January 2006
Latin America's Lurch to the Left
Over the past five years, Latin American politics has lurched decidedly to the Left. Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Uruguay, and Venezuela now all have left-leaning presidents, and left-leaning candidates are serious contenders in the forthcoming Mexican and Peruvian presidential elections. At a January 27 panel discussion, experts considered the underlying reasons for Latin America’s leftward lurch and the future path of Latin American politics. They also explored how the U.S. administration should respond to the region’s political shift and to Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez’s attempts to export his “Bolivarian” revolution.
Desmond Lachman
AEI
We will have nine presidential elections scheduled in Latin America this year. Strong winds of change are blowing, and they seem to be blowing in a leftward direction. By the end of this year, we could find the majority of Latin America with left-leaning governments of one sort or another. Is this cyclical or structural? What has been the role and influence of U.S. policy? Is this a firm rejection of the Washington Consensus, or are there reasonable policies being implemented? What are the implications of Chinese involvement in the region for the United States?
Peter DeShazo
Center for Strategic and International Studies
In the Cold War, “the Left” meant Marxists aligned with the USSR. Today, does the Left mean economic populism, a greater state ownership of enterprise, or anti-Americanism? Is it a rejection of the Washington Consensus of market-oriented economics and democracy?
Who are the leftists? Presidents Lula in Brazil, Bachelet in Chile, and Vasquez in Uruguay are all traditional leftists in terms of their backgrounds. Argentina’s Kirchner also fits into this group, but with some differences. Bolivia’s Morales was all over the map ideologically: he campaigned as a populist, nationalistic, and anti-American, but it is unsure what we are going to get. In Peru, a strongly nationalistic authoritarian model out of the military mould is vying for power.
In Venezuela, we have a military authoritarian anti-American who opposes liberal economics and representative democracy. What are the factors that should matter to the United States?
1) Is there a commitment to democracy and ruling democratically?
2) Is there a commitment to wealth-creation and open-market economic growth?
3) Is there a commitment to security and cooperation with the United States?
If these are kept, then there is no threat to the United States. The traditional military threat has gone, and the current threat is authoritarian populism and a return to failed economic models.
In Venezuela, the mood is toward state domination of the economy. Hugo Chavez does not have a positive view of private enterprise. In Bolivia the rhetoric has been sharply pro-state, calling to roll back the 1990s liberal reforms. A vibrant private sector with large foreign investment is crucial.
In Mexico’s election, the key factor will be the appeal that López Obrador has. I think that if he aspires to the presidency, he will adopt moderate positions and seek a good relationship with the United States.
Mark Falcoff
AEI
I would not consider the governments of Mexico, Peru, or Chile as Left. Chavez is Left only if Mussolini is. Being anti-American does nothing to prove you are on the Left. In Marxist terms, Bolivia could be described as bourgeois nationalist with a bit of fancy-dress indigenism thrown in for the delectation of Scandinavians.
Most favor free-market economics and a decent relationship with the United States. Even in Uruguay, President Vasquez, who is intellectually a Trotskyist, sought a free-trade relationship with the United States.
In Haiti, U.S. troops are aided by Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. So, when you look at substance rather than labels, I do not see much difference with the past. At a rhetorical level and in some UN votes you see that Argentina has moved, but beyond that most of its relations with the United States are pretty normal.
At a cultural level you see changes, such as new attitudes to the role of women in politics. These changes of culture are identified with the Left, but a Left that believes in democracy. Nobody doubts, except for with Chavez, that these leaders respect the rules of the game.
All systems have cycles. It used to be civilian-military, and now it is Right-Left. Many states have had extended periods of right of center governments, and now this is the Left’s turn.
When the miracles of instant prosperity promised under the Washington Consensus were not delivered overnight, it seems understandable to me that there would be some shift in political elites.
In the Cold War, the term Left had specific geopolitical meanings--I am not sure that it does any more. I do not think that any of these countries pose any specific threat to the United States. It is true that Evo Morales, the new president of Bolivia, announced that he will be the “biggest headache” for the United States. He should not flatter himself. I do not think that a banana republic without any bananas can threaten us at all.
We need to separate concepts of “Left” from anti-Americanism, because Jacques Chirac, the president of Iran, the outgoing Canadian prime minister, the president of Malaysia, and Saddam Hussein all hate the United States--or say they do anyway--and they have very little to do with classical leftism.
Anti-Americanism in Latin America has been driven by many of the same issues everywhere, but also by the failure to give Latin America a higher priority in our thinking. But, after 9/11, with Iraq and a nuclear Iran, it would be amazing if we dropped worrying about all that and sat around thinking about Latin America.
At the same time, Latin America is losing geopolitical weight. When I was in the army forty years ago, we used to talk of Korea as “a nation of mendicants and thieves.” Today Korea is one of the most important countries in the world, it is a major player on financial markets, it is a major exporter of high-tech sophisticated equipment, and it has very high literacy rates. Forty years later, I do not think that many Latin American countries have moved similarly far forward, and some of them have moved back. So, it is natural that regionally there is a search for a new paradigm.
Last July, I wrote an article on Chavez in National Review. My view is that the United States should just stay calm about Chavez. He is just wasting money and resources in a monumental way. The inevitable eventual drop in oil prices will leave Chavez with an empty bag, and it is important for the United States not to make Chavez seem more important than he is by rising to his threats. I think it is wrong for the U.S to refuse to sell F-16s to Chavez. I am in favor of selling him anything he wants--especially if it is a waste of money and provides jobs for American workers. The stuff that he is buying is perfectly useless--he is not going to bomb Miami. We should pick our disputes with Chavez very carefully. We have not been doing that, and we are not doing it now.
Roger F. Noriega
AEI
You could call this panel: “Does the Future of Latin America Belong to Fidel Castro?” Of course it does not. It does not belong to Chavez either, since few other countries can afford the illogical and irrational policies that he advocates.
Latin America starts to the Left of the United States. I do not see it as a Right-Left swing in any sense or as the hapless Bush provoking reactions in the hemisphere. I also agree with Peter DeShazo that there is a strong democratic consensus in the hemisphere. Morales’ election was a factor of the democratic process and reflects popular will.
Do institutions function, do they produce the rule of law, and do they have independent judiciaries? Most of the debate in the hemisphere proceeds along that democratic line. Chavez is a shiny object that attracts the eye of the media and the attention of those who are anti-American. But, thanks to his oil riches, only Chavez can afford to be that irresponsible.
The Mar Del Plata Summit of the Americas shows what has been going on in the region. It shows that minor disagreements over the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) were turned by the press into wholesale rejection of free trade. Nevertheless, what happened when the dust cleared was that Chavez lost, and there was an explicit acceptance of free markets and the Washington Consensus.
Latin America signed up for Bush’s agenda of free trade, not for Chavez’s. Bush’s proposals constitute a populist democratic agenda of breaking down entrenched interests and bringing economic empowerment to the people. It is significant that Bush is less popular with the elites in Latin America than with the average citizens.
People in Latin America do not ask “what will George Bush do to help me today,” but they should ask what their own governments will do to help them survive. George Bush has a pretty good answer in terms of a commitment to open up markets and to work with democratic governments from across the political spectrum.
Every Latin American leader would prefer to smoke a cigar with George W. Bush than with Fidel Castro. Bush’s personal diplomacy has made a lot of difference in our relationship with a lot of leaders from across the political spectrum, including Lula and others.
We should help the Latin Americans create an opportunity partnership for those that sign up to liberal democracy, and they could then get access to private capital. The problem is not one of U.S. neglect, but their growing irrelevance is a product of their own making. This does not apply to those like Toledo and Lula who have done things to retool their economies to make them globally competitive, and only Latin Americans can prevent Chavez from hijacking their agenda.
In Argentina, Kirchner’s policies are starting to look far more populist, and there is concern that he is starting to liberate them from the constraints of their relationship with the International Monetary Fund. Argentina has grown, but only out of an abyss.
In terms of relevance, there is much work required to implement the second generation reforms properly. Many capital markets are seeing Chavez and anticipating a lurch to the Left beyond what is happening, and so have over-tightened.
Julia Sweig
Council on Foreign Relations
Continents do not lurch; they drift. The anti-American flavor of some of these elections does have some correlation to hemispheric relations. There is a cycle of expectations and disillusion and therefore constant ambivalence.
We should be hysterical about any of these events. We have to be prepared for the democratic election of leaders that might be quite anathema. The disillusionment with the Washington Consensus on poverty and inequality cannot be ignored--nor can the extent to which globalization and Americanization have become synonymous.
The problem is that our elites only talk to their elites, and so social movements may occur that we do not understand. Free-trade orthodoxy creates the impression that the question is how to make profits on our investment, rather than how the rising tide can help lift all boats. Issues such as our drug policies draw the lion’s share of attention. We must have open skies dialogue about our official priorities, and this includes discussion of our agricultural subsidies.
There is also the question of how Latin America works, beyond the influence of the church, the military, and the U.S. government. The percentage of GDP from taxes remains only at 8 to 15 percent. There are incredible difficulties about collecting taxes, there is enormous distrust about corruption, and real property often is not taxed. Whether the Left is able to stay in power will depend on whether money can be collected for spending on infrastructure and education.
The weight and impact of American power creates a perception problem. The United States needs to show that it can live with a drift to the Left in Latin America.
We are increasingly woven together as a hemisphere. We have within our borders Dominicans, Mexicans, and Venezuelans, and the United States will continue to be such a large draw because job creation is so difficult in their own countries. The significance of this demographic is such--and the flows of remittances are such--that we are, despite the continental drift, quite integrated. This will deepen rather than evaporate.
AEI research assistant Chris Pope prepared this summary.
