On March 1, 2020, a new government, led by president Luis Lacalle Pou, took office. Lacalle Pou is the typical Uruguayan politician. Son of a president, great-grandson of Luis Alberto de Herrera, one of the most important leaders along the history of the National Party (Partido Nacional, in Spanish), he graduated as a lawyer but dedicated himself exclusively to political activity. Lacalle Pou enjoys personal contact with voters. He is charismatic and communicative. Ideologically, he can be defined as a center-right leader. He won the 2019 presidential election promising to boost the economy, promote business and free trade, fight crime, and reform pensions and education system. He was supported by a five-party coalition that gave him a parliamentary absolute majority (Coalición Republicana, in Spanish). Although not allowed to serve two consecutive terms in Uruguay, Lacalle Pou governed with an eye to increasing the political capital of his party and his supporting coalition. Polls show that while he pushed through reforms that met with resistance, he managed to maintain high levels of approval. Just a few days after assuming the presidency, on March 13, the first cases of COVID-19 became known. In the midst of the prevailing tense uncertainty, the government convened a team of fifty experts to elaborate on the health response to the pandemic. The Honorary Scientific Advisory Group (GACH, in Spanish) operated for a year and a half. In mid-2021, although the pandemic was far from being controlled, the government and the GACH agreed to end the working group. The full government paid public recognition to the scientists and awarded the GACH coordinators with a special distinction. Uruguay's performance during the pandemic was brilliant during 2020, but poor during the first half of 2021. The final result, measured as cumulative deaths per million inhabitants, is similar to that of France. But the link between science and politics was very different, as could be expected given the characteristics of its Political Knowledge Regime (PKR). To understand the Uruguayan response to COVID-19, it is necessary to take into account the Political Knowledge Regime that characterizes the country. It is often said that the pandemic was a “black swan”, a rare and unpredictable event. The installation of the GACH and the convergence between advisors and rulers between April and December 2020 was also a “black swan”, to some extent, given the ideological distance between the current government and most of the Uruguayan scientific community. The outcome, on the other hand, was not unpredictable. In Uruguay, the weight of political identities and the dynamics of competition between parties ultimately prevail over expertise. Parties have been the main actors in the political system since the nineteenth century. Parties built democracy and the State. Parties, especially in times of uncertainty, call in experts, but they do not delegate decisions or public policies to them. The weight of the parties is so important that neither citizens nor leaders believe that academics can act without their political party identity.

Uruguay

章节
发表日期：

2025年

查看全文

Adolfo Garcé,
Robert H. Cox

摘要

On March 1, 2020, a new government, led by president Luis Lacalle Pou, took office. Lacalle Pou is the typical Uruguayan politician. Son of a president, great-grandson of Luis Alberto de Herrera, one of the most important leaders along the history of the National Party (Partido Nacional, in Spanish), he graduated as a lawyer but dedicated himself exclusively to political activity. Lacalle Pou enjoys personal contact with voters. He is charismatic and communicative. Ideologically, he can be defined as a center-right leader. He won the 2019 presidential election promising to boost the economy, promote business and free trade, fight crime, and reform pensions and education system. He was supported by a five-party coalition that gave him a parliamentary absolute majority (Coalición Republicana, in Spanish). Although not allowed to serve two consecutive terms in Uruguay, Lacalle Pou governed with an eye to increasing the political capital of his party and his supporting coalition. Polls show that while he pushed through reforms that met with resistance, he managed to maintain high levels of approval. Just a few days after assuming the presidency, on March 13, the first cases of COVID-19 became known. In the midst of the prevailing tense uncertainty, the government convened a team of fifty experts to elaborate on the health response to the pandemic. The Honorary Scientific Advisory Group (GACH, in Spanish) operated for a year and a half. In mid-2021, although the pandemic was far from being controlled, the government and the GACH agreed to end the working group. The full government paid public recognition to the scientists and awarded the GACH coordinators with a special distinction. Uruguay's performance during the pandemic was brilliant during 2020, but poor during the first half of 2021. The final result, measured as cumulative deaths per million inhabitants, is similar to that of France. But the link between science and politics was very different, as could be expected given the characteristics of its Political Knowledge Regime (PKR). To understand the Uruguayan response to COVID-19, it is necessary to take into account the Political Knowledge Regime that characterizes the country. It is often said that the pandemic was a “black swan”, a rare and unpredictable event. The installation of the GACH and the convergence between advisors and rulers between April and December 2020 was also a “black swan”, to some extent, given the ideological distance between the current government and most of the Uruguayan scientific community. The outcome, on the other hand, was not unpredictable. In Uruguay, the weight of political identities and the dynamics of competition between parties ultimately prevail over expertise. Parties have been the main actors in the political system since the nineteenth century. Parties built democracy and the State. Parties, especially in times of uncertainty, call in experts, but they do not delegate decisions or public policies to them. The weight of the parties is so important that neither citizens nor leaders believe that academics can act without their political party identity.