By Jennifer McCoy and - -
ATLANTA, Dec 12 2006 (IPS)

Hugo Chavez\’ re-election on December 3 concludes a year of elections in Latin America in which nine countries chose candidates reportedly left of centre and three chose candidates reportedly right of centre, writes Jennifer McCoy, Professor of Political Science at Georgia State University and Director of the Americas Programme at The Carter Centre in Atlanta, Georgia. In this article, McCoy writes that the electoral debates essentially came down to two themes: how much of a priority to put on fighting poverty, and how to define a country\’s relationship with the US and the global economy. Extremely close elections in Costa Rica and Mexico, and run-offs in Brazil, Peru, and Ecuador demonstrated that there are seriously divided countries in the region. Much of Latin America also shares deepening nationalism and an abhorrence of US unilateralism. What the new leaders across the board face is the dilemma of meeting the high expectations of frustrated citizens while navigating the real constraints of economic globalisation and weak state capacity and institutions. These constraints can draw a country together under strong leadership and well-organised interests with a national vision, or they can destabilise a country that is factionalised and lacks a sense of shared national identity and purpose. The post-election year of 2007 will determine which direction each will go.

Commentators have attempted to distinguish between the rise of the ‘pragmatic Left’ in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay, and the newly-elected ‘radical Left’ in Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.

However, these countries, along with those further to the ‘right’, have more in common than these labels imply. The electoral debates essentially came down to two themes: how much of a priority to put on fighting poverty, and how to define a country’s relationship with the US and the global economy.

The debate over poverty centres on market-oriented strategies versus more statist-oriented ones, but both well within the capitalist camp. This is, of course, tied to the international debate as candidates have taken pro and con positions vis-…-vis free-trade agreements with the United States and adopted or rejected the anti-imperialist rhetoric of Hugo Chavez. But the absolute need to address growing citizen frustration at stubborn poverty and rising income inequality was clear throughout this year of elections.

Even the ‘radical Leftists’ may not be all that radical after all. In Nicaragua, president-elect Daniel Ortega, who was vigorously opposed in the campaign by the United States and helped by Venezuela, has accepted the free-trade agreement with the US and has already met with the IMF, World Bank, and US government in the weeks since his November 4 victory to reassure his own private sector and international financiers of his goals. He aims, in fact, to build a grand coalition to fight poverty in Nicaragua, after a decade of little progress under conservative governments. Ortega will most likely strive to balance a relationship with the US, on which Nicaragua is economically dependent, and with Venezuela, which can provide the energy help it desperately needs.

Bolivian President Evo Morales used strong language regarding nationalisation of oil and gas resources and voiced strident criticism of the US. But his ‘nationalisation’ strategy is actually the implementation of a law passed under the previous government that required the renegotiation of foreign contracts to give the Bolivian state a majority share of mixed enterprises and raised taxes and royalties. Morales has also vigorously sought to persuade coca growers to reduce production and has increased interdiction of illegal drugs in Bolivia. And he has toned down his anti-US language since his first-ever visit to the United States in September.

Even in Venezuela, where 1960s-era Marxist intellectuals are scattered throughout the government, Chavez has recognised that the old-style socialism is no longer viable, and he is inventing a new model which he calls ’21st century socialism.’ His promises to deepen the revolution in 2007 must be played out before we can fully evaluate this vaguely-defined concept or his economic goals. Thus far, 21st century socialism has included using oil revenues to redistribute resources to the poor through government subsidies, cash transfers, and welfare programmes — not a new thing in Venezuela. It has included some controversial rural and urban land reform and the revival of state-owned enterprises in certain sectors to compete with the private sector. But it has not gone much beyond those limits in economic terms.

We are also witnessing countries that are seriously divided, demonstrated in the extremely close elections this past year in Costa Rica, and Mexico, and run-offs in Brazil, Peru, and Ecuador. Polarisation especially marks countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, and Mexico, where even geographic divides can be identified and deep political conflict sporadically threatens to erupt into ungovernability and violence.

Much of Latin America also shares a deepening nationalism and an abhorrence of US unilateralism, from the Iraq War to the Mexican border wall. Does this mean that Chavez will become a regional leader with his renewed mandate? Certainly he is influential, with Venezuela’s oil wealth and his personal mission to combat US global and regional dominance. Washington’s single-minded focus on Iraq and the Middle East since 2001 opened a vacuum in Latin America that Chavez was happy to fill. His criticism of the US, though personalised and crude, resonates with people unhappy with US arrogance, even while embarrassing others.

The Bolivarian Revolution, however, is not easily replicated or exported as a model. Based on extraordinary oil revenues, personal charisma, and a willingness to concentrate power, the conditions giving rise to and sustaining the Bolivarian Revolution are not all present in any other country. These conditions include a near tripling of the poverty rate from the 1970s to the 1990s with its accompanying sense of exclusion and rage, the deinstitutionalisation of a strong party system over the course of the 1990s, and a seven-fold increase in the price of Venezuela’s major commodity during the Chavez administration.

What the new leaders across the board face in Latin America is the dilemma of meeting the high expectations of frustrated citizens while navigating the real constraints of economic globalisation and weak state capacity and institutions. These constraints, when present, tend to be equalisers and moderators. They can draw a country together under strong leadership and well-organised interests with a national vision, or they can destabilise a country that is factionalised and lacks a sense of shared national identity and purpose. The post-election year of 2007 will determine which direction each will go. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: