Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
The lights and shadows of Latin America’s supposed shift to the left need to be explored. Does it mean being ‘left-wing’ simply because a leader or party proclaims itself as such?
To understand a government’s ideology, it is necessary to explore its policies on issues such as militarism, transparency and the fight against corruption, respect for the rule of law within democratic institutions, the promotion of economic progress and the fight against inequality, and the provision of opportunities for personal and community development in an atmosphere of freedom and democracy.
A true left-wing policy should excel in each of these areas. Reviewing the policies of the supposedly left-wing governments in office in Latin America, it is clear that there is such a diversity of policies, or anti-policies, that the scale for defining which government is more or less left-wing is difficult. The rainbow is very wide.
First of all, which countries are we talking about? Countries whose governments define themselves as left-wing, on their own initiative. Obviously, these include Mexico, Cuba, Nicaragua, Colombia, Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, and Peru. I exclude Brazil because the newly elected government, also claiming to be left-wing, is not yet in power.
Cuba stands out for one concrete and historical fact. It is the only centrally planned economy in Latin America. In fact, the only other country similar to Cuba in terms of its economy, state and society is North Korea. They are regimes whose constitution prohibits the existence of parties other than the Communist Party, which is the “sole legitimate representative” of the people’s interests. They are one-party political models, where the national army is the expression and organ of the party. All society members are the state’s employees and work in its enterprises, under the watchful eye of the state and its representatives. Cuba is clearly the longest-lived dictatorship in all of Latin America. Its civilian and military rulers enrich themselves at the expense of others but, being an island, it is relatively easy to control any outbreak of social unrest, either by direct repression (police and armed forces) or indirect repression (cessation of employment, sending to internal gulags, etc.).
Venezuela and Nicaragua stand out as dictatorships sui generis, although they consider themselves allies of Cuba and, like the island government, claim to rule the destinies in the name of the people. By claiming this, it is assumed that this defines them as “leftist”. Their ruling parties, not the only existing parties but the hegemonic ones, dominate the entire state (executive, legislature, judiciary, electoral body that determines election results, and the armed forces). Both armies are de facto powers that act in accordance with, or outside of, the existing political system. If someone does not obey a given instruction, they can be imprisoned, expelled from the country, or simply executed. However, its proximity to Colombia and Brazil and its borders’ porousness create a situation where the government must negotiate with de facto powers that exist and operate within its territories. In Venezuela, drug trafficking is both an ally and an opponent of the central government. In Venezuela and Nicaragua, private capital exists, acts, and advances in the shadow cast by the tree of power, playing the game of corruption and the enrichment of politicians. Their economies could be defined as state monopoly capitalism.
Argentine Peronism does not come from a “left ideology”. Still, it draws on sources of messianism, extremist European politics, popular authoritarianism, and a militarism that uses the popular masses as a source of legitimization of its power. Argentina is proof that it is a mistake to accept the premise that everyone who claims to represent the people is a leftist. In Latin America, this conception is mistaken because the nutrient sources of social discontent that demagogues can take advantage of to gain access to power are not based on an ideology or vision of a new society, but on the intention to remove people from power because of emotions of hatred or resentment provoked by many reasons of a social or cultural nature, not necessarily because of an alternative government agenda. This explains why Peronisms of “left and right” are wrapped in the same sack that Eva and Perón wove. It is not that they are really “left or right” but rather that access to power, which is their objective, occurs at junctures where the justifying narratives differ depending on the social mood.
This is why in our times, we speak of “right-wing or left-wing populism”. It depends on the cozy polarising narrative of the moment. It may be by inciting fear of migrants or visceral hatred of a social class. Both narratives can be the window dressing that justifies access to power, including through elections. The subsequent challenge is not to let this acquired power slip through their fingers. Bread and circuses are not left-wing.
López Obrador’s Mexico is more akin to populist Peronism than to a doctrinaire left-wing ideologue. That is why his government is populist without a left-wing ideology but with a strong accent of social conservatism combined with a militaristic authoritarian stamp. Unlike a doctrinaire left of an orderly state, separation of the military from power and respect for democratic institutions, López Obrador aspires to govern with the military and drug traffickers, eliminating elections if possible to ensure his continuity in power for as many years as “necessary” to consolidate his “magnum opus“. His almost adolescent admiration for the Cuban dictatorship leads him to want to mimic the Cuban model of coexistence between civilians and the military, and he would like to avoid tolerating electoral processes. At the same time, he is a deeply socially conservative ruler. He hands out money to the poor to get their vote but applies public economic policies that anchor people in poverty and offer them no long-term solutions to their condition. He wants them to remain poor and dependent on the crumbs he throws from his table. He despises women and the feminist movement. The LGBTI+ movement is best left unmentioned, as are abortion and same-sex marriages, issues that he finds repulsive. He promotes social hatred of neoliberalism while implementing neoliberal economic policies.
More traditional democratic left ideologues seem to be Petro of Colombia and Boric of Chile. Both begin their administrations by trying to define a long-term democratic strategy. So far, Petro has successfully passed a significant tax reform by the Colombian Congress and has made progress in separating the police from the armed forces. In other words, he firmly rejects any militarist pretensions. Boric in Chile has also made progress in separating the police from the army as an essential gesture to ensure the stability of democratic institutions in Chilean society. He has not been successful in other areas. He lost the constitutional referendum soundly, which undermined his political authority as President. But he criticizes the authoritarian and dictatorial regimes in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua while repudiating the US economic embargo on Cuba. Both presidents are socially liberal and staunch democrats. This distinguishes them from the rest of the so-called “leftists” in Latin America. So far, it seems they are the Presidents with a true leftist definition.
Peru is another case truly beyond imagination. The President, a communist, lives impeached by his country’s Congress and investigated by the Peruvian Prosecutor’s Office, accused of corruption and incapable of governing. In his case, the question is, when will he fall? It seems that ideology in Peru is non-existent, although it obviously underlies the behavior of political actors.
And Bolivia languishes high in the Andes and the yungas, isolated from the world, landlocked, and with no way out of its economic crisis and the misery of the great Bolivian masses. But they are convinced Bolivarians. They have an altar to the Cuban dictatorship.
This review shows that Colombia and Chile have governments that fit within the definition of the democratic left. The rest of the countries move between dictatorships, militarists, opportunists, and populists with no agenda outside their desire for power, and all are mired in cascades of corruption. It is impossible to classify them as “leftist”.
So the answer is no, Latin America has not turned left. For the most part, it has gone to places where corruption, unbridled ambition, and militarism as a privileged instrument of power reign supreme. The left still has a long way to go to reach power.
[email protected]
@rpascoepgmail-com
Further Reading: