Al
Democracy fails disenchanted Latin Americans
By Max Castro
Latin Americans are so
disenchanted with the failure of democracy to deliver a better life that a clear
majority (54.7 percent) is willing to support an authoritarian government if it
would solve their economic problems.
A story by Tyler Bridges
in the April 22 edition of The Miami Herald reported that stunning
finding. It is based on public opinion surveys in 18 Latin American countries
carried out by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), which has just
released an extensive study on the state of democracy in the region (htpp://democracia.undp.org/informe).
Why have Latin Americans
lost faith in democracy? Is it the fault of bad leaders, “an adolescent
political culture,” or corruption, as the Bush administration and our local
pundits consistently imply?
There definitely is
something gravely wrong when there is such a high level of disillusion with
democracy among people who for decades suffered the depredations of
dictatorship. But the main causes lie elsewhere. What is wrong is the
accumulated frustration of a quarter century during which the standard of living
has worsened for tens of millions of Latin Americans. This comes at a time when
aspirations have soared among an increasingly educated, urban, and youthful
Latin American population plugged into the world.
Democracy, the retreat of
the state in favor of the market, the privatization of nearly everything, the
opening of the Latin American economy to foreign investment and imports, were
supposed to bring prosperity. Many of these neoliberal capitalist measures would
be painful, the people were told, but there would be a reward at the end of the
road.
Latin Americans were
patient. For a long time, they gave the new policies a chance to show results.
Now the results are in, and Latin Americans have lost their patience. The
reasons are not difficult to divine. In 1980, as military juntas began to give
way to elected governments, 40.5 percent of Latin Americans were poor. By 2003,
Latin American poverty had increased to 43.9 percent of a much larger
population. These figures don't reflect fully the rise in inequality during the
same period. Yet, as their own fortunes declined, the growing legions of the
poor and the sinking middle classes were keenly aware of the increasing opulence
of a few.
This is the real cause of the growing
skepticism about democracy in the region. This is the real cause of rebellions
in the ballot box (Venezuela,
Argentina, Brazil) and the street (Bolivia) and the dramatic increases in crime
and emigration. Corruption is a serious problem, but it has been around in Latin
America forever, in good times and bad, as it has in Italy, New York City and
Chicago. This suggests that corruption, while unfortunate, is hardly an
insurmountable obstacle to an increase in the welfare of a population. And is
Latin American political culture more immature than that of the United States
where, according to the polls, millions of people continue to cling to
long-discredited myths about weapons of mass destruction and 9-11 connections
vis-à-vis Iraq? As for populist leaders, they are the consequences of people's
frustration and desperation, not its cause.
One of the tragedies of
the current situation is that it is occurring under the U.S. administration
least likely to support the needed course corrections. The main problem is not,
as Herald columnist Andrés Oppenheimer has argued, that Bush has been too
preoccupied elsewhere to place a high priority or devote real resources to Latin
America. The main problem is that the failure of neoliberal capitalism to
deliver conditions consistent with sustainable democracy requires a new
paradigm, one that avoids the pitfalls of state-centered economics and populist
politics while implementing policies to reduce inequality and poverty at the
national and hemispheric level. Just as the Great Depression required a New
Deal, the crisis in Latin America today requires that a new model be invented if
democracy is to have a future. Inventing and implementing a new paradigm is no
easy task and possibly an impossible one without the cooperation of the
hemisphere's economic giant.
That cooperation won’t be
forthcoming: The Bush administration's favoritism toward the rich and its
commitment to destroying any vestige of the state's role in protecting the
vulnerable and redistributing income border on the religious. An administration
that has instituted tax and other policies that have contributed greatly to
increasing inequality in this country isn't about to do anything to reduce
North-South disparities or to lose sleep over social justice in Latin America.
Instead, what this administration has done and will continue to do is to push
hard for higher doses of the same neoliberal medicine that has made things
worse. And it will harp-on about corruption, a theme that allows for the problem
to be defined solely as a lack of integrity on the part of Latin Americans.
It would be folly to
expect anything else from this administration, but one would hope that regular
commentators on Latin America for The Miami Herald, the
U.S. newspaper of record for the region, might offer American readers some
insight about these stark realities. Alas, the Herald’s pundits have
another agenda, one that in essence if not in every detail closely resembles the
official U.S. agenda.
These writers
systematically ignore or reason away the fundamental dilemma of Latin America,
the unsustainable character of democracy under conditions of extreme inequality,
mass poverty and foreign domination, focusing instead on Latin American flaws
and foibles. They see the trees but seldom the forest. In contrast to the
Herald’s own reporters such as Tyler Bridges, Frances Robles and Jane Bussey,
who paint an objective picture of the real conditions in Latin America and the
state of U.S.-Latin American relations, the pundits seem to go out of their way
to avoid connecting the dots when the results threaten to be ideologically
inconvenient.
Take as an example Andrés
Oppenheimer's April 1 2004 article, “Latin economies hurt by crime.”
Oppenheimer takes Latin American economy ministers to task for failing to ask
for money for law enforcement at the annual meeting of the Interamerican
Development Bank. Oppenheimer describes the dramatic increase of crime in Latin
America and cites the World Bank on the toll the upsurge takes on the economy of
Latin America.
But what has caused the
spike in crime in Latin America? Oppenheimer is silent on the subject. Yet the
same World Bank studies that Oppenheimer cites identify increasing economic
inequality and economic volatility, two features of neoliberal capitalism in
Latin America, as major causes of the Latin American crime wave. To cite these
studies would be to suggest that a fundamental change in perspective and not
just a tweaking of policies is needed if the chaos and the carnage in Latin
America are to be curtailed.
Along the same track but
less subtle is Carlos Alberto Montaner, the second most frequent commentator on
Latin America for the Herald, who uses most of his space for demonizing
leftists while failing to explain or even acknowledge the social conditions that
drive their popularity. For Montaner, popular support for a Chávez in Venezuela
or a Handal in El Salvador is the result of a Latin American psychological and
cultural aberration.
In a recent article,
Montaner argues that the ideal election in Latin America today is one in which
there are no ideological differences between the candidates but only differences
in management style and efficiency. One might get away with arguing this 'end of
ideology' thesis for Scandinavia, which has solved
the basic economic and social problems of most of its people. But that is a ship
basically on course which requires no major change in direction, hardly the case
of our continent. To argue that a good manager of the status quo is just what is
needed in Latin America, where poverty has increased to almost half the
population, is not only callous; it's not a good strategy for maintaining the
health of democracy over the long run.
The most sophisticated of
the Herald’'s Latin American commentators is sociologist Marifeli Pérez-Stable,
who at least acknowledges some basic facts, namely that Latin American “living
standards have declined while privatizations spurred more corruption than
efficiency.” And yet Pérez-Stable does not really offer an alternative
perspective or vision. Her framework and themes closely resemble Oppenheimer's
and Montaner's. They all express the conviction that Latin Americans are the
problem: their “adolescent political culture” (Pérez-Stable on Argentinean and
Cuban
political culture), their
anti-modern attitudes (Montaner), their infantile anti-Americanism (all three),
and their penchant for populist demagogues. They virtually scream at Latin
Americans: “It’s your [values, culture, attitudes, behavior, and deficiencies],
stupid!” Meanwhile, issues such as the asymmetry in U.S./Latin American
relations are either denied as a problem or assumed as a fate that must be
accepted and dealt with.
An example is an
April 1, 2004 column titled: “Latin America: Promote Good Governance, Sound
Economics,” in which Pérez-Stable approvingly quotes what she calls an
“unsurpassed maxim” written by the ancient Greek historian Thucydides: “Large
nations do what they wish, while small nations accept what they must.” This
sounds a bit like an old, obnoxious formula for dealing with rape: If it's
inevitable, relax and enjoy it. The writer fails to note that Thucydides was an
Athenian writing at the height of that city-state’s power; the perspective
celebrated by Pérez-Stable is the perspective of the master. Yet in her
conclusion she attempts to wriggle away from the implications of her premise
when she writes: “That the United States will simply never see itself as 'first
among equals' does not mean that Latin America must suffer its wishes
passively.”
But how to avoid
that fate given enormous differences in power between North and South and the
willfulness of the United States?
The only hint Pérez-Stable
offers about how Latin America might go about resisting American desire is
through an awareness that “empowerment begins by doing the right thing at home.”
Yet we know that
refraining from wearing provocative clothing is no insurance against being
raped. Virtue is no shield against violation. And blaming the victim is a bad
business.
This idea of “doing the
right thing at home” is the common thread running through the columns of Pérez-Stable,
Montaner and Oppenheimer. At the core is a curious, condescending, almost
schoolmarm admonition: ‘Latin Americans, Mexicans, Argentineans, Haitians,
Venezuelans, Cubans, behave! Be good boys and girls. Promote good governance,
sound economics!’
What is most curious is
not the obvious paternalism, but the audience these pundits seem to be
addressing. One would assume that columnists writing for a U.S. newspaper would
primarily address an American audience, direct their opinions toward American
public opinion, and engage U.S. policies
critically. Yet for the most part Oppenheimer’s, Montaner’s, and Pérez-Stable’s
criticisms, warnings, praise, and advice are mostly directed at Latin Americans.
On occasion, Oppenheimer may rail against specific U.S. policies or blatant
American gaffes, but he provides no fundamental criticism of the overall U.S.
approach toward Latin America.
At a time when such
insight is essential, these writers don't offer Americans any understanding of
where Latin Americans are coming from and why. They fail to focus on the flawed
assumptions of U.S. policy toward Latin America.
Instead, they give Latin Americans civic lessons and tips on how to conform to
American expectations and endure as best possible the fate of being second-class
citizens on this continent. In the words of Pérez-Stable, Latin Americans must
accept not only that the United States will never view them as equals; they must
also accept that the United States will never be satisfied with merely being the
captain of the team, “the first among equals.” The key, Pérez-Stable seems to
imply, is to know our place as Latin Americans and to do our best within it:
“Good governance and sound economics are the best way to mitigate a bit the
disparities with Washington...Small nations must learn to live with their larger
neighbors.”
|
