The openMovements series invites leading social scientists to share their research results and perspectives on contemporary social struggles.
We are at the end of a cycle that started in the second XIXth century.
During this cycle, including in the XXth century, the left was governed by the
ideology of progress and economic determinism. After the collapse of the
so-called ‘communist’ countries, the question of the relevance of a new left
for the XXIst century was raised. Different elements are necessary to answer
it, the growing number of citizen initiatives all over the world (that is the
subject of the launch text by Laville), the ambivalent experiences of
left governments in South America (second subject raised by Coraggio),
and the structural crisis of European social democracy (to follow, third and
fourth texts by Hulgard and Lévesque). The analysis of these complex background
issues opens up new perspectives for collective action and emancipation (fifth
and sixth, closing texts by Wainwright and Hart). Very different from those of the
traditional left, this week’s opinions and debates are also to be found in
detail in Spanish (Reinventar la izquierda en el siglo XXI – Hasta un
dialogo Norte-Sur) and French (Les gauches du XXIe siècle – Un dialogue Nord-Sud
). Jean-Louis Laville, economist and
sociologist, supervised 'Les gauches du XXIe siècle – Un dialogue
Nord-Sud' (Bord de l’eau, 2016).
'Women against the coup' protest against Brazil's acting president Michel Temer. May 17, 2016. Andre Penner / Press Association. All rights reserved.Since the beginning of
the century, Latin America has been seen as an example of how it is possible to
recover from the stripping that took place during thirty years of
neo-conservative policies and neo-liberal economic programmes.
Several countries saw
the rise of governments with national-popular projects supported by broad
sectors of society. We would highlight five principal features of such
processes: a) their adherence to the formal rules of democracy, as seen from
the large number of elections and popular consultations that took place, and
the respect shown for their outcomes, even when they were not always the ones
being sought; b) their rejection of neo-liberalism, which had shown its
inability to manage the economy and achieve the promised growth and
trickle-down effect, the crisis of that model being felt by the majority of the
population, including the middle class; c) their popular orientation, responding
to numerous social demands that had been neglected by previous governments,
ranging from access to food, health care and education to the defence of human
political rights; d) their affirmation
of national sovereignty, disconnecting from the interference and impositions of
the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, coming into conflict with
the project for subordination of the periphery to the interests of the more
concentrated economic groups and encouraging the creation of new institutions
to position the region in a globalised world (UNASUR; CELAC); e) the reappearance of the
nation state as the central agent for change, regulating markets,
renationalising strategic industries, redistributing income and attempting to
rebuild the domestic market and restore social rights that had been infringed
during the reign of neo-liberalism.
Successes
One fortuitous factor assisted
with these transformations: the sharp upward trend in the price of commodities,
the principal foundation of those economies. Nevertheless, the success of those
governments cannot be attributed to such circumstances, as no doubt if they had
taken place under governments on the right, they would have further
concentrated wealth and accelerated the flight of capital, attracted by the
financial lottery. In any event, these new governments of the left were popular-oriented,
not only redistributing wealth but also reasserting a guarantee of expanded
social and political rights that previous governments had scorned.
Those governments could
be described as an effort by the left to reinvent itself for the twenty-first
century, combining aspects of the social-democratic model of the twentieth
century with those confronting concentrated economic groups, particularly
foreign ones, and splitting from global
capitalist institutions. Nevertheless, with the possible exception of the
attempt by Venezuela, it cannot be said that they were anti-capitalist
projects, although the rhetoric may have been present in the three Andean
nations that defined themselves as “revolutionary”.[1]
Failures
They had, and still
have, two main failings: a) the lack of any deepening of democracy, therefore
reproducing the failings of formal democracy: the separation between government
and the governed, aggravated by personalised presidentialism in the form of
leaders who rather than encourage, in fact actively discourage the organisation
of an autonomous civil society, leaders who pointed out the “right path”
without listening to the multiplicity of other voices coming from other social
projects in highly heterogeneous societies; b) in particular it should be noted
that in countries such as Ecuador and Bolivia, where these governments arose
from the actions of historical Indian and peasant farmer social movements which
had ousted neo-liberal governments, there was not only no enrichment of such
relationships, they in fact became weakened.[2]
The relationship with new social movements was also not positive: ecologists,
feminists and sexual orientation groups were the first to be classified as
“infantile” by those governments.
The initial enthusiasm
of these movements declined as they ceased to be regarded as valid
intermediaries, and their historical demands were ignored. In line with this, the state that had returned
developed characteristics similar to those governments that preceded
neo-liberalism, a neo-developmental state apparatus, disconnected from organised civil society, redistributing and
regulating the market, but without reinventing itself: in short, a progressivist
twentieth century state with a state apparatus that could easily be hijacked
and redirected towards a redrafted neo-liberal project, without consolidated
bunkers to prevent assault from the new right, as is evident now in Argentina or
in the “soft coup” under way in Brazil.
Continuities, but drop in poverty
In the case of public
policies, it should be borne in mind that even given the neglect of the United
States – except in the cases of Paraguay and Honduras – which was focusing on
other areas of conflict, there was no relaxation in resistance by the
establishment. Among other aspects,
access to capital markets continued to be punished with biased so-called
“country-risk” indicators in what could be described as a ‘soft’ embargo. There was also no decline in the trend
towards foreign take-over of the
economy, with the appropriation of natural resources, the securing of a
portion of international income from agricultural and mining commodities,
efforts to skim off the cream of the domestic market, and the control of a
banking system dedicated to encouraging the outflow of foreign capital, money
laundering, and profit from state debt.
In this context,
controls on the flight of the savings of the middle classes and capitals in
general were insufficient. Gambling on continued high prices for their exports,
governments did not respond to the demand to restore ecological balance, nor
did they make progress in the diversification of their productive matrix, although
significant progress was made in the support provided to science and
technology.
There was no real
political will to form a regional bloc to integrate economies and develop
strong links between their societies. The possibility of signing free trade
agreements with Europe began to be considered in several of these countries.
But in social impact,
there was a sharp
drop in poverty through an increase in employment and redistribution
policies, and there was a notable rise in the production of public goods such
as education and health, with a commitment to provide access to consumption as
a mechanism for social integration and growth of the middle classes. In many
ways it was a process from which all sectors benefited, and this led to a
belief that the legitimacy of the governments was assured.
The need to reinvent the left
At this moment in time, the model is shipping water because of the
dramatic drop in commodity prices, political sabotage by much of the business
sector and the systematic bombardment by the privatised media controlled by
economically powerful conglomerates,
seeking a path towards “normal” relations
with the dominant power in the region.
In addition, the lack of an autonomous system for social
communication at the base, the weakening of social movements and organisations
not addicted to governments, and the behaviour of the middle classes,
self-seeking and often reluctant to accept
the presence of popular sectors on the public stage, have created
conditions in which those processes can become blocked by the electoral
mechanism itself. This was predictable, but is now evident in the fore-mentioned
instances of Argentina and Brazil.
Some talk of the end
of a cycle. We think we must view it from another perspective, at least in the
medium term. The internal play between the forces is not comparable to that at
the beginning of the century, and some of these processes can still be sustained
and become consolidated. In any event, the time has come for reflection,
whether from positions in government or from the role of opposition. It is no
longer sufficient to seek differentiation from the left of the twentieth
century. There is a need to update the original proposals, rich in options, in
all fields of social and political action.
For the moment, the
experience that our peoples have lived through establishes a material and
symbolic starting point that will have a say in the short memory of a citizenship
which differs from that of the end of the last century.
The struggle for
hegemony continues, the first reactions of these societies are beginning to
emerge, and their rearticulation demands learning from these experiences,
debating and defining the paths of the possible alternatives that the right
denies.
In this regard, the
various works gathered together in the book Reinventar
la izquierda en el Siglo XXI. Hacia un diálogo Norte-Sur, [Reinventing
the Left in the 21st Century. Towards North-South Dialogue] appears
precisely at the moment of reflection and affirmation of the characteristics
that a renewed left in the region should possess, when these experiences were
already well advanced but the return of the right was still not envisaged in
the manner and in the time it in which it is now taking shape.
They contribute to the
critical examination of those processes, their advances and difficulties and
their methods of political action. All the matters raised by the authors are
today on the agenda of democratic and popular political thinking. This is urgently required for praxis, for
committed theoretical thinking and for activism in the new situation, which is
not the end of a cycle but a moment in the process of the defence of societies
against the same neo-liberal program that gave rise to the emergence of the new
left.
This book shares Latin
American experiences and reflections with the countries of the North. Despite
all the differences, we share a common enemy: a neo-conservative project for
capital accumulation on a global scale, with a civilising project centred on
the commercialisation of social life in all its forms, based on extreme mechanisms
of dispossession, including war and the hollowing out of democracy and
politics.
We can all learn from
each other, and that is why it is so important to have this exchange of opinions
among intellectuals from the various regions of our world-system. We are facing
difficult times, but they are full of potential. An encounter and dialogue
between the perspectives included in this book that include the organised
social players, is needed. That is the direction in which we are heading.
[1] See a summarised analysis of these processes
by François Houtart here.
[2]
See, for example: Maristella Svampa, Pablo Stefanoni and Bruno Fornillo, Balance y Perspectivas. Intelectuales en el
primer gobierno de Evo Morales, La Paz, Le Monde Diplomatique/Fund.F. Ebert,
July 2010.
How to cite:
Coraggio J-L.(2016) End of a cycle for the left in Latin America?, Open Democracy / ISA RC-47: Open Movements,17 May. https://opendemocracy.net/jose-luis-coraggio/end-of-cycle-for-left-in-latin-america