Latin America: the two types of “left”

Latin America: the two types of “left”

Comparing and contrasting the two forms of government which both fall on the same side of the political spectrum

There are two types of “left” in Latin America today: the new, updated left with strong social-democratic undertones, which is aiming for a welfare state and an economy with a human element to it, and the one of radical inspiration that acts through personalism, authoritarianism and the control of public powers.

(Montevideo) WHAT AT ONE POINT could have been a only hypothetical, has been confirmed over time by events. The two lefts in the region are a reality. Getting past the rhetoric, it is inevitable to talk about two currents, since the rupture is evidenced in the management and initiatives of both sides when it comes to governing.

However, afraid of losing power, in many cases the “family of the left” attempts to leave behind its different tactical and strategical visions, and some resign themselves to being the lion’s tail of the others, out of fear of being displaced at the polls.

In the end, the new left takes orders from the old left, which continues as normal. In this way, the “family of the left” tries to minimize its differences for the sake of a quasi-religious sacrosanct unity, while they whisper -allied due to the need for power- about their irreconcilable differences.

“They all describe themselves as leftist socialists, revolutionaries and progressives.”

Some presidents and political leaders put the national interests of their countries at the top of their agenda, even more so with the crisis still ongoing; others resort to nostalgia and grandiloquent speeches full of clichés and slogans as a means of facing up to the complex and uncertain future.

A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY

There is a current of radical inspiration that acts through personalism, authoritarianism and the iron control of public powers, which puts it at the edge of formal democracy. The caudillism that emerges from populism, in search of staunch interventionist statism for the corporatization of society and the personal control of power - appears to be the recipe of many of the leftist leaders for whom the formal aspects of a democracy do not count.

Others, however, have provided evidence of their democratic calling and do not intend to remain in power indefinitely, changing the rules of the game once they gain it. That new left understands that the welfare state is constructed on a foundation of managerial criteria applied to the government and the development of the economy. It strengthens democratic institutions and promotes freedom of expression and thought, which are essential for societies, because without them the systems tend to simply deteriorate and are left devoid of content.

Differences in style and substance pop up every day - and not only on a regional level, among the nations that call themselves progressive or leftist, but also within the individual countries themselves, outside of some politicians who are hypocritically appalled at talk of there being more than one left.

“Combating poverty essentially means increasing the productivity of the economic apparatus on a foundation of intervention regulated by the public sphere, while simultaneously favoring democracy in order to increase the level of political autonomy of the variety of social subjects”

They all describe themselves as leftist socialists, revolutionaries and progressives. But on one side there’s Lula, Bachelet, Vázquez and Fernández, and on the other: Castro, Chávez, Morales, Correa and Ortega. Even Iran and terrorist groups, among others, can be added to these sacred strategic alliances and gathered under this umbrella term. One big 21st century swap meet.

CONTRADICTIONS WITHIN THE SYSTEMS

Not everyone believes in democracy once they gain power. The temptation to trim and restrict freedoms is a reality today in many of these countries. The cases are innumerable, especially of that genetic temptation to control the press if it is critical and independent.

By merely listening to the speeches and analyzing how the governments are run, it is possible to discern the enormous distances that separate the positions of some of the progressive governments with the other weakly democratic populist experiments.

On one side there is the new, updated left with strong social-democratic undertones, which is aiming for a welfare state and a knowledge-based society. Its proponents state that, in this project, combating poverty essentially means increasing the productivity of the economic apparatus on a foundation of intervention regulated by the public sphere, while simultaneously favoring democracy in order to increase the level of political autonomy of the variety of social subjects, in parallel with the structural plans for development, in order to achieve the positive mobility of social classes in a completely democratic environment.

Among its initiatives are: the promotion of private investment in national projects in order to generate employment and technological development, and the economic liberation of the country under certain just trade criteria, but without exercising controls that would strangle the business sector, because it is possible to compete in international markets and promote and protect national production at the same time.

“Despite the fact that both lefts are fiercely competing for hegemonic control over the region, and for power in each country, they remain part of the same family.”

A REPRESSIVE UTOPIA

Along the other path, there is a left sustained by more orthodox and messianic proposals, as if the world had ground to a halt, but today wrapped up in a populist and deceitful discourse that feeds a regressive - and even repressive - utopia.

The difference between the devout left that demonizes the United States, and the rational left, can be seen in diplomatic relations, in a multi-polar and globalized world. Some pursue dialogue with the United States and the European Union, especially when it comes to looking for trade agreements, while they suffer the attacks and rejection of their respective parties’ most radical wings.

However, despite the fact that both lefts are fiercely competing for hegemonic control over the region, and for power in each country, they remain part of the same family. Off the record, they recognize these big divergences, but when it is time to gain and consolidate their control, they do not hesitate to sit down at the same table or stand together on the same platform, and overlook them, at least in public. They do not argue. They are afraid of losing the people’s support if they say what they truly think. The double discourse of each and every one is a daily practice. In short, no one can be sure what the final model of such different projects will be.

“As the former Spanish president Felipe González stated in some interviews, a socialist regime cannot exist without democracy and freedom.”

FOR FREEDOM

The left of the future - the one that looks to the center - believes that it can contribute to reducing poverty and consolidating democracy. It believes in institutions. In its (authoritarian) proposals, the orthodox left believes in individual and personalistic leaderships more than institutions, which ends up weakening democracy and heading down the dangerous path towards hegemonic regimes, which lack freedom, and have failed miserably.

The left is not homogeneous: that much is clear. But as the former Spanish president Felipe González stated in some interviews, a socialist regime cannot exist without democracy and freedom. However, what the historic Spanish socialist leader said is not clear for everyone - in an extreme case, many leftist Spaniards continue to accuse him of not truly belonging to the left.

About the Author

José Luis Martínez

José Luis Martínez is a journalist, editor, and international politics analyst of the daily The Republic of Montevideo. He has a bachelor’s degree in the Science of Communication and he holds a graduate degree in European studies and European Union, Latin America, and Caribbean relations from the University of Miguel de Cervantes de Chile. He also holds a graduate degree from the National Defense University of the United States in the Planning and Administration of Defense Resources in the CHDS. He has published several books about international politics and conflicts.

recent comments

• Zobbyrify: Just wanted to say hi and see how everyone’s doing - I’m new to the forum.
• Devachkaya: давайте общатся в русском твитере? http://mblogi.qip.ru/people/in ertnost/4
• 3wpmp qbhkt: b6weg, I really like your site! http://www.yhqxs6uobs.com mklkn
• John888: Perfect work! phentermine , buy cialis , cheap xanax , cheap viagra , tramadol ,
• Vodka Iordanov: Where can I buy a bottle of the luxury vodka iordanov? Price 3.999,- Dollars. Mike I found in german:...

Suscribe

The Safe Democracy Foundation would like to invite you to subscribe for free to its weekly electronic newsletter, delivered to you with analysis and commentaries from our international experts.

publish

Total or partial reproduction or redistribution is prohibited without previous consent by SAFE DEMOCRACY. For more information, one can contact Safe Democracy at the address boletin@safe-democracy.org, with the following information: name, address, and the way of communication, if it corresponds.

The expressed ideas by the author do not reflect the opinions of SAFE DEMOCRACY.