Why the Left Should Not Govern, but Must Exist
In the political dynamics of contemporary societies, the coexistence of left-wing and right-wing forces is essential for the balance and well-being of the society understood as a complex system.
We asume some general characteristics of both political orientations: the left, with its inherent tendency to promote change; and the right, with its vocation to preserve order and institutions, represent two indispensable poles in the socio-political dynamic.
The left is distinguished by its natural inclination to induce profound changes in social, political, and economic structures. This impulse is based on values such as empathy and social justice, which particularly resonate with young people and those with a sensitivity towards equality and fairness. The left, with its emphasis on wealth redistribution, expansion of rights, and social reform, has a remarkable ability to mobilize large sectors of the population around perceived just and necessary causes. This dynamism is vital to question the status quo and promote significant improvements in society. However, when these ideals are transferred to the governmental sphere, they can result in excessive intervention that weakens the system by attempting to reform too many structures precipitously and without adequate consideration of long-term consequences.
On the other hand, the right is characterized by its natural tendency to conserve and maintain formal and informal social institutions. This vocation towards order and stability is crucial for social cohesion and sustained economic development. The right promotes individualism in terms of rights and freedoms, which can make the formation of massive social movements more challenging. However, when these movements arise, they are often associated with extremely conservative values, limiting their appeal to a smaller segment of the population. The conservative nature of the right acts as a necessary counterbalance to the impulses for change from the left, contributing to social equilibrium and stability.
In every political structure, government, and society, imperfection and susceptibility to failure are inherent characteristics. As a result, people are perpetually dissatisfied in one way or another, leading to a natural inclination towards seeking change rather than maintaining the status quo. This inherent discontent makes it significantly easier to organize individuals around movements aimed at generating change rather than rallying them to preserve systems that, while functioning adequately, are not without flaws. The drive to address perceived injustices, inequities, and inefficiencies fuels the momentum for reform and transformation, overshadowing the efforts to uphold and refine existing structures that are deemed sufficiently functional but imperfect. Consequently, the push for change often garners more support and enthusiasm, as it resonates more deeply with the universal human desire for improvement and progress.
It is important to consider that society is a complex system whose state of health or best functioning is achieved at criticality. This implies a proper balance between processes that generate change and processes that generate order. In a healthy society, there should be a harmonious balance between the right and the left. However, due to the aforementioned characteristics, when the right governs and the left acts as the opposition, this balance is spontaneously achieved. The right focuses on ordering and stabilizing society, while the left concentrates on reforming and improving it. This dynamic tension between both social forces, in balance, endows society with an optimal response capacity to internal and external disturbances, developing what is known as antifragility.
Antifragility, a concept introduced by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, describes the capacity of a system not only to resist disturbances but to benefit from them. In the context of a society, this capacity is developed, at least in part, through the dynamic interaction between the conservative forces of the right and the progressive forces of the left. When the right governs and the left exercises effective opposition, an environment is created where ideas can be debated, policies can be refined, and social structures can evolve sustainably.
However, when the left governs, the lack of capacity of the right to articulate effective social resistance, along with the natural tendency of the left towards change, can lead to over-intervention in the system. This manifests in a concentration of power and the development of authoritarian structures. History provides numerous examples of left-wing regimes that, upon coming to power, have degenerated into authoritarian governments, as occurred in the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Venezuela. These regimes become difficult to displace through democratic means, unlike right-wing governments, which are often more easily removed through electoral processes.
That is why I think the left should not govern but must exist as an opposing force. For example it is a good idea to vote for a rigth or center-rigth wing president but give relative (not absolute) majority of the congress to left o center-left wing parties. Letf role is essential for the balance, acting as a motor for change and a necessary counterbalance to the conservative tendencies of the right. By maintaining this equilibrium, it is ensured that society can adapt and thrive in the face of challenges and changes, reaching a state of antifragility that is crucial for its long-term development.
