|
|
CHALLENGES 2006-2007: Defining Latin America's Leftist Governments
Analysis by Mario Osava
RIO DE JANEIRO, Dec 27, 2006 (IPS) - The wave of governments that identify themselves as leftist in Latin America and which have risen to power in the last few years represent neither a regional movement nor a homogeneous phenomenon.
"Today's new left is not called ‘leftist', but social democracy," said Marta Lagos, executive director of Latinobarómetro, a Chilean non-governmental organisation that carries out annual polls in 18 Latin American countries.
These governments put an emphasis on "the construction of social safety nets to provide support for the most vulnerable," but without breaking with the past, said Lagos, who pointed out that most of them have followed conservative economic policies.
"The ‘leftist' label confuses the public, because it's a concept that comes from the Cold War, from the 1960s, and is associated with revolutionary movements like those of Che Guevara, the government of Salvador Allende in Chile, and the Cuban revolution itself," she told IPS.
In her view, the governments of presidents Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, Néstor Kirchner of Argentina, Michelle Bachelet of Chile, and Tabaré Vázquez of Uruguay are all social democratic.
"The only government that is ‘more' leftist is the Bolivian administration of Evo Morales, because its objective is the ‘refounding' of the nation," although "within the democratic system," which differentiates it sharply from the left of the 1960s, she said.
"I wouldn't say Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is either of the extreme left or a social democrat, because he's a populist," said Lagos. Populism is "the dominant characteristic" of his leadership style and policies, she underlined.
"Every case stands on its own," said Tullo Vigévani, professor of international relations at the Sao Paulo State University (UNESP). The governments that the press "generically describe as leftwing have different origins and characteristics, which means they are not comparable."
Not even governments that have close ties are similar. The Morales administration has a strong "ethnic character" and is very much identified with the country's indigenous majority, promoting "access to the state by indigenous people who have been marginalised for 500 years," while Chávez comes from "a faction in the military that established strong ties with the poor," said the political scientist.
Nor can the term "leftist" be used "in a rigorous academic analysis" of the governments in the region, since they have not emerged from socialist movements "aimed at social equality and the collectivisation of the means of production," said Vigévani, who is also a researcher at the non-governmental Centre for Studies on Contemporary Culture (CEDEC).
There are governments with leftist roots, as in the case of the Broad Front government in Uruguay, which is partly made up of communists and socialists, but whose "policies are not leftist."
In Brazil as well, the governing Workers Party (PT) is mainly made up of leftists, including Marxists, but they do not exercise hegemonic control over the government, said Vigévani.
That is the "paradox of modern history" - times in which not even the fact that there are countries governed by communist parties, like China and Vietnam, makes it possible to say that Asia is left-leaning. Indeed, the very opposite is true, said the analyst.
"The strength of neoliberalism, the productive apparatus and the international system reduces the feasibility of the application of leftist ideas in those countries," he argued.
The recently elected governments in Latin America "form part of processes that are closely linked to specific personalities" that could change in future elections, said Vigévani.
However, he also pointed to "a common tendency of marginalised sectors of the population obtaining access to the state and gaining their own voice in politics, and thus a greater capacity to apply pressure."
But sociologist Marcos Novaro, a professor at the University of Buenos Aires, identifies "at least two rising models of the left" in Latin America, one of which he describes as "populist, anti-imperialist, anti-United States and antineoliberal," and the other as "moderate social democrat."
In the first category he places Chávez, Morales and López Obrador, the Mexican candidate who claims that his narrow defeat in the July presidential elections was the result of fraud.
The highest-profile expression of this model, Venezuela's "Chavismo", poses "risks to the stability of the institutional framework," he maintained.
But the model of the moderate social democratic left also faces challenges, such as distinguishing itself from governments of the centre or centre-right "which managed the economy effectively," like in Brazil or Chile, said Novaro.
"In the long-term, this second model is more effective," he asserted.
Kirchner, meanwhile, cultivates ambiguity, "playing the social democrat or the Chavista-style anti-imperialist, depending on who he is with," he said.
The Argentine president, usually described as centre-left or left-leaning, lashes out at foreign investment and transnational corporations along with the governments of neighbouring countries, but invites investors in and promises to cooperate with Washington's "war on terrorism," said Novaro.
That way, "he benefits from both models, without paying the costs of either one, while avoiding criticism - at least until contradictions emerge" and the practice is no longer safe, which is when "he will pay all of the costs together," said the analyst.
Despite the huge differences and shortcomings, the ascent of many governments with "social concerns," which want to "redistribute income within the capitalist system after 30 years of dictatorships and neoliberalism, is positive," said Dulce Pandolfi, the head of the non-governmental Brazilian Institute of Social and Economic Analyses (IBASE).
Coming together in these governments are social democratic ideas and the Catholic Church's social doctrine, which is widely disseminated in many countries, where new actors have emerged, like organised indigenous associations.
There are also differences between subregions, said Pandolfi.
A "Chávez" would be inconceivable in the Southern Cone region, where the image of the military deteriorated severely during the dictatorships that ruled the area in the 1970s and 1980s, she said.
The social democratic wave in Latin America is a result of the fact that the ideals and objectives of social democracy fit nicely with the problems facing the region: poverty, inequality and unemployment, said Lagos. That fit has enabled governments to be elected by solid majorities, thus ensuring workable democracies.
But the process can be traced back to the 1960s, a time of "revolution" and "authoritarianism," said the analyst.
Today's governments are the result of a transition towards the emergence of structures, rules, parties and "a profound process of democratisation," which is reflected by the ascent of the current presidents, especially in South America, said Lagos.
Like the word "left," the term "Latin America" is also deceptive, giving an impression of "greater similarities than actually exist, because the differences between countries or groups of countries in the region have grown steadily since authoritarianism became a thing of the past," she said.
Lagos recommended "distinguishing between phenomena that occur in two or maybe three countries at the most."
"In Latin America, political integration is a distant dream," according to Lagos. "Democratisation has led to introspection in the countries of the region," which are focused on solving their own internal problems. That is why effective integration "will have to wait for these processes to take more solid shape," she concluded.
* With additional reporting by Marcela Valente (Argentina) and Daniela Estrada (Chile)
(END)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
What is RSS?
