Attack against Trump: lessons on political violence and the power of words

In recent days, the world has witnessed an event that has shaken the foundations of politics and society: the assassination attempt against former US president and Republican candidate, Donald Trump, during a campaign speech in Pennsylvania. This act of violence not only resulted in a fatality, but also highlighted the irresponsibility of politicians who contribute to creating a toxic and polarized environment that can lead to tragedies of this kind. The attack on Trump adds to a series of assassination attempts and assaults against high-profile politicians in different parts of the world in recent years. From Cristina Fernández in Argentina to Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and Shinzo Abe in Japan, the list of political leaders who have been targeted by violence is alarmingly extensive. These incidents not only endanger the lives of politicians, but also undermine the stability of the democracies in which they operate. Beyond the discussion about the security failures that allowed the assassination attempt and the motives of the assailant, it is essential to analyze the role that words play in creating a climate prone to violence. Political polarization, fueled by inflammatory speeches and veiled threats, can lead to extreme situations like the one Trump experienced. It is imperative that politicians and opinion leaders exercise prudence and responsibility in their statements, avoiding inciting hatred and confrontation. The President of the United States, Joe Biden, recently found himself embroiled in controversy over his statements suggesting putting Trump "in the crosshairs." This type of language, even if used figuratively, contributes to poisoning political debate and legitimizing violence as a tool for conflict resolution. Verbal violence can easily escalate into physical violence, as demonstrated by the attack on Trump. The lesson we must draw from this tragic event is that in a democracy, no political difference justifies resorting to violence. The debate of ideas and respect for institutions are the pillars on which any democratic society should be based. Politicians who promote hate and aggression in their speeches are co-responsible for the extremist acts that stem from their words. In the Peruvian political context, we have also witnessed inflammatory speeches and threats that jeopardize democratic coexistence. Verónika Mendoza's recent declaration urging "citizen insurgency" is an example of how words can be irresponsibly used to stoke discord and confrontation. It is essential that political leaders in our country commit to promoting a respectful and constructive dialogue, free from violence and radicalization. The attack on Trump reminds us that political violence does not lead to lasting solutions, but deepens divisions and undermines the legitimacy of democratic institutions. At a time when bellicose and polarizing rhetoric seems to be gaining ground in many countries, it is crucial that we reaffirm our commitment to democratic values and non-violence as pathways to building more just and peaceful societies. The tragedy that Trump experienced should serve as a wake-up call for all those involved in the political arena: our words have consequences, and it is the responsibility of each of us to contribute to a public discourse that promotes tolerance, respect, and harmonious coexistence.