The installation of negationism in our culture

For some time now it seems that a denialist attitude has been installed in our country. A series of social realities, including studies and figures, and relevant historical or natural facts are denied or questioned by part of the population, the media and institutions whose duty is to protect every citizen of this country without discrimination or arbitrariness.

Let us look at three examples of violations in which the power of money defines “reality”.

Impunity for sexual assaults on women:

Mónica González, a Chilean journalist, pointed out in an interview, regarding acts of sexual harassment and violence by police personnel against female detainees … ” From ethical journalism we can combat denialism and work to transform the structures that guarantee impunity for sexual assaults on women” …. “It is not only an act of justice and reparation for thousands of women who have kept absolutely silent about a milestone in their lives that changed them. It is to contribute to eliminating a violence that seeks to tear apart the integrity and the backbone on which dignity and respect are built”.

Such comments have their context in the lack of ethics that most of the professionals of the different open media had, who covered without further questioning the call of a group of deputies to question the events that took place during the social outburst, despite the existence of the denunciation of at least four human rights organisations – national and international – before the Chilean authorities and public opinion, of the abuses and violations of human rights during the social outburst in Chile.

In September 2022 Carabineros reported that among the crimes typified “against persons”, i.e. homicides and rapes, these are on the rise from 2017 to date. In the specific case of rapes, between January and September 2022, 1,927 rape crimes were registered, a figure corresponding to an increase of 10.6% compared to 2019 according to data from the Police Automation System (Aupol). If we add to this the figures provided by the Chilean Network Against Violence against Women, which report 43 completed femicides in 2022, and those of the National Service for Women and Gender Equality of 140 frustrated femicides, the existence of gender violence as a social problem becomes evident.

However, even knowing these statistics and in the logic of denial, we find ourselves powerless in the face of judicial decisions in emblematic cases of gender violence such as that of Martin Pradenas, whose trial was annulled due to a judge’s lack of impartiality despite having been sentenced to 20 years for various sexual crimes, and the case of Nicolás López, sentenced to two prison sentences for sexual abuse, and who, despite the Supreme Court recognising his guilt, was granted intensive probation, when an appeal for annulment was partially upheld on the grounds of untimely application of the law. (Does this sound like the unusual ethics classes?)

But the judicial ambit is not the only one that denies social realities and concrete facts.

Mixed NO:

In the political ambit today we find ourselves on the verge of a constituent process that is the very expression of the denialist attitude.

Since the Marca AC campaigns, the debate on the need to create a new constitution has opened up in public opinion. The continuous protests of October 2019, throughout the country, and the demands of a series of demands by the citizenship came up against an agreement for the drafting of a New Political Constitution imagined and directed by the majority of the traditional political parties and which began with a national plebiscite in which the citizenship had to pronounce itself in favour or against initiating this process (78% in favour) and the mechanism by which it would be drafted: Constitutional Mixed Convention (50 % legislators and 50 % elected citizens) or a Constitutional Convention (100 % elected citizens). With 79%, the body chosen to draft our Magna Carta was the Constitutional Convention, the first with gender parity in the world, and whose members were elected exclusively for this purpose, demonstrating the desire to remove this process, so important for our country, from the political elite and their “political agreements”.

Despite these figures, and after the rejection of the previous process, today we find that this second attempt will be in the hands of various political personalities, some of them strongly questioned for their relationship with issues of high ethical questioning, after the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate approved the list (12 each) of the 24 people who will be part of the Committee of Experts, which will be in charge of drafting the new proposal for the Constitution. It is striking that in both bodies the “political” logic prevailed; each of the parties “installed” an expert in relation to their links rather than for their outstanding technical and/or legal knowledge; even more so when a little more than half of the appointees rejected the 2022 proposal. (For example, the candidate for this constitutional council is the former president of the Chilean business community, Mr. Sutil, who does not live up to his surname).

“This is a group that represents the different political forces in Congress and, in particular, the Senate. What the political parties, who are the main actors in this constituent process, were looking for was to have the support of experts who could outline certain contours of the constitutional text,” says Pamela Figueroa, a political scientist and academic at the University of Santiago.

The devastating parasitic elite of the big forestry industry:

And finally we are faced with another denied reality that hits our country hard these days: the severe impact that extractive activities have on the environment and which are not only local effects but also “spillover effects” that are not spatially restricted. These effects are broader and reach the entire national geography, modifying the meanings of different public policies and key concepts such as development, democracy and justice. In terms of forestry, the state gives tax, customs and credit royalties to the big families of this cartel, and receives in return a southern zone in political conflict with no way out, with degradation and corrupt bureaucracy, plus a powder keg of repeated fires with their attendant community and human tragedies.

Chile is increasingly vulnerable to forest fires because it is drier and warmer than before, and not only because of climate change. With more than a week to go the figures are alarming: 323 forest fires are burning, more than 5,500 people have been affected, 1,200 homes have been destroyed and 800 are being evaluated, and the fire has so far devastated more than 270,000 hectares.

According to Alejandro Miranda, a researcher at the Centre for Climate Science and Resilience CR2, a specialist in forest fires, “those who control monoculture tree plantations have a responsibility to prevent, mitigate and combat fires” and “it is the duty of the state to set safe limits for the development of this economic activity”.

In relation to the same, the Architects’ Association describes as “inconceivable” the extension of monocultures, not only in the south of our country, at a time when the effects of climate change are known and spreading throughout the planet and the urgent need to rethink the productive matrix in this context is recognised. The union points out that this productive system, of pine and eucalyptus, is one of the factors influencing the severe forest fires that are currently affecting communities in three regions of the central-southern zone. They also point out that “it is no coincidence that a large part of the affected area is occupied by extensive monoculture plantations, such as pine and eucalyptus, highly flammable species that dry up the groundwater, expel communities from their territories, causing a reduction in the local economy and disintegrating their cultural identity”, and therefore call for an evaluation of the system that favours extractivism.

These facts leave us with the sensation of two opposing interpretations of a concrete reality: what should we do in the face of this denialist logic that leaves us perplexed, hopeless and confused by the installation of a parallel reality that does not correspond to our survival?

Although from today it seems difficult and distant, it will definitely be the conscious, organised, convergent and kind citizens who will succeed in advancing in the construction of a society that does not deny its history, is coherent in its actions and takes responsibility for the consequences of its decisions, with the firm purpose of contributing to the common welfare of all the communities of the national territory.

Collaborative writing by Sandra Arriola Oporto, Cesar Anguita Sanhueza, Guillermo Garcés Parada and M. Angélica Alvear Montecinos. Political Opinion Commission