|
Latin America’s Left Dichotomy
Kyra
Chocron
Latin America is turning to the left –
this much is widely known. It is,
however, a phenomenon that carries with
it rather complex qualities, primarily
the chasm between two very differing
modes of leftist politics. One ‘left’,
championed primarily by Chile, Brazil,
and Uruguay, is akin to a moderate,
social-democratic kind. Its positive
characteristics lie in its ability to
reconstruct itself via the recognition
of the mistakes created by its
ideological models, primarily the former
Soviet Union and Cuba.
The other, less orthodox type of ‘left’
is populist. Ruled on the forefront
today by Venezuela’s Chavez, and
followed very strongly by Morales in
Bolivia and Kirchner in Argentina, it is
trapped in ideological admiration for
its forefathers.
A Different Shade of Red?
The reconstructed left is best
exemplified in Chile. A respect for
democratic institutions, in fusion with
social policies is a formula for
success. A region plagued by corruption
and authoritarian tendencies has as its
model a country which managed to trump
ideology with historical legacy.
Michelle Bachelet, along with her
profitable coalition of Old Socialist
Party and the Christian Democrats, has
been able to generate high economic
growth and improve on several social
issues.
A model to its Latin American
counterparts, Chile’s history of
dictatorships and intransigent economic
policies did not prevent its rise as a
successful and growing nation: the
country managed to surpass the traumatic
political legacy of Augusto Pinochet’s
dictatorship whilst significantly
reducing poverty and achieving
remarkable improvements in both
infrastructure and education.
In Brazil, correspondingly, there exists
the same successful coalescence of old
socialist tendencies with new,
innovative macroeconomic policies.
President Lula’s ability strictly to
follow IMF requirements has been of
paramount importance in Brazil’s recent
success. Its economic stability,
accentuated by its yearly production of
quite an extraordinary fiscal surplus,
demonstrates Brazil’s successful fusion
of traditional socialist principles with
rather orthodox economic policies.
Without abandoning socialist principles,
however, Lula developed the “Zero
Hunger” initiative, a creative
manifestation combining ideology with
political practicality [1]. In addition,
Lula devised the “Bolsa Familia” welfare
program (“Family Scholarship” in
English), which entails direct cash
transfers to poor Brazilian families
strictly on the condition that the
children attend school and acquire
vaccinations. Modeled on Mexico’s
“Oportunidades” program, Bolsa Familia
is the largest and most extensive
conditional cash transfer initiative in
the world.
Lastly, Uruguay is, to some extent,
another illustration of the dichotomy.
Quite the prodigy, it has the lowest
poverty rate, as well as low levels of
inequality – an accomplishment in the
most unequal continent in the world.
Vazquez is borrowing from the old and
combining it with the new, a strategy
with the potential of producing positive
results. This is exemplified not only by
Uruguay’s mature relationship with the
United States, but also by its ability
to resist some of its counterparts’
ideological warfare on neo-liberalism.
Populism Returns
The resurrection of populism in Latin
America is spearheaded by one man: Hugo
Chavez. His demagogic, anti-USA, and
authoritarian nature aims at
“decontaminating” the region of
neo-liberalist tendencies. Its results
can be seen in the ongoing deterioration
of Venezuela’s situation: from 1997 to
2003, GDP shrank 45pc, while the
national currency, the Bolivar, dropped
292pc from 1998 to 2005 [2].
Argentina and Bolivia are no different:
Nestor Kirchner was a die-hard Peronist
who defaulted on IMF loans, while
Morales is a populist in the purest
form, with plans to nationalise the
country’s assets.
Argentina, however, judging from the
recent election results, seems poised
towards a more practical view of
socialism. Although Cristina de Kirchner
cites good relations with Venezuela’s
Chavez, she seems focused on improving
her country’s education and public
health system.
Despite her Peronist background, her
idea of “social and inclusive”
capitalism is characteristic of a more
pragmatic economic policy under which
the country is more likely to positively
contribute to the region. She expressed
this view in an exclusive interview with
Time Magazine: “We're
not averse to capitalism. But if they
used to say, ‘Workers of the world
unite!’ then we also say today,
‘Capitalists of the world, assume your
social responsibility!’” This is akin to
Lula’s popular view of the economy, and
one he is successfully implementing.
Venezuela saves itself from itself
In Venezuela, recent developments in
both the political and economic
landscapes intensified the shift towards
the left – namely the very ambitious
constitutional reform. Chavez presented
a draft for a new constitution in which
he abandons presidential term limits,
brings in a maximum six-hour working
day, increases presidential control over
the central bank, and, in line with the
aforementioned control, extends state
economic powers by, for instance,
allowing the government to control
assets of private companies.
On the 5th of December,
however, the Venezuelan people wisely
rejected Chavez’s ambitious plans. Even
some of his own supporters, who have
blindly followed him for nine years,
voted against the referendum: in Petare,
where Chavez once held the majority, his
own people turned against him and
trumped his attempt to reverse
democratic principles.
This illustrates that the population is
cognizant of the current state of
affairs, and would not like to see their
country take the wrong turn. It is in
the hands of the Venezuelan people,
therefore, to protect themselves from
the retrogressive policies of their
government and, where they can, stand up
for their democratic principles.
Ideology vs. Pragmatism
It is vital to take notice of the fact
that socialist policies are not
necessarily a path to destruction; the
ideas upon which they are contingent are
essential in every political system to
compensate for the distortions resulting
from capitalist development. The
populist-propelled kind of left,
however, ignores the “compensation”
element of the rule, trying to destroy
all modes of capitalism, thus
eliminating the prospect of beneficial
social and economic progress.
The political, economic, and social
progress of any region is based on its
ability to create a stable balance
between its allegiance to ideology and
pragmatism. The left dichotomy present
in Latin America is creating a two-camp
sort of Western Hemisphere – not
conducive to a constructive political
climate.
If the region were united rather than
strictly partitioned into two separate
ideologies, the sense of alienation
Latin America has experienced would
lessen, and would provide an opportunity
for Latin America to fulfil its
potential as a powerful, promising, and
vigorous region. Some in the region have
already taken the initiative to detach
themselves from the negative effects of
past ideology. It is time that the rest
follow in the same propitious direction.
|
