Populismo reaccionario y sostenibilidad en disputa: discursos, políticas y efectos ambientales frente a la Agenda 2030. Un estudio comparado en Brasil, México y Argentina

This research seeks to analyze how the reactionary populist discourses of Presidents Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil), Javier Milei (Argentina), and Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO, Mexico) have impacted the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in their respective nations. The study specifically focuses on Goal 13 (Climate Action) and 15 (Life on Land) through a comparative analysis that correlates presidential narratives, concrete political actions, and the impact on key environmental indicators. In Latin America, populist governments have taken center stage worldwide, disregarding global governance, particularly in matters of sustainability and the 2030 Agenda. Far from being circumstantial elements, populist discourses pose structural challenges to the current multilateral architecture. Their anti-establishment, sovereigntist, and economically driven rhetoric challenges the legitimacy of globally defined environmental goals, producing significant effects at the local level. The article is structured in three main sections. The first outlines the core elements of the theoretical and methodological framework. This research integrates theories from international institutionalism, populism studies, and constructivism. The international institutionalist perspective facilitates an understanding of how the concept of sustainable development has been constructed and evolved. This concept, originating from the 1987 Brundtland Report, has been operationalized by the United Nations and other international bodies through successive frameworks: the goals established at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the Millennium Development Goals (2000-2015), and ultimately culminating in the formulation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Reactionary populism, understood as a variant of populism, combines charismatic and anti-elitist leadership with an explicit rejection of pluralism, international cooperation, and consensus, even reframing the 2030 Agenda as a globalist threat that erodes sovereignty. Integrating the contributions of Mudde, Laclau, and Mouffe helps clarify its nature: a form of populism that, while sharing the central people/elite dichotomy, is distinguished by its authoritarian and nationalist orientation. This perspective confronts both internal and external structures, resignifying multilateral governance as illegitimate and advancing sovereigntist discourses that challenge global cooperation frameworks. Alexander Wendt's constructivist approach posits that reality, whether domestic or international, is not an inherent fact, but rather a social construction shaped through language, norms, and political practices that imbue it with meaning. This process enables populist leaders to reinterpret concepts, emphasizing economic and sovereigntist issues to undermine the multilateral framework of the 2030 Agenda. Populism also engages with historical configurations as a means to construct a new reality or, at least, reinterpret it in a specific way. In particular, reactionary populist discourse functions as a mechanism that disrupts the multilateral consensus by resignifying these concepts through a nationalist and exclusionary lens. Methodologically, this analysis focuses on examining three Latin American presidents known for their populist discourse. The selection criteria are based on three key factors: their nations' geopolitical significance within the region, the intensity of their leadership's engagement with and critique of the multilateral order and the 2030 Agenda, and the accessibility of data from official channels and news organizations. The selection is based on their geopolitical significance within the region, the intensity with which their leadership has critiqued the multilateral order and the 2030 Agenda, as well as the availability of data from official sources and news agencies. The research employs a qualitative methodology, incorporating comparative discourse analysis and content analysis through a constructivist lens. The comparative study analyzes fifty presidential speeches, and the content analysis is conducted on one hundred sixty-seven news items that highlight emphases, nuances, generated actions, and effects on SDGs 13 and 15. The software tools WordSmith and Atlas TI are used to support the analysis. In the second section, the study presents its findings through four subsections. The first subsection offers a characterization of each president’s general reactionary populist discourse, using categories such as the people, elites, nation, globalism, and leadership to highlight the nuances of their respective approaches. For instance, AMLO adopts a moderate left-wing populism, focusing on social justice and energy sovereignty; Bolsonaro follows an authoritarian right-wing populism, emphasizing the defense of order, morality, and territorial property; and Milei advocates for an extreme neoliberal populism, centered on delegitimizing the state and rejecting any form of international regulation. The second subsection identifies four specific discursive lines employed by the heads of state to position themselves unfavorably towards the 2030 Agenda. These include: the rejection of the Agenda as a symbol of globalism, the prioritization of economic growth over environmental concerns, the reframing of concepts such as sustainable development, subordinating them to economic growth, advocating for national social justice or individual freedom, defending national sovereignty, and criticizing international actors. From a constructivist perspective, presidential discourses are not simply positions; they serve as tools for constructing interpretive frameworks that shape public policy decisions. Legitimacy is constructed through confrontation with actors identified as enemies of the people, including local figures, primarily environmentalists, and international entities, such as UN institutions. The third subsection examines how these narratives manifest in concrete political decisions by contrasting them with press reports of institutional actions aligned with the discourse. These actions span a range of measures, including budget cuts, the closure of ministries, the elimination of policies, as well as climate adaptation legislation and the criminalization of environmental advocates. The fourth subsection presents indicators that capture the short-term effects of the decisions made by the heads of state. These indicators reveal the consequences in terms of weakened institutional capacity for environmental protection, increased deforestation, and the economic exploitation of protected territories. These aspects suggest a dismantling of environmental policies, deterioration of ecological governance frameworks, and legitimization of anti-scientific views on climate change, creating a dangerous gap between current political situation and future commitments. Once institutionalized, these setbacks may become difficult to reverse, leaving lasting impacts on ecosystems, communities, and the state's capacity for environmental action. The third section presents the conclusions. It demonstrates that reactionary populism permeates the rhetoric of the analyzed heads of state, serving as a mechanism to delegitimize international normative institutional frameworks and dismantle shared principles of environmental action. Despite their ideological differences, the three analyzed cases share a discursive logic that challenges the multilateral order, promotes sovereign re-territorialization of common goods, and weakens the institutional framework of the 2030 Agenda both generally and specifically regarding Goals 13 and 15. Moreover, although three specific cases have been analyzed, the observed patterns point to a more general trend in Latin America, where the sovereigntist rhetoric, the distrust of global elites, and the reframing of sustainability are common strategies that could extend to other regional contexts, raising relevant questions about the future of environmental multilateralism in the Global South.