Hola, Latin America
As often happens little attention is being paid to Latin America. Yet events there have a lot to say about the broad agenda of globalization and democratization.
Most references to the "war of ideas" focus on the West and Islam and what generally is characterized as freedom vs. fundamentalism. But that's not the only front on which core societal ideas are being contested. Latin America has become another.
It was less than a decade ago that Latin America was being hailed for democratization and free market reforms. Socialism and Marxism had been defeated (other than in Cuba, of course). The military had gone back to the barracks. Economies competed to be the poster child for the "Washington consensus" of open, deregulated economies.
A lot has changed. Socialism and Marxism aren't coming back, but democracy is less stable and globalization less consensual. A neo-populism has been gaining force in one country after another that is re-opening debates about equity and social justice, democracy and globalization. Some of its manifestations are worrisomely demagogic - Hugo Chavez in Venezuela for one. But the political economy debate that many thought was over has been re-engaged. And while Latin America is not at this point strategic terrain in itself, the Big Ideas debate it is manifesting has significance far beyond its own geographic domain.
Three general points about the overall pattern: First is the political instability: musical chair presidents in Argentina, five in less than four years, 1999-2003; one president forced to resign in Bolivia in 2003, another who tried to resign in early 2005 but had his resignation rejected by Congress and then pressured by public protests to call early elections; one president forced to resign in 2000 and another in 2005 in Ecuador; Chavez in Venezuela and the coup attempts (including with a Bush role), rigged elections, his increasingly autocratic rule; Honduras with a hotly disputed recent election.
Second is the return of the left. Lula won the election in Brazil on a pro-workers platform; he's been pragmatic in his governing but still as US trade negotiators and AIDS drugs pharmaceutical companies know, with his own views of globalization. Evo Morales, an an Aymara Indian running on a platform to decriminalize coca production and at least quasi-nationalize natural gas, just won in Bolivia. Andres Lopez Obrador, the leftist mayor of Mexico City, is the favorite in their 2006 presidential election. Uruguay also has elected a candidate of the left.
Third is that this backlash has been despite positive macroeconomic figures. Region-wide economic growth was 5.5% last year, the best in a generation. Inflation is low. Foreign reserves are growing. Credit ratings are strong. But the regional poverty rate is still 44%. Unemployment is still high; land reform lagging; health care poor; decent housing scarce; schools inadequate.
There's plenty of debate among economists and others about whether criticisms of globalization are empirically accurate. That is important in many ways, of limited relevance in others. The fact is that the political dynamic is one in which in one country after another there is a growing sense that democracy needs to produce more and better results in socioeconomic equality and social justice measures.
This goes beyond South Korean farmers jumping into the bay at the WTO Hong Kong summit. And it isn't about justifying the demagogic rhetoric of Chavez and others. But it is to say that the competition of ideas over how best to balance individual freedom and societal equity and justice, both within countries and as part of globalization, is being re-engaged. Nor is this a totally separate debate from the West-Islamic world one, where part of the appeal of Islamic fundamentalist organizations has been through the provision of economic benefits and social services that the state fails to provide.
Overall I think that the Chavez, Morales, Lulu leftward trend in Latin America is a good thing. With a few exceptions the USA since the time of William McKinley has been meddling in Latin America - Spanish American war, Somoza, Bay of Pigs, ousting of Allende, helping a coup versus Chavez, etc. Many of the Latin American non-elite have had it with us. Bush and his excesses, which are scaring so many in the USA, have exacerbated the situation. Bush has money and guns on his side. The rising Latin American left has reality, common sense, and the future on its side.
December 21, 2005 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make, nor how it relates to the "war of ideas" you mention. You say that less than a decade ago, Latin America was being hailed for democratization and free-market reforms, and you go on to say that democracy is less stable and globalization less consensual today. I don't quite agree. I would argue that democracry is much more stable today as a result of the processes undertaken during the past 15 years or so. It just isn't a democracy that uses the US as its point of reference.
Argentina ended its round of musical chairs by finally electing a president with widespread popular support. He has maintained that support through subsequent regional and parlamentary elections. Bolivia finally was "allowed" to elect Evo Morales, the populist choice. It seems that the aristocracy got tired of campaigning against the masses and decided to let the inevitable happen - an election was won by popular vote. He will probably end up as another Toledo, the misguided populist Peruvian president, but how can you argue that democracy isn't working in countries like Bolivia when it is? In Chile, you have another example of a functioning democracy. In Venezuela, regardless of whether or not you agree with Chavez, you have a functioning democracy. In Brasil also. Of course there is corruption in many of these places. Just as there is anywhere.
As for globalization, of course this is an arguable subject and of course there is a wide range of views on it. In general, countires like Chile are benefitting greatly from it. Not from relations with the US, but definately through relations with Europe, Canada and the Orient. Yes, there are still inequalities, but inequalities can not be solved if there is no means to solve them, and many of the contemporary political platforms are built around such issues as health, education and housing. This is in large part possible because of the growth stemming from the decade you cite. Don't be so quick to throw in the towel - the things you ask for don't happen overnight, but don't asume that they aren't occurring.
Finally, I am not sure what you mean by "land reform". That is a term that academia loves to stick like a bumpersticker on anything Latin America. Land reform, as it has traditionally occurred in Latin America, has had nothing but disasterous results. What you need to be talking about is "land use regulation", not "land reform". Land use regulations are, in my opinion, one of the most pressing issues of all in Latin America, yet in this regard there has been little advancement.
December 21, 2005 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, it's a good time to note that I write a blog that focuses strongly on Latin America.
Second, I think it's always important to remember that in Latin America, like in the US, all politics in local. Or as I wrote in that post:
The elections in Latin America will create changes with a regional impact over the next 12-18 months, but each of these elections is local. Each has its own issues and politicians and is almost completely uninfluenced by the regional view. To argue that Mexico's or Peru's election will hinge on the US-Venezuela bickering is the same as believing France rejected the EU constitution because Bush was reelected.
Politics is local and politics is immediate. Local economics, local security and local hope are the issues on each ballot, not some sweeping question of international left vs. international right. Understand that, and you'll understand the upcoming elections.
Third, to add to your point about democracy requiring better economic results and justice, former Argentine President Alfonsin famously ran in 1983 on the slogan "Con la democracia, se come, se cura, se educa" (with democracy, you can eat, you are cured and you are educated). Anecdotally, after he was forced out of office in 1989 by street protests, he was asked by a reporter about his slogan to which he replied, "I was wrong, you can't eat democracy." I just think the story fits in with the post.
Thanks for bringing up Latin America. It definitely deserves more attention as we think about the global system.
December 21, 2005 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
A couple of points about the "overall pattern". One is that what feels like general instability is, in fact, a surprising stability. Argentina may have had five presidents in four years but with an economic collapse comparable to the Depression, being able to manage the situation without a military coup or major violence is a breakthrough. Uruguay, Bolivia and others went through similar depressions, too. That kind of crisis used to end in violence and a coup, so the continuity of democracy is very good news. The second point is that the positive macroeconomic news are misleading. First, Argentina didn't elect Kirchner (or Brazil Lula) in the middle of a boom. They may have a boom now, (in part because of the policies of these presidents) but they certainly didn't had one when the elections were held. Same goes to Venezuela and Uruguay. They are doing well now, but not at the time of the election. And Bolivia is seeing nothing of the "positive macroeconomic news" for the continent and has seen no good economic news in a long time. In fact, the wave of left of center presidents can be seen as an answer to a severe economic crisis in 2001-2002, a crisis that was widely blamed on the "Washington consensus"
December 21, 2005 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting, though disgusting, to watch North American "lefties" in neocon lock-step with the interests of multi-nationals when it comes to Latin American politics. As Jentleson wrings his hands in torment, bemoaning the death of U.S. hegemony in Latin America, he can only think to blame this misfortune on the mysterious rise of Leftist governments. And since his personal calculator tells him that Latin America is living through the best of economic times, he assumes that those governments must have achieved power through less than legitimate means. As though he's been hiding under a rock for 6 years, he make the patently ludicrous accusation of "rigged elections" in Venezuela. Get real Bruce!
Sir, in all due respect for your proficiency on the calculator, ascertaining the health of an economy is beyond your capacity. The real health of an economy can not measured by you, the IMF, or Wall Street, or the Council on Foreign Relations, it can only be honestly measured at the kitchen table. For example, Argentina did indeed suffer 4 corrupt presidents from 1999 through 2003. These were the years that Argentina experienced negative 23% growth as U.S. multi-nationals vacuumed wealth out of the country under the watchful and cheering eye of the IMF. But since Nestor Kirchner refused to continue playing by the IMF's rules Argentina has experienced 9% growth rates. Imagine that, he's popular!! Well maybe he's not popular with people holding Bechtel stock, but he is popular around the kitchen table in Argentina.
What Jentleson seems to miss is that Leftist governments are on the rise in Latin America precisely because the Rightist, U.S. friendly, governments went bankrupt. U.S. dictated globalization and two dimensional voodoo economics just failed, miserable and totally, to produce real economies in Latin America. Look at Venezuela in the 90s. The nation fell deeper into squaller as each new toady government continued to encourage the flow of wealth to the north. In the closing weeks of the 1998 presidential campaign the ruling parties finally realized how utterly bankrupt they were and abandoned their candidates, cursing independent Salas Romer with their last minute support. That's right Bruce. COPEI and AD threw in the towel and walked off the field (the same way the opposition did earlier this month). By their own actions Right wing parties have fled the scene in Latin America. In Bolivia the Harvard/Yale educated Presidents ran for their lives.
You are correct that this failure of U.S. hegemony extends beyond Latin America. The rejection of U.S. leadership, economic model, and values is a world wide phenomenon, brought on by our own wealthier-than-thou mentality. The CIA has a saying, "They don't hate us for who we are, it's for what we do". Wow, guess what Bruce? We're good at that! Look around on Main Street any day and what do you see - people changing what they do. It's what makes America great! We're good at this, we can do this. In fact, it's probably the one thing that Americans do best! But we can't, and wont, do it if we keep stroking our gun barrels every time we look South.
December 21, 2005 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's on the run in Latin America is the Washington Consensus that increased local and global inequities. What's on the run is controlled comprador class "democracies."
What's on the rise is democracies where the people get to vote. What's on the rise is tending to the needs of the poor and not the comprador class. Chavez uses his riches to provide education, medical care and subsidies to the poor. What's on the rise is South American militarys not controlled by the US and the comprador class and used to suppress the people. What's on the rise is countries taking bak their natural resources for the deveolopment of the people of the country and not the multinationals.
It's a shame that the US is not run by a democraticlly elected Chavez rather than an appointed Bush and that US elections are not as fair and free as they are in Venezuela .
This is all bad news for US colonialism quagmired by Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan.
December 21, 2005 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what to think about the rest of the Americas. Definitely much more "Yanquis go home" rhetoric being heard. Uribe even was giving tacit support to Chavez and they are not even close to one another on the political spectrum. And Morales might end up being more brazen towards us then Chavez.
I just get a vibe that a sea change could be in the works...and the vibe isn't a positive one either. A good deal of our own hemisphere seems to be turning against us, and I think it goes beyond just the current adminstration...that is not good.
December 21, 2005 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
A good deal of our own hemisphere seems to be turning against us, and I think it goes beyond just the current administration...that is not good.
I think this part of your post underscores the problem here, a problem that is manifest throughout Jentleson's typically dreary mush (I really wonder what it takes to become a foreign policy adviser in either major party. It seems you have to flush your brain down the toilet and recite nonsense for the rest of your life: voting for leftist candidates is somehow rejecting democracy????). The South Americans aren't necessarily "turning against us" because they are rejecting some of the economic "reforms" we have been pushing on them for decades, and which haven't done all that much to raise them out of Third World status. They are trying their own thing -- that doesn't mean they are our enemies. It doesn't mean we have to panic. Maybe -- and I'm going out on a limb here -- it means we haven't done the best job of working with them, instead of simply telling them what to do, often violently.
Perhaps, after trying near-socialism for a while, they will find that it doesn't work and move on, as has almost every other nation that tried socialism. But it does not follow that flirting with socialism is rejecting democracy, as Jentleson seems to think; neither does it follow that rejecting paternalism from the U.S. means they are necessarily hostile to us. The days of the economic Monroe Doctrine should be over. Let them run their own affairs.
December 21, 2005 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
People I've talked to from Latin America realize that the Bush administration is the problem. As more Americans oppose the Bush adminstration we develop a solidarity with people from around the world who oppose the negative things our government is doing (e.g. Iraq). I think that is a good thing that could make future US governments adopt more rational humane policies. It's only when we mindlessly support Bush's disastrous policies that people begin to wonder why the Americans are behaving like sheep. Many billions of people around the world agree with your (and my) view of reality.
December 22, 2005 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
To the extent people have to engage in invective it makes one question the validities of their attacks. It is hard to see how over the long term Chavez is going to be good for anyone but Chavez.
However, Bush's focus on the "war on terrorism"and on American rights, has led him to ignore many of the issues crucial in Latin America. Too many on the Right and perhaps in the Center believed that globalization all by itself would make everything better. That was always ridiculous.
We may need Bush out of office but we should diplomatically engage with Cuba and all of Latin America. We should engage legal systems that protect the rights not of the rich but of the middle class and the poor. We should encourage systems that lead to the development of both a growing middle class and the permanent removal of the military from politics.
December 22, 2005 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I was a teenager, my family lived for some years in one Latin American capital. This for sure doesn't make me an expert of any kind, but I feel I may have some, although limited, personal experiences of what my local class mates' parents allowed themselves to express: and I feel that the thought that there should exist a "Latin American elite" with solid and robust support for North America is misguiding - at best.
My impression is rather that there exists a fairly deep frustration with what's perceived as a fundamental un-predictability. In short, the U.S. can't be trusted and U.S. interventions are often random, uninformed and short-sighted. Societal stability ought to be a common goal, but U.S. interventions may many times have had the opposite effect. One of the problems is that one doesn't really know how much of U.S. foreign policy is driven by individual American corporations' interests, and how much is in sync with a geo-political strategy, presumedly thought out in the State Department.
December 30, 2005 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink