[fblike]
For the past decade and a half, leftist politicians in Latin America were elected at a higher rate than their conservative counterparts. These leftist leaders, which included Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Brazil’s Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva, Bolivia’s Evo Morales, and Argentina’s Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, all campaigned on promises of enlarging the welfare structures of their respective states and some, including Chavez and Morales, made moves to nationalize elements of the national economy to better distribute resource wealth to their people. However, falling global demand for commodities, in addition to corruption scandals and poor policy decisions, have created a gradual backlash against leftist leaders in the region. Whereas once it was great to rail against “neoliberal” economic policies and American influence, voters in Latin America have begun to give free market, conservative leaders an audience due to economic downturns, anxieties about the fiscal soundness of some Latin American nations, and shortages of vital consumer goods (notably in Venezuela).
This topic brief will provide important vocabulary when discussing the fall of leftist ideologies in Latin America, explain some reasons why leftist politicians had appeal to voters in Latin America until recently, and analyze why conservative politicians are making a comeback in the region.
Readers are also encouraged to use the links below and in the related R&D to bolster their files about this topic.
Vocabulary
Bolivarian Socialism: Also called the “Bolivarian Revolution,” this term refers to the socialist program of late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Chavez named his movement after nineteenth century Latin American revolutionary Simon Bolivar, who had a vision of uniting Central and South America under one government called Gran Colombia. Chavez’s vision sought to nationalize private industry, expand and build greater social welfare programs, and oppose the policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Chavez also sought to empower workers to make greater political and economic decisions at the local level or within industry. He sought to export Venezuelan oil for influence throughout South America as well, but this policy has created problems in an era of low oil prices. Chavez’s successor, Nicolas Maduro, has attempted to continue his policies.
Neoliberalism: Denotes the renewed popularity of laissez-faire economic policies in the second half of the twentieth century. Advocates of neoliberal economic policies called for the privatization of state owned assets, free trade deals, austerity, and reduced government spending. Neoliberals were very suspicious of the public sector’s ability to solve social and economic problems, noting that the private sector was far more efficient to carry out such tasks. Neoliberal policies were pursued by several Latin American nations, notably by Chile, during the Cold War, but economic turmoil in Latin America in the late 1990s and early 2000s discredited part of the philosophy. Attacking neoliberalism became a favorite sport of leftist Latin American leaders during the early twenty-first century.
The Pink Tide: Refers to the rise of leftist politicians and political ideologies in Latin America during the early twenty-first century. Political scientists have postulated that the time period for this “pink tide” was between 1998-2009. The region’s politicians that campaigned as part of this pink tide – including Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Bolivia’s Evo Morales – typically used anti-imperialist, anti-American, and economically populist rhetoric. The “pink” part of the term borrows from the Cold War where those that supported socialism and communism in the Western Hemisphere were called “pink.”
The “Washington Consensus”: Term coined by English economist John Williamson in 1989. It refers to economic reforms the United States recommended to Latin American governments near the end of the twentieth century along with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the U.S. Treasury Department – all of which are based in Washington, D.C. The “Washington Consensus” was pure neoliberalism, recommending that governments reduce spending on subsidies, pursue free trade agendas, deregulate businesses, provide greater property rights for domestic and foreign investors, and allow more foreign direct investment into their respective nations. The failure of this consensus to solve Latin America’s ills allowed leftist political forces to rail against it by the early 2000s.
“Two Lefts” Philosophy: Argued by Jorge Castaneda, a political scientists and former foreign minister of Mexico, in his book Utopia Unarmed in 1993, this philosophy holds that there are “two lefts” in Latin American politics. One left faction wants to pursue the goals of European social democrats such as expanding the welfare state, tolerating a free market, and accepting elements of globalization. The other left favors more radical change, willing to nationalize industries. This radical element is more willing to adopt anti-American policies, be suspicious of globalization, and even democracy if their policies cannot be enacted by popular majority. An example of the first version of the left would be Brazil, while an example of the other version of the left would be Venezuela. Critics argue that Castaneda’s theory was too simplistic and that there are moderate and radical factions across the leftist political spectrum in Latin America.
The Reasons for the Rise of Leftist Politicians
Calls for Social Justice Were Warmly Received: One of the reasons that Evo Morales rose to power in Bolivia was his desire to empower the nation’s indigenous peoples (of which he is a part of). From the time of Spanish colonization, Latin America’s indigenous peoples have been politically, socially, and economically marginalized. Like their counterparts in the United States, these groups tend to be worse off socioeconomically than other ethnic groups. As a result, the calls by some leftist politicians such as Morales for greater justice for these groups was warmly received. For example, Morales criticized the U.S. War on Drugs as a violation of indigenous sovereignty and he pursued land reform policies that would break up the estates of richer Bolivians and redistribute that land to some indigenous groups. In other countries, leftists appealed to the poor and the marginalized, especially groups that have traditionally been on the “outs” in Latin American society such as women, homosexuals, and ethnic minorities. It is no surprise then that many Latin American nations now find themselves divided along socioeconomic lines, with these marginalized groups more willing to overlook the faults of leftist leaders, while richer classes call for their ouster. Some of this is changing, though, as indigenous communities and other poorer classes in Nicaragua oppose President Daniel Ortega’s Nicaraguan Canal project, alleging that it will benefit Chinese investors at their expense.
Impoverished Voters Cast Their Lot with Populists: A report from the World Bank last year highlighted the fact that 130 million people in Latin America are still living on less than $4 dollars a day. The body was critical of how the region has yet to solve its poverty crisis and that this is a significant brake on future economic growth. Populists in Latin America rose to power due to the discontent of these citizens, who became alienated with politicians that cast their lot with the United States during the Cold War or that pursued “neoliberal” economic policies that wedded Latin American economies closer to the United States and global free trade systems. In Brazil, the leftist government of the Worker’s Party (PT) enacted social programs such as Bolsa Familia that provided income transfers to poor families as long as they sent their children to school. In Venezuela, former President Hugo Chavez and current President Nicolas Maduro expanded the size of the state and issued dictates to lower the price of consumer goods for the poor. These programs made these governments popular, but also bred discontent among the middle and upper classes of these countries.
The Poor Reputation of the United States in Latin America: During the Cold War, the United States had a history of supporting brutal dictatorships in Latin America in order to prevent the region from falling into the hands of communism. The U.S. backed the regime of Augusto Pinochet in Chile during the 1970s and 1980s, as well as supporting the anti-leftist Contras against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua during the 1980s. Latin American voters remember these violations of their national sovereignty and leftist leaders in the region, such as Chavez, used anti-American rhetoric to gain a following. Leftists argued that the U.S. still had imperialist goals in the region, pointing out how free trade deals were a cover for American business interests (this is one of the reasons that the proposed Free Trade Areas of the Americas accord was eventually scrapped). The U.S.-supported drug war in Colombia, whose government was right-wing and had strained relations with its regional counterparts in Latin America, also damaged its image during the presidency of George W. Bush. And the Argentinian economic collapse of 2001-2002 was blamed on Western economic policies, thereby enhancing support for populist leaders that claimed that they had another way to lead the region to social and economic prosperity. It was also appealing for some voters to have leaders that promised not to be wedded to, or a mere puppet of, the United States.
The Reasons for a Conservative Comeback
Regional Economic Difficulties Have Galvanized Conservatives: One of the warnings that economists gave about the “pink tide” was that the policies pursued by some leftists, especially the more radical kind in Venezuela, was that they were unsustainable. The seizure of oil firms, cement companies, and other pieces of national infrastructure provided a short-term boom to government finances, but in the long-term they caused a flight of foreign investment. Also, government price controls in Venezuela have produced shortages as there is little incentive for businesses to sell goods at unprofitable prices. In Brazil, the economy is in its worst recession since the Great Depression and the PT is getting the blame. The government faces a budget deficit that is 10% of its gross domestic product (GDP) last year and conservatives argue that fixing this problem must come at the expense of cutting the public sector and overhauling pension systems. The biggest cause of the region’s economic downturn is slackening demand in the developing world, especially China, for commodities. For example, 86% of Ecuador’s exports are oil, bananas, and flowers, while in Bolivia 72% of all exports are oil, copper, and zinc. Politicians now have to contend with a group of new middle class voters that fear returning to their previous socioeconomic position and that worry economic conditions may not be as good for their children. This frustration has allowed conservatives to rise again in places where the “pink tide” grew for nearly two decades.
The Tone of Leftist Leaders Did Not Foster Bipartisan Cooperation: A criticism leveled at leftist leaders such as Dilma Rousseff, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Nicolas Maduro, and others is that they have been prone to divide their countries into factions during their rule. Leaders had “in” groups that were loyal to the government and were cast as champions of specific virtues, while those that opposed the government for legitimate (or illegitimate) reasons were cast as “out” groups. This poisoned the political rhetoric of various nations and led to bitter and divisive election results that did not lead to national unity. The New Republic notes how Uruguay’s leftist leader Tabare Vazquez, who is serving a second term, has chosen to confront economic difficulties with pragmatism instead of political partisanship. This is not true of Argentina and Venezuela where sitting leaders engaged in the denouncing of political opponents in order to score points or deflect attention away from their own shortcomings. For example, Kirchner would often blame the media for making reports about shortages. This behavior eventually becomes tiresome for voters and conservative leaders, such as Argentina’s Mauricio Macri, were able to present themselves as moderates that could broker deals and heal the nation. Ultimately, this allowed conservatives and moderates to occupy a stronger political position versus their leftist counterparts.
Voter Anger at Corruption and Mismanagement: One of the biggest lessons of the ongoing impeachment of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff is that voters are showing a greater disgust with the shortcomings of leftist politicians. While the PT is praised with helping some of Brazil’s poorer communities with Bolsa Familia, its officeholders (as well as those of other parties) have been engulfed in a $3 billion corruption scandal surrounding Petrobras, the state oil company. Some analysts have even wondered whether Latin America is on the verge of a “Latin American Spring,” much like the “Arab Spring” several years ago as voters in Argentina, Mexico, Venezuela, and elsewhere have held protests against their political leadership for not prosecuting corruption. The Financial Times notes that Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina was forced out of office last year over a tax evasion scandal. What is ironic about this situation, though, is that Transparency International, a group that evaluates the corruption present in governments around the world, suggests that there is less corruption in Latin America than before leftist leaders took over. Nevertheless, leftist governments such as Kirchners in Argentina did themselves few favors by lying to voters about economic difficulties as they manipulated data on economic growth and inflation levels.
Sources
“Brazil’s Temer Wants Proposal for Pension Reform Within 30 Days” (Reuters, May 16, 2016)
“Is the Latin American Left Dead?” (The New Republic, April 18, 2016)
“Latin America’s ‘Pink Tide’ is Fading Fast” (The Jacksonville Daily News, May 15, 2016)
“News Analysis: Rousseff’s Impeachment Undermines Latin America’s Left” (Xinhua, April 20, 2016)
“Openings and Labyrinths of Latin America’s Left” (Upside Down World, May 16, 2016)
“Opinion: Latin Americans Misled by Faulty Political Narratives” (MarketWatch, May 4, 2016)
“Revenge of the Right in Brazil?” (The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, May 16, 2016)