
José Mujica became the antithesis of a caudillo
It is not a flashy country and José Mujica, who died on May 13th aged 89, became its epitome. As Uruguay's president from 2010 to 2015 he continued to drive a battered sky-blue Volkswagen Beetle and to lunch in workaday bars on the main street of Montevideo, the capital. Foreign dignitaries or journalists who sought an audience usually had to trek out to his scrabbly farm with its three-roomed house of grey concrete where he lived for the last 40 years of his life. He often dressed in a fleece and tracksuit. He gave away much of his presidential salary. If it was partly a theatrical act, almost a caricature, it was one he lived to the full. He had a deep and genuine hatred of pomp and flummery, which he saw as inimical to the egalitarian principles of a democratic republic.
This frugal authenticity was one factor that turned Mr Mujica into a global icon, especially for those uncomfortable with a voracious and environmentally predatory consumer society. Another was his extraordinary life story, for the journey to the presidency had been long, tortuous and hard. The son of a florist and of a smallholder farmer who died when he was six, at 29 he joined the Tupamaros, an urban guerrilla group inspired by Che Guevara and the Cuban revolution. They were fond of Robin Hood stunts such as robbing supermarkets to distribute food to the poor. Mr Mujica was hit by six bullets when he and three comrades exchanged fire with police who had found them in a bar. He was imprisoned for a total of 14 years (he twice escaped), ten of them in solitary confinement, two at the bottom of a well with only ants and mice for company.
Far from fighting for democracy as leftist myth holds, Mr Mujica and the Tupamaros fought to extinguish it in what had long been a peaceful country. In that they succeeded: in response to guerrilla violence, the armed forces staged a coup in 1973 and ruled for 12 years. At least incarceration gave Mr Mujica time to think, which he said he did a lot (as well as 'listening to the ants', he added).
He emerged a changed man. Though he never made an explicit self-criticism of his guerrilla past, his actions offered one. He became a parliamentarian and a minister (of agriculture), accepting the market economy, foreign investment and liberal democracy—'and I have to make it work as well as I can,' he told The Economist. The 'enormous advantages' of democracy, he concluded, were that 'it doesn't believe itself to be finished or perfect' and its tolerance of disagreement. Because of that and because of the suffering he underwent, Uruguayans pardoned his past.
A third factor in his fame he owed to Uruguay. It is a secular, progressive country, one of the first to establish a welfare state. Younger members of Mr Mujica's coalition drew on that tradition to propose new rights. As president he legalised cannabis, abortion and gay marriage.
Unlike other Latin American leftist leaders, such as Rafael Correa in Ecuador or, more recently, Gustavo Petro in Colombia, he did not try to 'refound' his country. Nor did he try to rewrite the rules, in contrast to Claudia Sheinbaum in Mexico with her espousal of elected judges. When Uruguay's courts knocked down six of his government's laws, he accepted it without criticism.
He was not particularly good at governing. He tried and failed to reform a deteriorating education system dominated by an over-mighty trade union. He was good at talking. With a twinkle in his small, penetrating eyes, he enjoyed the cut and thrust of argument. Above all, he was not vindictive, not even against his jailers. 'I don't hate,' he said. 'Can you imagine the luxury it is not to hate?' He disappointed his own supporters by rejecting attempts to put the dictators on trial. 'Justice has the stink of vengeance,' he insisted. In that he was in tune with majority opinion in his country.
He retained a vestigial, if misplaced, loyalty to the Cuban regime (he acted as a discreet messenger between Barack Obama and Raúl Castro when the two negotiated a diplomatic thaw between their countries). But in practice he had evolved into a social democrat, one who mistrusted extreme positions. He came to believe that the key to a lasting change in material conditions was to change cultural attitudes and that was harder and took longer. Ironically, perhaps, for a former Marxist, he became a tribune for anti-materialism, at least up to a point. He invited young people to live modestly because 'the more you have the less happy you are'.
In a region not known for it, he was self-deprecating. 'I dedicated myself to changing the world and I didn't change anything, but it was amusing and gave sense to my life,' he said in one of his final interviews last year. His lasting legacy to the Latin American left was that he became the antithesis of a caudillo.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
Harvard's enduring leftist leanings: From Castro to campus controversies
Fidel Castro. (Getty Images) Harvard university, a beacon of liberal academia and a prominent US academic leader, has long displayed a discernible inclination towards leftist ideologies, a trend that has recently drawn sharp criticism from the Trump administration. This perceived political alignment intensified as President Donald Trump, citing Harvard's opposition to his policies and personal history, began imposing restrictions on the university's federal funding. While Trump denied personal resentment from any alleged Harvard rejection, the antipathy deepened significantly following the university community's response to the October 7 Hamas attack. The institution faced widespread condemnation for its "disgraceful display of anti-Israel vitriol and tacit endorsement of violent messaging," which then-president Claudine Gay initially refused to condemn, ultimately leading to her resignation, as reported by The Hill. This incident provided ample opportunity for Trump to lambast Harvard, given that approximately 90 percent of its student body and faculty reportedly supported his Democratic opponents in the three most recent presidential elections, as stated by The Hill. The Trump administration's scrutiny broadened further when Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced visa revocations for Chinese students with Communist Party ties or those studying in "critical fields." Later, Trump issued a proclamation limiting the entry of international students to Harvard for study and research, as reported by The Hill. A soft spot for leftist leaders Harvard's historical leanings are not a new phenomenon. In 1959, the university notably hosted Fidel Castro, the young Cuban revolutionary who had just overthrown the right-wing dictator Fulgencio Batista. During his visit, Castro delivered a fiery speech extolling his revolution. In a question-and-answer session, when confronted with reports of summary executions without trials, Castro vehemently denied any extra-judicial killings, as reported by The Hill. Less than two years later, despite his repeated claims of "I am not a Communist," Castro declared his Marxist-Leninist ideology and Cuba's alliance with the Soviet Union, as observed by The Hill. Vietnam war and Communist influence The Vietnam War era further underscored Harvard's evolving political landscape. Despite the conflict's origins under Harvard alumnus John F. Kennedy, the faculty and student body progressively turned against escalating US intervention under Lyndon Johnson. They increasingly viewed North Vietnam's Communist dictator, Ho Chi Minh, as merely an "agrarian reformer" and the Communist Vietcong as "oppressed democrats" rather than agents of North Vietnam's invasion, as reported by The Hill. In May 1965, when Johnson's Secretary of State Dean Rusk criticized the academic community for its "stubborn disregard of plain facts," Harvard led numerous Boston and Cambridge colleges in drafting a unified response to Rusk, as stated by The Hill. This period demonstrated how U.S. universities, including Harvard, became fertile ground for communist influence operations, a fact that China, North Vietnam's primary supporter, exploited for decades. Countering malign activities on US campuses The House Select Committee on China has since detailed the Chinese Communist Party's extensive efforts to leverage the openness of American society, particularly in acquiring technical and scientific information. A notable instance occurred in 2021 when Harvard professor Charles Lieber was convicted of selling classified information to Chinese university colleagues and lying to federal investigators about it, as reported by The Hill. Such incidents have cast a shadow over many international scholars in the US. University officials and government investigators now face the challenge of cooperating to counter "malign activities on US campuses without damaging America's reputation for free speech and open idea exchange," as noted by The Hill – an outcome that would be a strategic victory for Beijing. This dilemma extends beyond academia, as decades of US Defense Department military exercises with the People's Liberation Army, intended to build mutual understanding, have arguably ignored the underlying reality that in China's totalitarian system, "everything in academia, economics, and the military is subservient not to the needs and interests of the Chinese people but to the Chinese Communist Party," as stated by The Hill. Joseph Bosco, who served as China country director for the Secretary of Defense, emphasized that changing China remains a daunting challenge, and the "wishful thinking of unconditional engagement" has proven both futile and increasingly perilous, as quoted by The Hill. Both Harvard and the US government must now dedicate their best minds to this complex endeavor. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.


Time of India
8 hours ago
- Time of India
Trump's troops, Soros's bricks: Lies flood socials - What's behind LA protests?
As thousands march across Los Angeles to oppose sweeping immigration raids, another battle is raging online - one of doctored photos, misleading videos, and conspiracy theories that blur fact and fiction, stoking division and chaos, a New York Times report said. The protests began Friday following the arrest of more than 40 immigrants at workplaces across the city. What started with chants and peaceful rallies has escalated into clashes, military deployments, and a digital storm of disinformation that, according to experts, is not only distorting the reality on the ground but accelerating the unrest. Protests spark over raids, Federal troop deployment Crowds have gathered in downtown LA and beyond since Friday, outraged by the federal immigration sweeps and the arrest of labor leader David Huerta, who has since been released on bond. Protesters have blocked streets, linked arms outside detention centers, and waved Latin American flags in defiance of Trump's policies and rhetoric. By Monday, the protests entered a volatile fourth day. Despite mostly peaceful rallies, law enforcement used tear gas and rubber bullets to break up groups in downtown LA where violence flared - including burning self-driving Waymo cars and assaults on police. The federal response was swift and controversial: 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines have now been deployed to LA, without the consent of California Governor Gavin Newsom, who called the move "reckless" and sued the Trump administration to block it. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo 'This isn't about public safety,' Newsom posted on X. 'It's about stroking a dangerous President's ego.' Online disinformation campaigns stoke the fire As tensions rose on the streets, misinformation exploded across social media - often faster than journalists and officials could respond, the NYT report said. Darren L Linvill, a researcher at Clemson University, described how right-wing influencers were 'building up the riots in a performative way' to validate Trump's framing of Los Angeles as a war zone. 'As they direct attention to it,' he noted, 'more protesters will show up.' One viral post falsely claimed that pallets of bricks had been left near ICE buildings for 'Democrat militants' to launch attacks. The photo was traced to a Malaysian construction supplier - a recycled hoax from past protest cycles. Still, it reached over 800,000 views before being tagged with a Community Note. Actor James Woods reposted a fabricated Obama quote and 2020 riot footage, presenting them as proof of a left-wing plot. Other users shared out-of-context stills from films like Blue Thunder to claim Marines were 'engaging in combat downtown.' According to the Social Media Lab at Toronto Metropolitan University, these narratives aren't new - but their reappearance signals coordinated attempts to discredit protests and depict them as orchestrated insurgencies. 'It's catnip for right-wing agitators and grifters,' the Lab posted. Conspiracies target leaders and amplify division The conspiracy theories didn't stop at bricks or movie clips. Influencers on X and Truth Social claimed - without evidence - that LA Mayor Karen Bass had CIA ties and helped spark the unrest. The claim relied solely on her role on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy. Even more far-fetched accusations targeted financier George Soros, long a bogeyman in far-right narratives. Soros was baselessly blamed for funding the protests, a theory bolstered by anonymous and foreign-linked accounts. Some of the loudest voices, including Trump himself, labeled protesters as 'Paid Insurrectionists.' Russian nationalist Aleksandr Dugin echoed the theme, claiming, 'It is nationwide conspiracy of liberals against not only Trump but against American people in general.' Nora Benavidez, of the media watchdog Free Press, said the disinformation was no accident: 'Information warfare is always a symptom of conflict, stoked often by those in power to fuel their own illiberal goals.' A test case for Trump's power play? Critics argue that the chaos in LA is being used to justify sweeping federal power. President Trump has suggested that similar troop deployments could happen 'everywhere,' fueling concerns that he may invoke the Insurrection Act to clamp down on civil dissent. President Trump's decision to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles - without the consent of California's governor - marks one of the most aggressive assertions of federal power over a state in recent history. Critics say it's not just about immigration enforcement - it's about setting a precedent. 'This is exactly what Donald Trump wanted,' Governor Gavin Newsom said in a viral post. 'He flamed the fires and illegally acted to federalize the National Guard.' The legal mechanism Trump invoked - a rarely used clause allowing deployment in the face of 'rebellion' - has only been triggered once in modern US history without a governor's request, during the 1965 Selma marches. Trump's move is even more provocative given that Los Angeles officials, including Police Chief Jim McDonnell, say local law enforcement has the situation under control. California has filed a lawsuit challenging the deployment. Attorney General Rob Bonta called it 'a trampling of state sovereignty,' arguing that no actual rebellion or invasion exists - conditions required for Trump's order to be lawful. Behind the scenes, legal scholars warn that Trump may be laying the groundwork to invoke the Insurrection Act - a far more extreme measure that would allow the military to directly enforce civilian law. Trump hasn't formally done so, but he and his allies have repeatedly labeled the protests 'insurrections,' echoing language he's used before to justify force. The framing is no accident. Stephen Miller, Trump's top immigration advisor, called the protests 'a battle for the survival of Western civilization.' Trump has claimed Los Angeles would have been 'obliterated' without his intervention. He's also floated the arrest of Newsom, fueling accusations of authoritarian overreach. 'These moves aren't just about LA - they're about testing the boundaries,' Todd Belt, political science professor at George Washington University, told AFP. 'If Trump can override a state on immigration protests, what stops him from doing the same in another city over gun laws, abortion rights, or education policy?' Critics argue that Trump is staging a made-for-TV crackdown to energize his base. His deployment order came just hours before attending a UFC fight - an arena he has used to project toughness. And with his 79th birthday military parade in Washington looming, the timing appears more symbolic than strategic. 'Trump knows the optics,' said Hina Shamsi of the ACLU. 'Deploying troops, calling governors criminals, labeling protesters 'paid insurrectionists' - it's all designed to project dominance and distract from the actual issues.' The fear among civil liberties groups, legal experts, and Democratic leaders is that what's happening in Los Angeles could become a template - not an anomaly.


Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
UnitedHealth eyes $1 billion deal to exit Latin America as insurer refocuses on US, sources say
New York: UnitedHealth Group is weighing multiple bids for its Latin American operations, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter, as the insurer buckles down after a series of unprecedented missteps that include the ouster of its CEO and a reported criminal accounting probe. The largest U.S. health insurer has been trying to exit Latin America since 2022, but the sale of Banmedica has taken on increasing urgency in recent months as the insurer took hits on multiple fronts, according to one of the people. New CEO Steve Hemsley told shareholders last week that he was determined to earn back their trust after an earnings miss and a Wall Street Journal report that the company was under criminal investigation for alleged Medicare fraud. UnitedHealth has said it was not notified by the Department of Justice and that it stands by the integrity of its operations. Hemsley replaced Andrew Witty just a few months after the murder of the executive Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, in New York in December while on his way to a meeting with investors. Witty had been UnitedHealth Group CEO since 2021. The company has four non-binding bids for its Banmedica subsidiary, which operates in Colombia and Chile, for about $1 billion, according to both people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private. UnitedHealth's shares tumbled 25.5% in May alone and year-to-date are down 40%. UnitedHealth left Brazil in 2023 and Peru in March. It's aiming to get around $1 billion for Banmedica's operations in Colombia and Chile, the people said. The two people said the company expects to set a deadline for binding proposals as soon as July. UnitedHealth received bids from Washington, D.C.-based private equity firm Acon Investments; Sao Paulo-based private equity firm Patria Investments; Texas non-profit health firm Christus Health; and Lima-based healthcare and insurance provider Auna, the people said. Auna is in talks with a financial partner, one of the sources added. Banmedica's annual earnings before income taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITDA, are more than $200 million a year. Patria, UnitedHealth Group and Christus Health declined to comment. Acon and Auna did not respond to requests for comment. FAILED EXPANSION PLANS UnitedHealth bought Banmedica in 2018, with CEO David Wichmann saying he was "establishing a foundation for growth in South America for the next decades." At the time, UnitedHealth paid around 12 times Banmedica's EBITDA, according to one of the people. Three years later, the insurer decided to leave Latin America as it grappled with losses in its largest operation in the region, Brazil's Amil, which had been acquired a decade earlier. It divested from its Brazilian operations in late 2023. Banmedica is currently profitable, but is considered too small by UnitedHealth. It serves over 2.1 million consumers through its health insurance programs and has around 4 million patient visits annually across its network of 13 hospitals and 143 medical centers. UnitedHealth booked an $8.3 billion loss last year related to the sale of its South American operations - $7.1 billion stemming from the Brazil exit and $1.2 billion from Banmedica. "These losses relate to our strategic exit of South American markets and include significant losses related to foreign currency translation effects," the company said in a February filing. Brazilian investment bank BTG Pactual is advising UnitedHealth on the sale.