By Boaventura de Sousa Santos
June 6, 2026
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.
Photo by Mark Dixon via wikimedia commons
I am writing this text with the Americas and Europe in mind, but the phenomena I analyze apply, with modifications, to other regions of the world. We are on the brink of a new world war, facing imminent ecological collapse, witnessing the end of international law, and the end of the distinction between democracy and autocracy. The political paradigm of Eurocentric modernity has globalized to the extent that it has transformed democracy (liberal democracy) into the only legitimate political regime. Based on concrete examples, it is time to acknowledge that this historical process has run its course and is producing perverse effects: liberal democracy exists today primarily to create and legitimize dictatorships; democratic institutions are committing suicide as a normal way of operating. There is resistance, but it will only be effective if those who resist have the clarity to recognize the gravity of what is happening and the importance of what is at stake.
The political paradigm of eurocentric modernity
The results of the first round of the Colombian elections held on May 31 of this year are as follows: Abelardo de la Espriella (far-right): 10,361,499 votes, corresponding to 43.74% of the total voting electorate; Iván Cepeda (left): 9,688,361 votes, 40.90%; Paloma Valencia (traditional right): 1,639,685 votes, 6.92%. These results have certain circumstantial characteristics that I will identify below, but they are not, on the whole, a mere circumstantial episode. Rather, they are a symptom of a profound political transformation that is taking place globally.
The incompatibility between capitalism and democracy is reaching a level that renders the traditional right and centrism obsolete. The contradiction between capitalism and democracy is the foundation of all political options in the modern era, that is, post-French Revolution. It is inscribed in the three basic normative concepts that define this politics – liberty, equality, and fraternity – and in the historical process that, based on them, was set in motion. There is an inherent tension between the three concepts. As isolated values, they aspire to their maximization (maximum freedom, maximum equality, maximum fraternity); as values in constellation, they require negotiation, accommodation, and relativization (possible freedom, possible equality, possible fraternity). In turn, the historical process set in motion had two pillars: the rise of the bourgeoisie to political power with a view to consolidating and expanding the political economy that had originally granted it power – capitalism; and the establishment of liberal democracy as the only legitimate political regime capable of achieving the possible reconciliation of these three normative concepts.
The fundamental contradiction between democracy and capitalism is this: while democracy is based on the ideas of popular sovereignty and national citizenship as ways to reconcile the tensions between the three normative concepts, capitalism aims at infinite accumulation made possible by the ceaseless expansion of the market. Capitalist accumulation and the market recognize only one of these values – freedom– of which, moreover, they have a narrow conception: the only freedom that matters is economic freedom. On the other hand, while the ideas of sovereignty and citizenship point to the primacy of the national geopolitical space, accumulation and the market are always potentially global, even if they are not always so in reality.
The political families of Eurocentric modernity emerged from this conceptual paradigm. They shared a principled recognition of the validity of the three normative concepts and their potential accommodation through democratic means. Thus was liberal democracy born. They differed in the relative weight they assigned to each of these values: while the political forces conventionally designated as right-wing prioritized the value of freedom, left-wing forces prioritized the values of equality and fraternity. The principle of primacy did not imply the negation of any of the three values; it merely implied that the greatest “necessary sacrifices” would be imposed on the values without primacy.
On the margins of this paradigm, yet fully inherent to it, there existed two types of political forces that shared a rejection of the idea of compatibility through accommodation among the three values and, consequently, of liberal democracy. The political forces conventionally designated as reactionary rejected all three values, as they were all individualistic and secularist, and proposed in their place: God, Country, and Family. A subgroup of the reactionary forces, which gained influence over time, proposed the compatibility of “God, Country, and Family” with one of the values of modernity, freedom, understood as economic freedom. Thus emerged the acronym “God, Country, Family, and Freedom”. This subgroup was labeled as the far right and seized power in the 20th century in the form of fascism and Nazism. These regimes took to the extreme the idea that the only value that mattered was economic freedom
The other margin of this paradigm was constituted by revolutionary political forces that likewise rejected the possibility of reconciling the three values and gave primacy, in various forms, to equality and fraternity. For these forces, liberal democracy would always end up prioritizing freedom at the expense of the other values. And because it gave political form to capitalism, liberal democracy would be doomed to commit suicide when economic freedom demanded the total sacrifice of equality and fraternity. The revolutionary political forces took two main forms: communism/revolutionary socialism and anarchism. They differed on the concept of the state, forms of struggle, and the idea of freedom for associated producers (advocated only by the anarchists).
The liberal democracy/capitalism constellation in action
Originating in Europe, this constellation spread to the non-European world through colonialism and the anti-colonial struggle. It has been in constant upheaval since its inception and was set aside at two historical junctures. And in this case as well, what happened in Europe spread, in different forms, to other regions of the world. The upheaval was driven by two main forces: class struggle and imperial rivalries. The two major collapses, with opposing political outcomes, occurred, on the one hand, in Russia in 1917 (the end of capitalism and liberal democracy), and, on the other, in Italy in 1922 and Germany in 1933 (the end of liberal democracy to “liberate” capitalism). They were, in part, a product of unresolved rivalries from World War I and ultimately contributed to the outbreak of World War II.
While it functioned, the liberal democracy/capitalism constellation took the form of social democracy. Theoretically, social democracy is based on the attempt to realize the original idea of liberal democracy, as proposed by its theorists. Of course, the original idea was always contradicted by the practices of its proponents: John Locke and his dealings in the slave trade (stock certificates in the Royal African Company between 1672 and 1675); or the first U.S. presidents, who saw no contradiction between the Constitution and owning slaves (for example, George Washington, between 300 and 600 slaves; Thomas Jefferson, more than 600 slaves; James Madison, more than 100 slaves).
The original idea was to keep two worlds strictly separate: the world of economic values, which have a price and are therefore bought and sold, and the world of ethical-political values (political convictions, beliefs), which have no price and therefore cannot be bought or sold.
This separation (never complete) formed the basis of social democracy. By social democracy, I mean the coexistence of capitalism and liberal democracy, in which the capitalist class (generally, the bourgeoisie) is forced by the workers’ struggle to make certain concessions to the value of equality in order to preserve the continuity of capitalist accumulation and the globalization of markets.
Historically, these concessions have been the workers’ right to unionize and strike, and social policies in the form of social rights – ranging from labor rights and the public pension system to public education and healthcare, and the concept of public goods (which cannot be commodified) and public service as an operating ethos. In short, a market economy coexisting with a non-mercantile society – that is, a society defined by social relations devoid of a logic of commercial exchange (fraternity mediated by the state). These concessions transformed the state into a privileged arena of political contestation.
The collapse of the liberal democracy/capitalism constellation
Collapse is always the culmination of a crisis that unfolds over time. The crisis of social democracy became evident following the so-called Washington Consensus in the mid-1980s, which declared the unsustainability of the social-democratic capitalist model and proclaimed as the sole global model of capitalism a version that had until then been a minority within economic theory and had only been fully implemented under dictatorial conditions: the Pinochet dictatorship that followed the 1973 coup d’état against Chilean President Salvador Allende, orchestrated by the CIA and Henry Kissinger.
This version became known as neoliberalism. In general terms, it consists of: economic deregulation, trade liberalization, privatization of all state activities capable of generating profits, replacement of progressive taxation (where the wealthier pay proportionally more taxes than the poorer) and the consequent replacement of state financing through taxation with financing through loans in the globalized financial capital market (the great deregulation).
The end of the Soviet Union marked the beginning of the final collapse of social democracy. The neoliberal model brought about two reversals that went unnoticed by the public and the vast majority of social and economic theorists. On the one hand, anti-social-democratic democracy became a condition imposed worldwide by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund for financing developing nations. The reversal consisted of the following: whereas previously democracy, to be viable, presupposed certain minimum preconditions of development (agrarian reform, urbanization, the creation of middle classes fearful of losing the little or much they have in the event of any attempt at a socialist revolutionary upheaval), from now on the establishment of liberal democracy became the precondition for development policies. No funding without liberal democratization (the infamous “structural adjustment” on the periphery of the world system and the no less infamous “austerity” in the more developed countries).
The second reversal, equally overlooked, consisted in the fact that, whereas until then it could be said with some credibility that capitalism was regulated by democracy (the theory of regulation), from this point on capitalism began to regulate democracy, and democracy was permitted only to the extent that it served the free operation of capitalism.
These two reversals presupposed that the separation between the realm of ethical-political values and the realm of economic values would be eliminated or, at the very least, diminished. One of the instruments used was the deregulation and consequent opacity of political party financing. In the U.S., this occurred with the 2010 Supreme Court decision, “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission”, through which it became possible to finance party activities without limits. This deregulation went hand in hand with the possibility of obscuring the source of funding through so-called “dark money.”
If the influence of capital on politics had already overshadowed other influences in the past – notably those of labor unions – from that point on it became absolutely dominant. Thus, the floodgates were opened for the realm of economic values to eventually absorb the realm of ethical and political values. In other words, from then on it became possible for everything in politics to be bought and sold, just as it happens in the economy. Grand corruption disappeared because it was legalized. Petty corruption became systemic because, in the meantime, the ethos of public service and concern for the common good had vanished from the memory and practice of the vast majority of state officials.
The Supreme Court’s ruling was the final blow to American democracy. Today there is no democracy in the U.S.; there is an oligarchy with regular elections to decide which oligarchic group governs. Citizens have very little ability to decide on what truly matters and is important for the free operation of capitalism. Therefore, the country that most promotes regime change (the infamous “regime change”) is the country that first undergoes that change, with the result the rest of the world knows: increased social inequality, civil war, depoliticized crime, systemic disinformation through corporate media concentration, and the fragmentation of social cohesion. This is the cruelest mirror of the U.S., the country of the original “regime change.”
From this follows a lesson and an observation. The lesson is that the liberalization and opacity of political party financing imply the death certificate of democracy. In Portugal, that death certificate is being drafted under the pretext of data protection (the same pretext that – combined with the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution – led to the suicide of American democracy). The observation is that it should come as no surprise that the U.S. today fundamentally supports far-right governments and politicians. These are the governments and politicians that best serve the interests of the American oligarchy and most closely identify with its ideology.
The Interregnum: the end of traditional democracy, the beginning of what?
We are living in a period of Gramscian interregnum: the old liberal democracy/capitalism constellation has not yet completely disappeared, and the new one that will follow it has not yet fully taken shape. What are the main characteristics of this interregnum?
The ambiguity of the anti-system drive
Neoliberalism has been erasing from the memory of the working classes the effectiveness of democracy in defending their interests or improving their living conditions. The final crisis of the liberal democracy/capitalism constellation opens the space for the growth of the anti-system drive. In light of what I mentioned above, this drive is ambiguous insofar as, in the past, the anti-system forces were the far left and the far right. The anti-system drive is merely the manifestation of a malaise with no solution in sight within the current system. It corresponds to an individual and collective existential condition that manifests as an excess of fear without the compensation of any hope without major changes.
In fact, we can say that the anti-system drive benefited Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro in the 2022 elections. Although he is a politician of the system, with a brilliant track record as a senator, he had a far-left past that lent credibility to the possibility that, finally through him, some hope might be restored to those disenfranchised by the liberal democracy/capitalism constellation. And that expectation was not entirely thwarted. On the contrary, there were improvements in the living conditions of the working classes; there was a genuine desire to reconcile the nation through the Total Peace plan; land was distributed to poor peasants; through memorable interventions at international forums, notably at the UN, President Gustavo Petro restored to millions of Colombians the pride of being Colombian after decades of the insulting equation: Colombian = drug trafficker.
The ambiguity of the anti-establishment drive can be identified in different places and contexts. For example, in the regions of Germany that belonged to the communist bloc during the Soviet Union’s existence – the former German Democratic Republic – is where the far-right (AfD, Alternative für Deutschland) is growing the most. In the last federal elections, this party won 34.5% of the vote, while in the regions of what was then West Germany it won only 17.9%. It turns out that these same voters, when asked for their assessment of the communist regime, are mostly (albeit conditionally) in favor of it. What they recall with nostalgia are benefits such as these: job security, free housing and healthcare, the absence of rampant consumerism driven by advertising, the possibility of a stable family life, and one month – and sometimes more – of vacation per year. What they naturally reject is the secret police, the lack of freedom of expression, censorship, and the prohibition or extreme difficulty of traveling abroad. They become disillusioned upon concluding that perhaps they wanted the best of both worlds and that this is impossible.
We can conclude that due to the severe erosion imposed on the liberal-democracy/capitalism constellation in recent decades, the anti-system drive is now legitimate and can be directed toward two opposing political orientations: the far right and the far left. The problem is that at this moment of interregnum the only actual orientation is that of the far right, and the possibility of this drive turning toward the far left is today the unspoken nightmare of those in power. For this reason, they do everything in their power – and with the utmost extremism – to prevent such a shift from occurring, using the most sophisticated means of manipulating public consciousness, silencing the voices that might expose their game, and manufacturing permanent crises to make it impossible for those in power to think beyond the current affairs and for ordinary citizens to think beyond the next day. The creation of permanent crises, the incessant threat of war or foreign intervention, paralyze the possibility or the will to think, to act, and to resist.
In Colombia, we can say that the anti-system impulse oriented toward the far left has been exhausted by Gustavo Petro and is not available to Ivan Cepeda. Colombians are left with no choice but to choose between the left and the far right. In this context, Colombia is on the verge of producing a turning point in the interregnum whose significance extends far beyond Colombia.
The collapse of the traditional right-wing candidate in Colombia is so pronounced that it demands an analysis of the complex formation of the anti-system drive. In this interregnum, the traditional right has only one option: to unite with the far right in the hope of saving the system that has served its interests for decades. It so happens that the right-wing candidate, Paloma Valencia, sought to blend two incompatible signals of the anti-system drive. On the one hand, her Uribista background pointed toward the far right, but on the other hand, by choosing an openly gay vice-presidential candidate (Juan Daniel Oviedo Arango), she sent a signal of an anti-system drive that was not only hostile to the far right and the conservative right but also aligned with the left, which has been legitimizing diverse sexualities. This confused her followers, and many likely even felt betrayed. Consequently, they defected from her camp and threw their support behind the far-right – which is openly misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, and xenophobic.
Extremes see only extremes
The goal of the anti-system drive is never the construction of an alternative system. This explains why, when it comes to power, the far right knows only how to destroy, never to build. The goal of extremism is to imagine another extremism and turn it into an enemy. One does not engage in dialogue with the enemy; one must simply destroy it.
For the far right, there is no right or center except to absorb them, and above all, there is no left. The entire left is the far left. This is the false polarization with which current politics deceives us. The people are not polarized; it is their cell phones that are. In other words, we are facing a massive fabrication of polarization based on the assumption that it will produce only the far right. The fabrication of the enemy takes two forms today, one secularist and the other religious.
Secularist extremism
For the far right originating from the traditional secularist right, the entire left is the far left – it is communist, neo-communist, or Castro-Chavista (a neologism coined by Colombia’s former (far) right-wing president, Álvaro Uribe). In a media landscape completely dominated by the right, being a leftist has become an insult, a stigmatization that provokes revulsion, while being a fascist is for now an unspoken term, used only in private and among like-minded individuals.
Religious extremism
In the Americas, and increasingly in Africa and India, the political use of religion is an increasingly effective tool for instilling extremism. In the Americas, evangelicalism – especially Pentecostal evangelicalism advocating prosperity theology – is largely responsible for the current indiscreet charm of billionaires. Pentecostal evangelicalism is today a powerful political force, at the legislative, executive, and judicial levels alike.
While for secularist extremism the left is communism, for religious extremism the left is the incarnation of the devil.
The end of soft coups
The first characteristic of the interregnum we are experiencing is the massive production of political extremism. The second is the intense, violent, and flagrantly unlawful interference by the hegemonic power in the domestic politics of countries within its sphere of influence. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. became the sole global hegemonic power. Its primary area of interference has always been Latin America. Interference has always existed, but in recent times it has taken two forms that disguised its true objectives under the guise of defending democracy. At the same time, its objectives were pursued in a way that concealed the violence of the drive pushing them.
These two forms were the color revolutions and the soft coups. While color revolutions dominated in Europe and North Africa, soft coups dominated in Latin America. They were so named because they were coups d’état carried out within the framework of apparent constitutional normality and with recourse to democratic institutions. The real objective of all of them was to provoke the removal or deposition of democratically elected presidents, but who were considered hostile to U.S. interests. The manipulation of the judicial system was fundamental to successfully carrying out the soft coups. The first occurred in Honduras in 2009 with the removal of President Manuel Zelaya. This was followed by the coup in Paraguay in 2012 to remove President Fernando Lugo, the coup in Brazil in 2016 to remove President Dilma Rousseff, and the coup, also in Brazil, in 2018 to disqualify presidential candidate Lula da Silva.
The New U.S. Security Policy, adopted during President Donald Trump’s second term, set aside soft coups and began to legitimize more violent interventions that explicitly violate international law. These interventions have two fundamental pillars: the military pillar and the financial pillar.
The military pillar lies, for example, in the omnipresence of warships off the coasts of the countries targeted for intervention, the jamming of satellite communications necessary to activate anti-aircraft defenses, the reinforcement of existing military bases on the continent, the bombing of fishing boats navigating in the territorial waters of these countries, the capture and abduction of democratically elected presidents, and take them to prisons in the U.S. where they will be put on trial. For internal U.S. use, the term “narco-terrorist state” was invented to legitimize these violent interventions. In recent times, the country most violently targeted with the widest range of measures has been Venezuela.
The financial pillar includes embargoes, the freezing of assets and reserves abroad, tariffs, punishment of companies in the target country and in other countries that do business with them, and interference in national financial systems under the pretext of possible corruption or the existence of drug trafficking funds. Cuba is the country that, since the beginning of the Cuban Revolution, has been the target of the most military and financial coups for the longest period of time.
Imperial rivalries intensified
The end of soft coups stems from the intensification of imperial rivalries. As I said, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. became the sole hegemonic power in the modern world system. That solitude was short-lived. The contradictions inherent in capitalism have led China to develop exponentially over the last thirty years and become what it is today: the world’s factory. Whether acting alone or within the context of the BRICS, China has been emerging as a rival hegemonic power. The rivalry has been intensifying and takes various forms. In Europe, the war in Ukraine aims to block China’s access to Europe and weaken its closest ally, Russia. In the Middle East, the transformation of Israel into a sub-imperialist techno-fascist state aims to cut off China’s access to the Mediterranean and deprive it of the Middle East’s natural resources.
In Latin America, the heavy-handed approach is particularly severe because China has become the main trading partner of many countries on this continent. Furthermore, Latin America is home to one of the largest founding members of the BRICS, Brazil. The most recent symbol of this heavy-handed approach is the creation of a new military alliance between the U.S. and the “friendly” countries of the subcontinent, an alliance significantly celebrated in Miami in 2026. At present, the Shield of the Americas consists of 12 countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guyana, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, and the U.S. Glaringly absent are three important middle-income countries: Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico. These are the countries that must remain on high alert if they do not want to fall into the hands of the far right (and the U.S.) in the near future.
Hi-Tech extremism
Following the anti-system drive, the end of soft coups, the use of political religion, and the intensification of imperial rivalries, the most important characteristic of the interregnum in which we live is the far-right’s use of the most sophisticated technologies for manipulating consciousness, now with the massive use of artificial intelligence and the way algorithms can address millions of people as if they were addressing each one individually and personally with tailored messages. This is something far more sophisticated and effective than the infamous Cambridge Analytica, the computer-based political decision-making manipulation machine responsible for Brexit (the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union).
This type of capitalist investment in far-right parties and candidates comes at a cost, and this explains, in part, why far-right parties are generally the best-funded. The case of Colombia fully confirms this fact. Abelardo de la Espriella’s high-tech campaign is well described in Lucas Ospina’s article published in La Silla Vacia on May 29, 2026. It is the same process that brought other far-right or extreme-right politicians to power in Latin America (Trump in the United States in 2016): Bukele in El Salvador (2019), Bolsonaro in Brazil and Milei in Argentina (2023), Noboa in Ecuador (2023), Mulino in Panama (2024), Asfura in Honduras (2025), Kast in Chile (2025), and Fernández in Costa Rica (2026). It is possible that Keiko Fujimori in Peru will join this group in the near future.
The effectiveness of high-tech extremism cannot be underestimated in any way. In the 2022 Colombian elections, many commentators believed that if the campaign had lasted one more week, the far-right candidate, Rodolfo Hernández, might have won the election.
The die is cast
In another article, I will address the future of the left in this new context, where it has become the sole bulwark defending democracy against the far right. It will be important to ask then: how can we build a conception of democracy that does not commit political suicide by repeatedly electing fascists?
In the current American and European context, democrats have no choice but to vote for the left-wing party or presidential candidate. The far right uses democracy to come to power, but once in power, it has no intention of exercising it democratically. Populism is its best disguise today. For example, in Portugal, the Chega party, the second-largest party, is far-right. As I write, it opposes the labor law reform proposed by the traditional right-wing government currently in power. But it is clear that, once in power, the Chega party will propose the same law or one even more harmful to workers. In light of this, voting for the left today means, above all, saving what remains of democracy so that we can later try to strengthen it in order to resist the false democrats with greater conviction. If the left “forgets” the need to strengthen democracy, it will be committing suicide.
In the future, other issues must be addressed. What is the future of the left if the traditional right disappears entirely? How can we build a conception of democracy that does not commit suicide by repeatedly electing fascists? What will the left of the future look like? These are the topics of an upcoming text.
For now, the choice facing democrats is expressed in two messages sent by prominent figures to the candidates competing in the second round of Colombia’s elections.
Donald Trump’s message to candidate Abelardo de la Espriella on his social media:
Congratulations to Colombian Presidential Candidate, “EI Tigre (THE TIGER),” Abelardo de la Espriella, a Smart, Strong, and Tough Leader, on his decisive Victory in the first round of the Colombian Presidential Election! Abelardo fights tirelessly for, and loves, his Great Country and People, just like I do for the United States of America. As President, Abelardo would be tremendously successful in leading Colombia to Grow the Economy, Create Jobs, Promote Trade, Stop Illegal Immigration, Crack Down on Crime and Drugs, and Restore LAW AND ORDER! Abelardo will face off against a Radical Left Marxist in the Runoff on June 21st – The results of this Election are very important to the future of Colombia and its relationship to the United States. Because of his tremendous accomplishments in life, and his political support for me, personally, it is my Honor to give Abelardo my Complete and Total Endorsement. “EL TIGRE” ABELARDO DE LA ESPRIELLA WILL NOT LET THE WONDERFUL PEOPLE OF COLOMBIA DOWN!
President DONALD J. TRUMP
Message to Iván Cepeda from Jesuit Father Pacho de Roux, who served as president of the Truth Commission established following the 2016 Peace Accords with the guerrillas, and to whose Advisory Council I had the honor of belonging:
Iván, who am I to give you advice, but accept this word from a friend.
Congratulations. You ran a very good campaign. You kept hope alive.
You dedicated yourself body and soul.
It is time to accept the truth of reality. It is right that they recount the votes, but that is not the issue; the truth that the ballot boxes reveal is the degree of moral prostration and darkness in much of our society, regardless of the manipulations or fears that cause this situation
And we must move forward from that truth. You are right when you speak of a moral revolution, of a change of consciousness. Your moment is now, to transform the truth of the result into a call to enthusiastically embrace what you embody: bold passion and hope, with challenge and generosity, and perseverance amid difficulties, as you have done; and at this crucial moment, that very ethical passion is drained if you use its value to attack your opponent for his moral baseness as a mafia-like and corrupt figure whom we know well.
Do not let your passion stray down that path, because you will not change the corrupt one, nor will you shake the dark conscience of those who follow him; on the contrary, you will harden their hearts in evil.
Your moral integrity, your enthusiasm for the cause, your call to Hope, your transparent, ethical, positive, and courageous discourse – that is what is needed now.
You have that. Do not diminish your moral greatness by campaigning AGAINST the moral abyss; dedicate these three weeks to giving everyone the best of yourself.
Boaventura de Sousa Santos
Boaventura de Sousa Santos is the emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Coimbra in Portugal. His most recent book is Decolonizing the University: The Challenge of Deep Cognitive Justice.
