They count and they do not finish the Vox party this past weekend in Madrid. Among the many occurrences and comments that have emerged from the event, there has been one that has caught my attention. They say that they organized a kind of falla crowned by a sun in which the symbols of the 17 goals that the UN has labeled Agenda 2030 appeared. In full celebration they set fire to the representation of a feminist, an environmentalist and a leftist leader who with their fists raised they held such an effigy. What bothered me the most is the growing mania that has taken hold of the aforementioned agenda.
It is true that well-intentioned formulations of this type abound in these types of declarations by international organizations, without one being very aware of the degree of commitment that the signatory countries imply. But, I do not think that in the case of Vox and other correlates of the extreme right, what particularly worries them about the 2030 Agenda is its lack of specificity. Signs of that furious rejection have been seen for months. Remember that the official call for the homophobic demonstration in Madrid a few weeks ago was based on the will of the protesters to show their opposition to the 2030 Agenda. Although the main intention of those who crossed the Chueca neighborhood was another, the truth is that some of the banners displayed expressed their total disagreement with the objectives of the 2030-2050 Agendas.
A first impression shows that what bothers are two things. On the one hand, the imposition of themes, objectives and commitments that restrict and curtail freedom, understood as that everyone does what they want. And on the other, the fact that they are decisions made from outside, from abroad, by people who do not understand how we are, and that therefore many of the things to be amended alter the traditional and proper way of doing of those here from all over the world. life. I remember in this sense the campaign of the Progress Party, a Norwegian far-right formation, which accused any political leader who wore the 2030 Agenda pin as unpatriotic, and similar expressions are being seen around the world from ultra-conservative positions. They are thus an expression of pure-bred nationalism and a rejection of the supposed impositions of globalism.
At the end of June of this year, the deputy of Vox, Magdalena Nevado, affirmed in full debate of the Congress of Deputies, that “the great supporters of the 2030 agenda in Spain are communists, who have put themselves to work side by side with him. great capital to impose the globalist agenda in our country. ” Vox’s allusions on this issue to the World Economic Forum in Davos and to the world’s economic elites allied with neo-Marxism as inspiring the content of the agenda have been constant, mixed with allusions to the loss of property rights, the impossibility of eating meat. or the invasion of immigrants disguised as climate refugees. Despite the fact that nothing so concrete can be found in the contents of the Agenda, the basis for such comments arises from the biased interpretation that extreme right groups make of the eight predictions made in the last Davos Forum last February. they were launched to draw attention to the situation in the world.
It is not easy to consider unpatriotic expressions the expressed will in the Agenda to eradicate poverty and hunger, guarantee gender equality and decent work, reduce inequality, stop climate change and bet on socially and environmentally sustainable cities and communities . The rejection is purely ideological. And from the perspective of the nationalist extreme right, it is normal for opposition to this project to be seen, however imprecise in its realization and implementation, as one more lever on which to maintain its aspirations for social growth.
Because the truth is that, despite a certain grandiloquence and sometimes abstract formulations, what is expressed in the 2030 Agenda shows that the great challenges that humanity faces in the coming years are not topics of chiefs’ summits. state and government, but have to do with our daily lives. The direct or indirect allusions to the ways of consuming, building, producing, working, educating ourselves, maintaining basic health constants, are constant and project a future in which the changes to be made are unavoidable. There are key values that somehow run through the entire text of the Agenda, such as sustainability and the recognition of diversity, which for extreme right-wing formations are expressions of “climate terror” from which to sustain anything, or of “eco-egalitarianism. -feminist “that dissolves the basic identity marks of the same old society.
Ten years ago Dani Rodrik and his “trilemma” obtained a remarkable echo, when they managed to summarize in three vertices, globalization, national sovereignty and democracy, the challenges that the world was facing at those peak moments of the economic and financial crisis. The question, as is known, is that you could not have all three at the same time. It was necessary to dispense with any of the vertices. The worst that could happen to us is that the vertex of democracy is less and less relevant in any of the future scenarios, and that in the end the debate is between globalization and nation.
The 2030 Agenda undoubtedly sets appropriate goals if one examines the starting situation and the urgencies that humanity faces. But if we do not assume that the evidence, no matter how incontestable, needs to be adequately argued so that it can persuade as many people as possible, we will end up preaching our truths in the desert. It is not enough to wear pins on the lapel with the image of the Agenda or to imagine that the data by itself is already sufficient. Democracy needs to convince and when storms are announced, even more so. Let’s not burn the future.