Social liberalism: its ideological and political space

 “Juntos”, a new ‘liberal - socialdemocratic” foundation has emerged in Colombia. Promoted by Senator Rodrigo Lara Restrepo, it defines itself as a civic-political project that wishes to strengthen “liberal-social democratic” ideas. Emphasizing the value of social solidarity, its purported mission is to achieve a "more just, organized, cohesive and competitive country, deepening the principles of social justice, while ensuring economic and civil liberties, in order to reduce inequalities and inequities.

The initiative positions itself within an already crowded center-left space, in which candidates such as Sergio Fajardo, Humberto De La Calle, and the yet undecided  Alejandro Gaviria are debating proposals for the upcoming presidential elections. However, our purpose is not to dwell on the intricacies of Colombian politics, but rather refer to the issue of social liberalism, as an ideological and political space more generally in the Latin American region.

We speak of  “social liberalism” because it seems to us that this category is more precise than the term “liberal-social democratic”. Social liberalism represents that  combination of political, economic and civil liberties, and social citizenship that the Fundación Juntos alludes to,  proposing that one be free not only from potential abuses by the State, but also from poverty, basic necessities, disease and ignorance.

In fact, social liberalism has its anchor in the postwar years and the shaping of welfare states, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries. The reasoning is that entrepreneurship, competition and individual freedom are commendable, but unfortunately they lead to excesses, great inequalities and if the State does not intervene with a redistributive policy and fiscal stimulus, large sections of the population are left behind due to the inequality of opportunities.

It was precisely against that brand of liberalism that the neoliberal-conservative reaction arose, at the hands of strong leaders, such as the well-known Margaret Thatcher, who put a brake on redistribution and the growth of social spending, deregulated markets, giving the private sector greater freedom to invest and bring prosperity. Neoliberalism became almost like "common sense" economics and was  adopted throughout the globalized world. But, as Joseph Stiglitz put it, it never brought the great prosperity it promised, and in 2008 the financial crisis uncovered the grave risks of deregulated markets. Since then, alternatives have been sought and social liberalism has re-emerged as one of these potential alternatives.

In Latin America, neoliberalism led to the  dismantling import substitution policies,  the creation of free trade agreements, fiscal adjustment, privatization,labor flexibility, targeted social programs, and a re-primarization of export economies. Not everything was negative, protectionism was not a viable solution as it had been conceived, and it had  created corporate elites that lacked honesty and good performance. Also, in many cases, open economies and  international markets generated innovative business opportunities and job creation. In fact, when taking stock of the achievements and failures of that stage, social liberalism can offer an ideological perspective that will allow us to draw lessons and correct course.

Neither can one  forget to mention social liberalism’s strong support for democracy and the rule of law. Contrary to more classical liberals, who feared  majorities and pushed back  reforms that led to free, direct and fair universal suffrage, social liberalism embraced these wholeheartedly and found ways to blend  liberalism and democracy in one coherent whole. A synthesis that brought to the forefront the protection of individual rights and freedoms, as well as the separation of powers, while at the same time respecting popular sovereignty. The rights perspective and the checks and balances allowed democratization without abuse, systems in which minorities and individuals could feel safe. 

This resolute defense of liberal-democracy provides social liberalism with an advantage when it comes to clearly setting the stage for a critique of authoritarianism in Venezuela and Nicaragua, and encouragement of  structural changes in Cuba. Positions that, by the way,  do not necessarily lead to joining the Lima Group and recognizing the Guaidó presidency, but that clearly differentiates it from a left that still allows itself to be manipulated and does not want to recognize the harm   authoritarianism  is causing in those countries. 

The protection of minority rights also provides a clear advantage to social liberal positions. In Latin America there is a very important mobilization of social groups (indigenous, LGTB, and others) that demand respect for their freedom of expression, thought, press, assembly and participation. These subjects need support against the anti-rights forces that do not want to accept their inclusion , but rather invest in new fundamentalist and intolerant voices that hide behind disqualifying absolutist narratives.

Nonetheless, social-liberalism does not have an equally clear advantage, when it comes to other important and relevant processes. One could say that there it has to add components to its new agenda, by  more forcefully integrating a sustainable development approach and advocating for  a more resolute transition to a green economy. Another important component of  its new agenda would be the  feminization of politics, articulating in a much more decisive way topics related to the autonomy of women, gender parity and equality, sexual and reproductive health and rights. 

While its ideological strengths and shortcomings provide both fortitude and challenges, the political hurdles are probably more ominous than expected. Occupying  a center-left space implies a better relationship with the democratic left if the pathway to power requires a plurality capable of an electoral majority. The effort to converge is arguably possible from a policy perspective, since many of the proposals of the left are in fact tremendously similar to those proposed by social liberalism. The issue of leadership however if not so readily fixed. 

On the other hand, social liberalism has been utilized as a rhetorical recourse by parties and leaders that lack the necessary credibility to engage and convince. The  former president of Mexico, Salinas de Gortari spoke of social liberal principles. Many liberal parties are also discredited political vehicles. These parties have in many cases been  clientelistic, catch-all machineries that use social-liberal  rhetoric, but have less interest in truly advancing the agenda. 

Finally, there is the issue of how to get a message across in an age when politics seems to have become detached from the public policy debate. The new semiotic context is of such complexity that campaigning, in the good sense of the word, is an art that few can wield cunningly. Electoral processes are increasingly psychosocial adventures in which significant and signifiers circulate uncontrollably and the interpellations must be both rational and emotional. For example, Gustavo Petro of Colombia  has been criticized for being a polarizing candidate who preaches confrontation. While this may be true, the anger that runs through public sentiment nowadays is a force that needs to be reckoned and dealt with, not simply denied. It is an emotion of great weight in current collective animus, and one that may hinder reconciliatory discourse.

Such a combination of factors stands in the way of a possible resurgence in social liberalism. Despite its ideological advantages from a theoretical point of view, its capacity to offer a  way out of the prolonged crisis that has gripped the region since 2014 and was exacerbated by the pandemic, remains to be seen. Its chances could be bolstered by the capacity to strike alliances with the left or environmentalism, protect and promote the political and civil rights of minorities and women and prepare for an effective management of the new semiotic context.