The dystopian genre triumphs in audiovisual language at the same time that fake news flows through conversations. Imagining worlds and ideas and providing them with a layer of verisimilitude is already a fashion. What if we imagine a world where political values come from other areas of human life that are not ideological?
The new generations, those who have lived with a screen in their hands since they were born, inhabit different mental worlds from those who are not digital natives. And they are not always clear about what is real and what is imagination, what is original and what is a copy, what is natural and what has an “effect”, what is their own and what is foreign, what is human and what is an algorithm, what is true and what is not true.
What is “just” credible already enjoys sufficient certainty in public opinion as long as it supports the personal feeling of identity, opinion or belief. And politicians know this: they are more self-sufficient, less open to dialogue and more “hooligans” of themselves: if the opponent supports it, it is always “false”; if I propose it – me or the mine – it is “true”.
And we judge not only broad-spectrum political decisions, but we even dare to take on the personal and family decisions of the subjects. If we put our eyes on people, the capacity of each “opinion-giver” to consider himself a “possessor of the truth” increases. And we judge him from a watchtower.
That is why “personal hatred” has emerged in politics as an element of political judgement. People no longer just “disagree”: now they also hate, feel angry or sad, get stressed, shout and deny the adversary, do not grant him empathy or listen, spend sad or violent days with the success of the “opponent”.
Venezuela as a mirror
The 2024 Venezuelan elections and their consequences serve as an example that credibility is no longer in objective truth —and in this case it is about counting votes, a mathematical truth, the least “debatable”—; in the world of the Networks and human dystopias, everyone can “believe” who won according to “their opinion.”
What if it were true that the Venezuelan people wanted the opposition to govern? Where would democracy, justice and international organizations be now that their candidate has had to take refuge in Spain? Can committing to your country lead you to abandon it, to flee? Can we judge him for asking for asylum in exchange for freedom, for signing under duress so that his family is not affected?
What if it were true that there was no transparency, that there was manipulation: how must the people feel? And how will he feel personally, being judged by friends and strangers in the face of such a momentous personal decision?
Liver and brain
There are many feelings that arise in people when faced with social and political reality, sometimes with reason, other times with exaggeration or even imagination: frustration, confusion, helplessness, bewilderment, indignation, injustice, distrust, isolation, fear, rage, anxiety, despair…
Many fellow citizens have allowed the liver and not the brain to be the main organ in their body when making a social or political decision, when giving an opinion on what concerns everyone. And so nostalgia for autocracies arises again, or when “my people were in charge”, or we want to relive a past that we have actually falsified to make it seem good. And so hatred and constant anger arise, bad mood.
There is nothing worse for people in particular and for a society in general than losing confidence in democracy (that is, in the political function and the representativeness of opinions to build consensus); in justice (that is, in a blindfolded judiciary and a balance with the person as the main protagonist, and not economic or power interests); in education (that is, in an education accessible to all that provides comprehensive care and teaches how to think and act freely and responsibly); or in health (that is, in a fair health system that protects, prevents, saves lives without looking at the pocketbook of the sick person, or his race, or his “papers”).
When the Law is not built through consensus and is not for everyone, when the rule of law is corrupted, the only law that governs is that of the jungle, that of the strongest and most powerful, that of violence and imposition. Humanity, common sense, sanity and healthy coexistence disappear.
An alternative path
And in all this, what is the role of the Church? Do Catholics have a broad vision and see history in its entirety, as they have managed to do throughout history with many other social and political crises? Do we use dialogue and restraint or have we joined the wave of complacency about our own opinion versus that of others?
What if it were true that power, ambition, selfishness and inhumanity do not have the last word? What if it were true that Jesus Christ rose to remind us that what gives meaning and fulfillment to everything is love and dedication?
What if it were true that there is eternal life, wouldn’t it be worth living as Christ lived and fighting for the dignity of people as He did? Wouldn’t we fight to build now, here and now, what we want to live in the future, to establish that Kingdom of God of justice, equity, love?
A general look at the planet tells us that humans do not yet have democratic maturity or social or historical maturity. But Christians have the advantage of recognizing ourselves as a people and a universal brotherhood. What if we express it through commitment, service and love for each and every person?
There are things that we can never be sure of how they are or how they happened, but of others we can be absolutely certain, even if we cannot prove it. One of them is God’s unconditional love for humanity.
Other certainties that we can put on our flag are the goodness of heart of those who do not know evil, the missionaries who live dedicated to the cause of their communities, the simple and humble people who love and go out of their way for their own through daily work and a long list of honest and coherent people who live committed.
We have to surround ourselves with them. We all experience difficult situations, it is true that some have harder lives than others. But it is proven that those who have a strong environment and establish links with the people around them have a better chance of getting ahead.
What if it were true that the solution is to surround ourselves with people who are good by nature? What if it were true that the solution is to connect with what they shout with their life and their testimony, with their example and their gaze, but silently, without being on the front pages, that Jesus did rise from the dead?
According to Augustine of Hippo, the ideal ruler must have the virtues of justice and wisdom. He must also be humble, compassionate, and willing to serve others rather than seek his own interest.
Augustine knew that the powerful have influence to promote peace and harmony in society and, if they want, they can choose decisions based on ethical principles and the common good.
St. Augustine also emphasized the importance of legitimate authority and obedience to the laws. He lived in very turbulent times, of serious crises, right at the fall of the Western Roman Empire. He died with the vandals attacking the walls of the city in which he lived. What gives us the most equality is to obey the same Law, without privileges, without shortcuts, without exceptions.
When speaking of the well-being of citizens, Augustine paid special attention to the most vulnerable. He also knew that social and political power has the capacity to improve the lives of those who have the least. Because the earthly city must be at the service of the city of God, temporal power is subject to spiritual power.
Power must be exercised by rules, even when the powerful are tempted to create their own or take advantage of their position of power to enrich themselves.
We cannot look the other way. We must all embark on a personal path with the few or many certainties we have. But let those we have be true certainties and not a self-adoration that grants the value of truth to what is only an opinion.
What if it were true that the path of dialogue to avoid pain and suffering is a real alternative in Venezuela, in Gaza, in Ukraine or in any of the other 56 active wars in the world as you read this last paragraph?
