|
A ‘New Left’ in
Latin America or the Same Shades of Old Politics?
This article aims to explain why
leftwing politicians in Latin America
have represented more a regional
division than a common opportunity for
change, and why a new form of thinking
is necessary. This series of pieces
intends to explain the broken
inter-American dialogue and its negative
consequences.
Left-oriented governments in Latin
America assert themselves as more
resolute in the defense of national
interests than ‘neoliberal’ politicians
(as they refer to the right-of-center
parties). In their view, globalization
has been more a means of re-empowering
the developed world at the chagrin of
poorer nations and their people. They
endlessly attack the financial
vulnerability that has come as a
by-product of global interaction.
Nationalization is commonly used as a
tool by which they propose to recover
what foreigners have taken abroad.
Leftist politicians make calls for
social commitment toward the least
privileged. They assume the role of
defendants against internal inequalities
and they say people must fit in the
political and economic system that has
traditionally benefited only the upper
classes of the population.
These intentions sound good. And the
poorest people might think so. However,
the real objectives behind this curtain
of good remain uncertain. Several
leftist politicians frequently make use
of civil unrest and social mobilization,
even when such movements can put
political and economic stability in
danger. That is why it has been said
that there is a tendency among the left
in Latin America to look for the
political capitalization of social
needs, disrespectfully of democratic
institutions and the rule of law.
But let’s assume that those not very
institutionalized means of getting power
are valid in a democratic and
pluralistic (and perhaps not always
inclusive) scenario. Moreover, let’s say
that it is true; not all leftist
governments or parties win power the
same way. Still, by observing how power
is exerted, the Left owes us more.
First, as these governments emerge from
old social and political cleavages
produced by around two decades of
economic downturn in the region, leftist
governments do not seem to be, and have
not proved, the option to end the
gridlock in polarized societies. On the
contrary, tensions have tended to
augment further.
There is also a tendency to
re-centralize power as has been the
intention of the governments of Evo
Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in
Ecuador, Nestor and Cristina Kirchner in
Argentina and perhaps more notably Hugo
Chavez in Venezuela. All have looked to
empower the executive branch against the
legislative, against the autonomy of the
system of justice and against any civil
warranty of protecting citizens for the
concentration of power. Those
governments have desired constitutional
reform and have made exaggerated use of
presidential decrees (that do not need
anyone's approval).
Another commonality in leftist
governments is the fact that political
governance depends on economic cycles,
something that is not seen in developed
countries. But for the purpose of this
blog, I would like to emphasize why the
left in Latin America has prevented an
inter-American rapprochement.
As leftist politicians emphasize a
hazardous nationalism as the core of
their populist administrations, the old
machinery is clearly found in foreign
policy. Instead of assuming an assertive
role, leftist governments have produced
a detachment from regional cooperation,
or an aggressive strategy of
intervention (Venezuela). Among leftist
politicians friendship means not to
intervene in the actions of other states
(even if it is to protest for human
rights violations).
In this scenario everybody is happy with
a South-against-North orientation in
foreign policy, but nobody reaches
consensus on how to perform a
South-South dialogue. Why? Because
nobody wants to cooperate by implicitly
signaling that they are to fall into
line behind the other, and regional
integration is downplayed (the
exception: when it comes to collude to
protect against internal opposition or
"foreign intervention", or if economic
benefits are warranted). It is true that
this arrangement can be observed
independently of the existence of a
leftist conclave. Nonetheless, in Latin
America the left is much more prone to
make use of old means of
authoritarianism and there are plenty of
examples.
Nevertheless, and against these
tendencies, people are less willing to
support such radical schemes, something
that leftist politicians have not
understood. Chavez unsuccessfully sought
approval of a bill (through a
plebiscite, not the Congress) that would
have eroded many of the current
limitations on hi exertion of power.
Morales has also tried to reform the
Bolivian constitution in his favor, but
many cleavages have emerged against his
plan. Correa has not been able yet to
get a new constitutional arrangement.
The former presidential candidate in
Mexico, Lopez Obrador, has lost
popularity because of his radical
discourse, his call for getting rid of
institutions and his fighting to the
last after he lost the presidential race
more than a year ago.
Even if marginalized sectors of society
represent the anchor of populist
emergence in Latin America, what leftist
politicians have not realized is that a
growing middle class in every country
prefers economic stability over economic
revolution. People distrust
centralization of power after years of
authoritarian regimes. This is good news
because it sometimes represents the only
check and balance, especially in
countries where the regime has ignored
or manipulated the political will of the
people.
I may look to the reader as a radical
right-wing advocate. I am not. I agree
as many people in the region that
prosperity and equality will not be
reached by the free market alone. The
State can arrange for social needs but
by always respecting institutions,
improving justice, strengthening the
rule of law and making the political
system more inclusive, something I do
not see clearly in the left discourse.
More importantly, Latin American
countries should act as bridge-builders
in the region instead of each going
through parallel frameworks.
Possibilities clearly exist: programs
for joint investments, technical
capabilities sharing, strategic
partnerships for development, etc. That
is what people want and that is what
they deserve independently of the
political orientation of the party in
government, because this should be a
minimum, a must in Latin American
politics. Perhaps the best exceptions
can be found in Chile, Uruguay and
Brazil. The region needs a real new
left, a modernizer, not old fashioned.
The old machinery did not work out and
will never do so. It is time to change
the left thinking in Latin America:
people do not think the same way they
did decades ago.
|
