With the rise of socialism and a new horizon of expectations, democracy became increasingly "more democratic and less liberal," Does the fact that today political violence –or the expressions south africa phone number list that call for it– take place in democratic political regimes imply that democratic liberalism, as a discourse, is the most effective tool to combat it? Can a political conception of this type better defend the democratic regime than those that seek a democracy that goes beyond the liberal minimum floor? If contemporary democracies were founded on the production of a new order to replace the violent regime of dictatorships, what to do now, when the authoritarianism that erodes democracy, as Levitsky and Ziblatt argue, is produced within them? If even the founding «liberal democratic» agreement implied the idea of a political culture that went in the same sense and contemplated the exclusion of those who did not assume it as their own, The time of politics The democratic transition in Latin America was conceived as a dichotomous break between authoritarianism and democracy.
Past, present and future organized the expectations and behavior of political actors. Democracy was a political regime and a way of life. However, these temporal dimensions never work linearly, as long as it is the experience of the subjects that organizes them in precise contexts. Today that way of organizing experience has cracked. The growing democratic weakness, the social unrest of the time and the possibility of political violence even within the liberal democratic regime are not images of the past, but devices installed as a possibility –and even as a reality– in the present.