A guerrilla fighter turned president

José Mujica, “El Pepe”, former president of Uruguay, discusses Latin America’s open doors, his experience as prime minister and his social commitment. And shares his views and thoughts on Europe and Africa today.

He lived for eleven years at the bottom of a well without losing his mind and now he has reached the ripe old age of 83 with the profound gaze of a young man. José Alberto MujicaCordano, known as Pepe, was Minister for Agriculture, livestock and fisheries (2005 – 2008), President of Uruguay (2010 – 2015), a militant politician, guerrilla fighter and one of the leaders of the Movimiento de Liberación Nacional-Tupamaros (MLN-T). He survived after being shot six times, and was put behind bars four. Two times he managed to escape but, in total, Pepe Mujica spent 15 years in prison. His last stretch lasted 13 years (1972 – 1985, during the military dictatorship), 11 of which in total isolation as a “hostage”: any action by the Movimientowould have signed his death sentence. He came to Rome at the end of August to present the second edition of a A black sheep in power. Pepe Mujica, the politics of the people(pub. Lumi), he sits down at a table and as he speaks he takes time out to think and sip his mate, the Uruguayans’ and Rio de la Plata inhabitant’s favourite drink. And he loves the land. To the extent that he preferred to turn down the opportunity of running for a second term as president and a senator’s position with the pension that goes with it to live in the open air: “I want to do other stuff…. old trees cast too much of a shadow”, were the words of the man who has become part of the history of Latin America from the Second World War to the present, and lived it all first hand.

Nicaragua in recent months is witnessing protests and clashes, with peace talks never drawing to a conclusion. What is going on?

Unfortunately I have little faith in the international media and have no direct information, therefore I can only give a very approximate answer. There’s no doubt, as usual, that given the very shambolic situation, there are pressures and interests building up on the outside. This is unavoidable, albeit unfortunate. However it’s very difficult to understand the repression, given the historic path taken by the revolution (by the Sandinistas, ed. note). When the Sandinistas lost the elections, they stood aside. They returned, backed by the popular vote, and carried out major reforms. One has to recall that they also had to deal with an armed resistance that was “infiltrated” from the outside. But I get the impression that the old revolutionary path trodden by Nicaragua, for which I feel great empathy, has been mislain. I believe it’s heading down the wrong track and there are major contradiction between the various “commanders” of the Sandinista revolution, on both sides. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’ t much like what is going on.

The situation is very tricky in Brazil as well. The former president Lula is in jail and has named Haddas as his candidate; there’s the rise of Jair Bolonaro’s extreme right wing and there are problems on the border with Venezuela. We’re witnessing a gradual militarisation of Latin America with the army being sent to man borders, squares and the streets of Rio de Janeiro. And this immigration problem, which we’re faced with here in Europe as well, is developing in the continent between Venezuela and states like Brazil, Ecuador and Peru. Not to mention Colombia which has just elected a president backed by Álvaro Uribe (a conservative), Ivan Durque.

There’s a major contradiction here. Venezuela over time has hosted as many as six million Columbians: it’s best not to forget that figure. And I know that many Venezuelans are emigrating mainly owing to the economic downturn. I don’t believe that the entity of the phenomenon is such that it is seriously affecting Brazil… and the military presence in the streets is another issue altogether. The lack of security in Rio was the first pretext (to start putting the military back out into the country, ed. note). I think that many government representatives are taking precautions and are somewhat afraid of the kind of reaction that a negative outcome regarding Lula’s candidacy might bring about, something that at this point is very likely. All this increases the tension. Now, I have the suspicion the Venezuelan border issue is being “window dressed” on purpose (to provide an excuse for the “clamp down” policies, ed. note). I think that the tension in Brazil is mainly the result of problems within the country rather than any difficulty in integrating the Venezuelans who, though many, are in insignificant numbers when compared to the size of Brazil. The figures we’re talking about are ridiculous and are hardly likely to trigger a conflict. But we’re in a different world, right? And in this world wealth is being multiplied exponentially, but selfishness even more so. I belong to a part of the world that has welcomed millions of people: when my small country had half a million inhabitants it used to take in 30/40,000 people a year, in 1910, 1920, mostly from Spain and Italy. And what about Argentina, which received at least ten times as many. And I’d like to point out that around 1940 Mexico welcomed a million Spaniards who were fleeing from the civil war in just a very short space of time. But societies have short memories. And often don’t remember the difficulties they had to face which meant that their children were forced to emigrate. But that’s how the world works. I don’t like it, but it’s how it is.

There have also been attacks on Venezuelans in the state of Roraima in Brazil

The aggression has taken place, generally speaking, south of the Rio Bravo. What’s happening on the border with Mexico is atrocious. Regional conflicts are being generated and some governments are trying to hinder circulation in Central America: it’s painful to see that in a time of globalisation things are panning out this way, but it’s the truth. The situation in my country is very similar: many Cubans, Venezuelans, Dominicans. We still haven’t seen any hotbeds of resistance, but people seem to think that migrants are coming to steal people’s jobs, without realising that instead if we manage to create a common space, however difficult it may be at the beginning, in actual fact we are bolstering the internal market. In Rio de la Plata the migrants have always arrived with “bread under their arm”. Yet people fight against it, even though one shouldn’t overemphasize the events. Yes, the American continent is in turmoil. But I don’t think the situations are identical (within Latin America one has to distinguish between the situation in Central America and South America, ed. note). What’s happening in Brazil was preceded by what happened to Dilma; it looks like it’s a much more overarching process – and I don’t think it’s going to stop – that will go on well beyond the presidential elections. Curiously enough, a pre-candidate who is in jail keeps gaining ground in the polls without engaging in propaganda: it seems rather strange, doesn’t it? I have the impression that the internal measures that the Brazilian government is taking are working in favour of Lula’s popularity, otherwise I have no explanation for what’s going on. Provided the figures that are being posted are true.

Latin America has always been a continent that has opened its doors to everyone

It’s doors have always been open.

Why is a fear of immigration starting to spread right now?

There’s a tendency to spread the rumour that “they’re coming to take away jobs”, and I think that the media are responsible for heightening the perception of this phenomenon. Immigration has been massive in the past and people hardly noticed. In Argentina in 1880 there was a governor who coned the motto “We have to fill the Pampas with gringos” (a term used to refer to Americans and any white foreigner, ed. note), and it worked. In 40/50 years the country was transformed into the “world’s breadbasket”. My surname for example is half Basque and half Italian, something that’s very common in the Rio de la Plata region. The fact that at present we’re frightened by immigration does not fit in with our history, it means that new factors are coming into play. One of them is that reality is one thing and the perception of the people is another: these days, how a phenomenon is perceived can be heavily influenced by how it’s treated by the media, leading to somewhat neurotic reactions, though I hope I’m wrong. In principle, immigration can cause a few problems but I ask myself: seeing as the population is ageing and employment figures are dropping, who will pay for social security in the coming decades unless new workers are brought in? I’m saying this about my country, which has the same problems as Europe. Unless we manage to find a way to get robots and artificial intelligence to pay taxes, so that they pay for the social welfare of a growing ageing population. The fact is: people who have many children are poor, and when they leave the ranks of the poor they have fewer children. That’s why one way of stopping African immigration would be address poverty in Africa with some kind of Marshall plan. I don’t see this happening right now so the Mediterranean is bound to keep swallowing up African lives.

Italy, given its position in the centre of the Mediterranean, is living through tough times owing to the juxtaposition of love and hate towards migrants.

Italy is marvellous but it can’t escape this phenomenon that is a product of our contemporary society. It’s almost a law: if you’re rich, you’re more selfish. That doesn’t mean that all Italians are rich, don’t get me wrong, but they do happen to live in a relatively wealthy society. And the saddest thing is that Europe – because the problem is not only Italy’s – has no historic recollection of what it did to Africa: of how it divided it up like booty, it created nationalities and countries artificially, by drawing a line on a map with a pencil, it heightened the contradictions. And it sowed the seed of civilisation and western consumerism in Africa: it took plenty and left very little. I remember the old saying about Abyssinia in Mussolini’s day: “Italy is seeking its place in the sun”, and similar drivel. And there we have Africa: it’s lost its sons and its wealth. And seeing as it has abandoned its traditions and customs, now it looks to the European continent like an enticing shop window. And it wants a bit of the same. Because lifestyles have become global, and Europe’s is taken as an example. Success carries with it the seed of contradiction and failure. It’s bizarre how so many things have both a negative and positive side to them. If Africa had been left alone to develop its own culture without being invaded by the West, it wouldn’t have these kinds of concerns today. It has them because it’s been “infected”. It wants to be modern and live like Europeans, but it can’t.

You are playing an important part in the peace process in Colombia.

I used to. I have had no confirmation of the work we were trying to carry forward together with former president Gonzales (the former president of the Madrid community, ed. note). We were a small commission that followed this path and faced many difficulties, as is always the case with peace processes. I hope the work continues even though there are many “vague projects” related to this process. It’s very tricky. If we change the conditions set at the time of the peace agreements, this will certainly lead to contradictions. And then we have to consider the complaints filed by people who are seeking justice. These also have to be addressed (reference to the victims of the internal Colombian conflict, ed. note). The point is understanding whether Colombia’s priority is the past or the future. One shouldn’t forget that this country was, and still is, a major supplier of cocaine, to the point that it has become a parallel economy, without any official figures being published but which no doubt merge with those of the “official” economy and there’s plenty of people who’d like to keep things as they are. Then again many of the territories that have been “freed” from the guerrillas are now seeing the rise of military and paramilitary organisations that are trying to take over the business revenue generated by cocaine trafficking. And these kinds of interests usually work against any form of peace process.

Why did you legalise marijuana in Uruguay?

I’ve explained it many times. The drug traffic makes huge profits and in a world where getting rich seems to be the main objective, it’s hardly surprising that may people are prepared to run the risk of running drugs in an attempt to make a quick and easy profit. And we may manage to make a (drug) bust today, one tomorrow and one the day after, but there will never be a shortage of ambition. And there are also a sufficient number of fools who head down this road, and this makes trafficking even worse than the drugs themselves. Beware: clearly drug addiction is poisonous, but the problem as I see it is that it needs to be dealt with from a medical point of view. But at the same time we create a terrible problem which consists of the methods chosen to stop the expansion of drug trafficking (like the creation of special police forces which have often turned out be useless in fighting drug trafficking and even detrimental as is the case in Mexico, ed. note) and the ensuing consequences and costs. Regulated sales, with major public involvement, in the light of day, allow us to entice consumers out into the open and perhaps cure them in time. This doesn’t mean endorsing drug consumption. The point is that, despite its intelligence, it’s hard to come across a more stupid animal than man: as soon as you ban something he’ll start to want to try itit. That’s why I believe that the best way to destroy drug trafficking is to remove its market. We are losing a war at a world level, a useless, endless and hugely expensive war. Drug trafficking is increasing, as is drug consumption, enticing increasing numbers of poor addicts into the fold until they too become traffickers. It’s a self-perpetuating phenomenon and it carries with it an incredible code of violence: “plata o plomo– money or lead” (a reference to Pablo Escobar’s motto, ed. note), this is the only alternative it offers and it damages all of society .That’s why I don’t share the attitude of certain politicians who prefer not to see what they “don’t like”, because the world is how it is and it won’t change just to please us: denying reality does nothing more than create a black market.

The same with abortion…

Yes, and it’s as old as time. There were abortions before Christ and there still are. Does that mean we like it? I think no one likes it, but as some old folk used to say “when the lower parts get excited, the upper parts stops thinking”. And then what has to happen happens, life works that way, that’s how we’re programmed. Refusing to recognise this issue ends up discriminating poor women, who find themselves facing huge difficulties and put their lives on the line. Rich women have other resources and always find a solution. Legalisation is a way of treating all social classes that make up society fairly and justly. But it’s a harsh reality, that has to come to terms with religious and many other forms of prejudice. I believe no one can be in favour (of abortion, ed .note) but we’ve found out that when a woman reaches that decision, more often than not she’s on her own, and if she’s helped, she often changes her mind. In an illegal market this is impossible: societies don’t want to look at themselves in the mirror of reality.

Now Pepe bids us farewell: many other engagements await him, including the presentation of two films about him at the Venice film festival: one by Emir Kusturica on his life, and another by the Uruguayan Alvaro Brechner on his time in prison, which he has preferred not to see to avoid “reviving those feelings”. He’d rather take a stroll down Venice’s narrow alleyways, dreaming of the land he can’t wait to get back to.

To subscribe to the magazine please access our subscription page here