Antonio Navalón
Within a few hours of each other in the Southern Cone and the Caribbean, two elections have been held that mark and reflect the moment the Americas are going through. On the one hand, there is Chile, a country in which, with a surprising result – and after so many years of administrations that managed to consolidate the peaceful transition from the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet to the present day – an extreme right-wing and Pinochetista lawyer, José Antonio Kast, obtained the most significant number of votes in these elections. And in second place – and by a narrow margin of difference – was a new socialist with communist origins named Gabriel Boric, who on December 19 will be disputing the second round for the Chilean presidency.
On the other hand, the most critical case in the Caribbean is the Venezuelan case. After so many alterations, so many confrontations, and, above all, after the war of words in which the Venezuelan fact is characterized – coming both from the power in office and from the opposition – there were not presidential but territorial elections. Even though the opposition has been boycotting and morally undermining the Venezuelan Presidency for years and even though it managed to gain territory in these elections, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela – led by Nicolás Maduro – won twenty of the twenty-three governorships in dispute. As was to be expected, the Chavistas demonstrated that they are the ones who rule the country. But that is not what is important, but the fact that the exhaustion of all models has become clear with this. It has become evident the exhaustion of both the models that do not want to appear – since this has not led to the fall of their respective regimes – and those that have played the game of moving forward, even without opposition since they have found themselves isolated and without sufficient foundations to legitimize their governments.
At the end of the day, the Venezuelan electoral process evidenced two things: the strength of the Chavista apparatus when it comes to summoning voters and the enormous inequalities produced by the separation of the Venezuelan opposition. An opposition that not only fights badly but also fights disunited and that also legitimizes, in a certain sense, the barbarities committed by a regime like Maduro’s. Only a good way out for the current Venezuelan President could give Venezuela a promise for the future.
In any case, Chile and Venezuela are yet another exponent of what Eduardo Galeano once said was that Latin America’s veins are open, and – what is worse – its veins are bleeding. For the first time, the whole of the Americas, including the North, is on fire. In some cases, the burning flames are evident, and in others, the fire of social confrontation looks ever closer and more imminent. It is challenging to know which of all the endemic ills of the Americas is the most serious. Perhaps the most important and the only one that explains the failure of all regimes is the problem of inequality and the social gap.
At this point, it does not matter whether the governments have been right-wing or left-wing. Populist opportunities do not matter. The truth is that since the conquest ended and the Spanish empire dislodged the continent, not even the North American empire was ever able to have an intelligent social policy to terminate the social gap. A social gap that goes beyond the problems of poverty, poor distribution of wealth, corruption, or impunity. It is a gap that is also – and more clearly than ever – marking the demolition of the institutions of the Americas.
We have reached a situation in which another of the most evident elements is that there are no referents at this moment in the Americas. During the last century, the referent was the Big Stick and U.S. meddling policy through its Armed Forces and Intelligence. Whoever did not follow Washington’s wishes and mandates to the letter could be punished in many ways. However, the most expeditious was through the arrival at its borders of the devastating presence of the Marines. Failing that, coups d’état were always an option, as happened to Salvador Allende. Evidently, American influence and the shadow of Washington’s power over the Americas has been fading. Today Washington is clearly in retreat, and its political weight in the Americas is almost non-existent.
Another factor that has been disappearing and entering into crisis is the Spaniard referent. America is undergoing an accelerated process of de-Spanishization. Once the conquest was over and the processes of independence began, the Spaniards were expelled to continue being and acting like Spaniards in many American countries. It took the end of Franco and the success of the Spanish transition for the countries of the Americas – also in search of their liberties and their institutionalization – to have for the first time a positive model worthy of imitation, such as Spain. The success of the transition under the figure of an exceptional salesman of the concept of Spain called Juan Carlos I, together with the State policy developed by the different Spanish Presidents of the Government after the fall of the dictatorship, gave Spain, first, a moral legitimacy it had never had before. And then, it gave the Spaniards some advantageous positions – which, although they were not enough to achieve the dominance of the Empire era – did give it an economic relevance that was key to the economic development and for the profits of Spaniard businesses in the Americas.
Now, coinciding with Spain’s internal crisis and the various problems that have arisen around, for example, its national unity, or the contemplation of the figure of its King Emeritus, has caused the term and the brand Spain at this time to be in evident decline in America. But it has also caused that the way out in many sectors of the economy where they have been key is increasingly close and notorious.
The crises and the disappearance of referents, together with inequality and the social gap, have created a situation in which the ghost of populism can ride happily through the American prairies without problems.
The Mexican case requires a very different study since its history is different. The Mexican Revolution was the first time that Mexico managed to confront problems deeply rooted in its history. It was the first time that a country with institutions was created, which -despite being at the service of the President of the day- had the purpose of giving the country greater stability and a structural base. For the first time, there was a clear institutional vocation; hence one of the first things done once the Revolution was consolidated was to achieve by all means the separation between power and the military. Even though later there were other Presidents – coming from the top ranks of the army – who tried to revoke this fact, the truth is that since Miguel Aleman – following the efforts made by Plutarco Elias Calles – the Mexican Army had been a model for two reasons. First, for its membership and loyalty to the institutional order and, second, its great work and performance amid great catastrophes. Reasons that also made them worthy of the appreciation and respect of the Mexican people. However, President López Obrador has changed this.
Lopez Obrador has given the military a charter that no one has ever given them before. It is unproven how much the military knows about airports or trains. It is unproven whether they are truly qualified to perform the various activities within society that they have been tasked to perform. In Mexico, the civil personnel in charge of issues regarding security and maintenance of institutional order has been gradually replaced by the National Guard. A Guard that depends on the Ministry of Defense but is not in charge of, for example, the direct fight against threats to national integrity and security, such as the fight against organized crime cartels.
America is burning in many ways. But in the Mexican case, it is clear that the polarization is based, first, on the Mexican President’s way of seeing and doing things. And, second – and very significantly – it is based on the disappearance and subtraction of roles or substitutions, the most emblematic being the case of the military.
What will the immediate future of America be like? That is something nobody knows. But what is clear is that the traditional political models and their generations have been burning out and disappearing. It is clear that maintaining the social gap is the best breeding ground for the return of populist governments. But, above all, it is clear that – except for Chinese investments or Vladimir Putin’s playful moves – the international references that influence American politics have been changing so much that what we feel today are an enormous orphanhood and a tremendous void.
Comments.
Something I noticed living in the northeast is that very educated, erudite people are wholly ignorant of Latin America and its importance to us. Considering that the southern States hardly do it well, this is really saying something.
Biden doesn’t seem to have any policy regarding Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, any of it. He is acting like the prettiest girl at the dance who is too good for anyone else and not realizing that no one has to dance with him.
You can’t just frown and ignore, you have to engage.
St. Cyr