Satire as an Indicator of Democratic Health

Last night, comedian Jimmy Kimmel returned to television, from which he should never have been suspended.

Tolerance for satire is an indicator of a country's democratic health. I have always argued that political satire should be considered a journalistic genre, because its strength lies in reaching where denunciations, criticisms, investigations, or editorials do not always reach.

From the Athenian Aristophanes to contemporary cartoonists, satire has served as a tool of civic resistance, not only to make people laugh but also to make them uncomfortable, question, and provoke reflection. By distorting or exaggerating reality, it exposes it; by exaggerating the flaws of leaders, it unmasks them; by being ironic about public decisions, it forces citizens to look beyond official rhetoric.

Because of these characteristics, authoritarian powers often react disproportionately, as in the case of Kimmel and Stephen Colbert after Trump's reactions, or the case of the Ecuadorian cartoonist Bonil during the Correa government, or others during the Chávez dictatorship or the dictatorships of the Southern Cone, when satire was the only option to circumvent censorship.

It is also worth remembering that satire, although not limited by the rules of traditional journalism, is not exempt from responsibility if its effects incite violence, hatred, or discrimination, which is why it causes so much enthusiasm or disappointment depending on the perspective from which it is viewed. During the first Trump presidency, the limits of satire and freedom of expression were debated when comedian Kathy Griffin appeared in an image with the severed head of the then-president. Years earlier, images of monkeys during Barack Obama's presidency ignited a debate that quickly died down due to the lack of reaction from the person affected. But the discussion became global when the French weekly Charlie Hebdo published a caricature of Muhammad that people of Muslim origin considered offensive and discriminatory. Often, what generates controversy is not the satire itself, but the timing, as was the case with Kimmel's ill-timed remarks regarding Charlie Kirk's crime.

In any case, nothing justifies intolerance, whether it's terrorist violence against the illustrators of Charlie Hebdo, the legal persecution of Bonil, or the threat to shut down a television station to silence its comedians. Satire may be uncomfortable, but that is its democratic essence.

What is intolerable is that this discomfort turns into censorship, persecution, or violence. In a democracy, the only legitimate limit to satire is not set by rulers or the offended, but by justice. And justice should not be used as a gag, but as a guarantee that freedom of expression coexists with responsibility. Censorship disguised as moral authority or political power does not protect society, but degrades, impoverishes, and suffocates it.