borges have known censure and political isolation. With his text he suggests that there was certainy an authoritarian and indoctrinating aspect of the regime. Indeed, Perón has been very controversial and also very harsh towards any kind of opposition. Borges helps us remind the downside of the regime. I am very sceptical towards populist discourses; I have always felt that they were speculating on the people misfortune, promising anything to reach the power. However, it is more the rhetoric than the famous Evita that I tried to criticize. I am sure she really was concerned with her people, however she was also really idealistic.
