The widespread belief in Uruguay that the most important legacy of the Lacalle Pou administration was its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic through the policy of “libertad responsable” (responsible freedom) is an example of how narratives reinforce the country’s myth of stability and exceptionalism. This perception is often constructed in comparison to other Latin American countries, particularly Argentina and Brazil, where pandemic management was more controversial. However, the attribution of Uruguay’s pandemic success to governance alone ignores critical structural factors, particularly its low population density, decentralized urban structure, and demographic advantages, which naturally limited the spread of the virus compared to larger, densely populated nations.

The “libertad responsable” narrative not only enhanced the perceived competence of the Lacalle Pou administration but also fed into Uruguay’s longstanding self-image as a rational, disciplined, and stable nation. By portraying itself as having managed the crisis better than its neighbors, Uruguay reinforced its exceptionalist discourse, even though the structural advantages in population distribution, rather than superior policy execution, played a decisive role. The policy’s impact on economic recovery and social stability is debatable, as Uruguay still faced fiscal challenges, inflationary pressures, and labor disruptions, issues that were minimized in the official narrative.

In contrast, countries like Peru, which faced far greater logistical and economic challenges during the pandemic, responded with highly structured, large-scale relief efforts, including monetary transfers, healthcare expansion, and supply chain interventions. Peru’s response, while widely criticized due to the scale of the crisis, demonstrated a more serious approach to economic and logistical management, whereas Uruguay’s response was framed as a political success rather than an economic strategy.

The “libertad responsable” myth thus contributed to the larger stability illusion, allowing Uruguay’s leadership to capitalize politically on a crisis that was, in many ways, shaped by demographic and geographic advantages rather than superior governance. This false confidence may have delayed more serious structural reforms in public health, logistics, and economic management, reinforcing Uruguay’s habit of celebrating perceived stability rather than addressing long-term vulnerabilities.