This is how we will forge a prosperous, just, and strong nation.
The concept of the common good has been a constant in Western thought since Greco-Roman civilization. This idea has deeply permeated our society, to the point of being enshrined as a basic principle in our constitution. However, from a logical and objective analysis, I propose that the common good is an unattainable ideal. One of the great contemporary dilemmas is the disconnect between the theory of the common good and its practical results. Throughout history, this concept has been manipulated to control the masses and benefit a few close to power.
From a logical perspective, a fallacy is defective reasoning, and when examining the common good, I find at least three main fallacies. The first is the fallacy of idealism: the common good is an unrealizable utopia. Immanuel Kant, with his categorical imperative, argued that moral duty is based on the autonomy of the individual, which prevents the collective good from prevailing over personal freedom. Karl Popper also harshly criticized these utopias, pointing out that collectivism leads to totalitarian regimes.
Even Aristotle, a defender of the common good, recognized its limits. His theory requires a shared life dedicated to cooperative activities, which implies surrendering control of our lives to others. Aristotle warned that depending on the justice of others to make sacrifices for the common good opens the door to exploitation and domination.
The second fallacy is an appeal to popular wisdom. Saint Augustine, a central figure in Christian theology, defined it as a reflection of divine order, but warned about the dangers of human selfishness. “One looks after the common good of the heavenly society, while another seeks in the common good his own benefit, driven by the arrogant desire to rule.” Although solidarity and service are fundamental, the true engine of a community is individual interest in achieving personal goals, always regulated by just laws and the virtue of the individual.
This is where I propose the concept of shared interest instead of the common good. Unlike the latter, which is abstract and defined by a few according to their own interests, shared interest is based on negotiation and the alignment of objectives among all sectors. A clear example is Singapore, which after its independence in 1965 managed to align the interests of diverse communities to build a prosperous country by opening its doors to foreign trade.
It is time to leave behind unattainable ideals and begin building a country where every individual effort matters, where every personal goal contributes to the general well-being.
At that time, Guatemala and Singapore had the same income per person, but while Guatemala has barely doubled its GDP per capita since then, Singapore has multiplied it twentyfold.
There is no rule that benefits everyone equally. However, aligning shared interests strengthens society. The example of the Benelux, precursor to the European Economic Community, shows how cooperation among countries with aligned interests drove growth. In contrast, when those interests are undermined, as occurred with Brexit, the ties that united them break apart.
The greatest danger of the common good lies in the third fallacy, known as the contrary-to-fact hypothesis, meaning the assumption that, in its name, the best results will be achieved. However, throughout history, nations have been destroyed in the name of the common good. Juan Domingo Perón, in Argentina, used it to justify the persecution of the “bad Argentinians” and consolidate his power. Andrés Manuel López Obrador, in Mexico, has used the slogan “for the good of all” to polarize society, delegitimize his opponents, and concentrate power. Pedro Sánchez, in Spain, has justified controversial decisions, such as the rescue of Air Europa, under the banner of public welfare, when behind these actions personal interests can be perceived.
The tension between individual interest and collective well-being should not be resolved by imposing an unattainable ideal. The key lies in harmonizing shared interests among the different sectors of society. A republic flourishes when interests converge toward a long-term common objective, as happened in the Benelux, where unity enabled economic and social strengthening.
What kind of country do we want to leave to future generations? One where collective decisions sacrifice individual freedom, or one where everyone’s interests align in favor of a more just and prosperous society?
Is it possible to imagine a prosperous and peaceful Guatemala, with virtuous and free citizens, just laws, strong institutions, and regional leadership? If we share that interest, we can build that future together. And even if we do not agree on every detail, we will find a common path, because the well-being of our nation depends on the convergence of our aspirations and not on the imposition of an abstract ideal.
It is time to leave behind unattainable ideals and begin building a country where every individual effort matters, where every personal goal contributes to the general well-being. Guatemala’s destiny is in our hands, in our daily decisions, and in our ability to unite around shared interests. This is how we will forge a prosperous, just, and strong nation.
