Recently, I have been working on a document about transversal approaches as part of my work supporting the update of Peru’s multisectoral public justice policy. This work revisits classical approaches, such as intersectoral and intercultural perspectives, which have been developed with varying degrees of success in public policies. In fact, I believe that the intercultural approach remains an outstanding challenge, as actions have yet to be fully integrated in a culturally sensitive manner—ones that neither underestimate the beliefs of ancestral cultures nor exalt them as mystical objects. As I mentioned, while there have been significant advancements, much work remains to be done. A similar situation occurs with other approaches, such as gender, where much progress has been made, but where, according to some academics and experts, there have also been missteps—an issue I intend to revisit later with a new approach.

Now, the intersectional approach, developed by Kimberlé Crenshaw, is relatively recent. As noted by the Center for Intersectionality and Social Policy Studies at Columbia Law School, although this concept has been extensively explored over the past two decades, it still holds unrealized potential. What particularly caught my attention is how it shines a spotlight on power systems. This is because it focuses on the systemic and structural conditions of discrimination and inequity.

However, in light of today’s evident political conditions, this concept falls short. We are witnessing not only how rights that, until very recently, were considered human advancements are now perceived—particularly by certain religious groups—as abuses of freedom and violations of democracy itself. This phenomenon is not exclusive to the United States; similar trends can be observed in Spain, Peru, and other countries.

From the perspective of national policies, this issue is crucial. Policies generally aim for changes that occur in the long term, requiring consistency, continuity, and adjustments. It is no longer just about political party struggles that refuse to maintain the statues inaugurated by their political adversaries, but rather about the notion that these statues should have no place in democracy at all. To a certain extent—or in its entirety—this represents the negation of the other, their aspirations, and the destruction of their "advancements" through the power of various state structures, such as laws, policies, institutions, and, of course, budget allocations.

Definition: What Is Retrocessionality?

Retrocessionality is an approach that analyzes how groups in power use political, legal, and cultural strategies to reduce emphasis on certain rights or even redefine them in the opposite direction from what they were just a few years ago. Instead of merely resisting social transformations, this approach examines how an active ideological and normative reversal is driven within society.

Core Ideas of the Retrocessional Approach

1. Not merely reaction, but reconfiguration: Unlike classical conservative resistance, it does not merely aim to halt progressive changes but actively works to dismantle and, in some cases, redefine rights through an inverse logic.

2. Continuity in the political struggle: This is not a spontaneous return to past values but an active and organized process to restructure norms and social discourse.

3. Utilization of institutional tools: Retrocessionality does not operate solely through radical discourse but is implemented via laws, court rulings, media narratives, and educational changes.

4. Inverse reformulation: In some cases, it is not just about eliminating rights, but also redefining them to serve a different ideological agenda.

Examples of Retrocessionality in Action

Example 1: Reproductive Rights in the United States

Just a few years ago, women's reproductive rights, such as abortion access, were expanding.

However, the revocation of Roe v. Wade (2022) by the U.S. Supreme Court not only eliminated constitutional protection for abortion but also allowed many states to implement even more restrictive laws than those in place before 1973.

This was not just a halt to abortion rights but a redefinition of the right to life from a conservative perspective.

Example 2: The Concept of Family in Some European Countries

During the 2010s, many countries were expanding the legal definition of family to include same-sex marriage and adoption rights.

In Hungary and Poland, governments have promoted constitutional reforms to define marriage exclusively as the union between a man and a woman, reversing LGBTQ+ rights advancements.

Example 3: The Revision of Multiculturalism in France

In recent decades, France implemented multicultural inclusion policies.

More recently, government discourse has shifted towards reaffirming secularism (laïcité) as a mechanism to restrict certain religious practices—such as banning the Islamic veil in schools—effectively reinterpreting religious freedom in a more restrictive sense.

Strategies Used in Retrocessionality

Groups advocating for the rollback of rights often employ the following key strategies:

1. Judicialization: Utilizing courts and judicial reforms to overturn previously established rights.

2. Narrative of "Historical Correction": Framing the rollback of rights as a "restoration" of fundamental values that were supposedly distorted.

3. Gradual legislative strategy: Progressively changing laws to prevent mass resistance.

4. Crisis exploitation: Leveraging economic, security, or health crises to justify measures that curtail rights.

Distinctions Between Retrocessionality and Other Approaches

1. Difference from classical conservative reaction: Retrocessionality is not just a passive rejection of change but an active, organized effort to reverse and redefine rights.

2. Difference from populism: While some populist movements use retrocessionality, this approach is not limited to populist leaders and can occur in institutionalized democracies.

3. Difference from authoritarianism: Retrocessionality can take place within democracies, using legal and constitutional mechanisms to justify its changes.

________

If you've made it this far, I assume this text has sparked some critical reflections on public policy. As I mentioned, this is a fundamental issue, as policies ultimately embody the collective efforts of the government and democratic institutions. It’s not just about counter-reforms but about an ongoing struggle that is often shaped by ideological agendas. In the Peruvian context, this dynamic is further exacerbated by corruption.

I would greatly appreciate reading your comments.