People's Democracy

Ferment In Latin America

Jayati Ghosh

FOR decades, the Latin American continent has been a source of inspiration for left thinkers and activists across the world. Sometimes it is because of the idealism, courage, brilliance of certain leaders. (Thus it is that even the hardened and cynical youth of urban India today still put up posters and wear T-shirts showing the face of Che Guevara, and appreciate the poetry of Jose Marti and Pablo Neruda.) Sometimes it has been because certain Latin American schools of thought in the social sciences have emerged as major challenges to mainstream orthodoxy. Sometimes it is because some significant social movements, like the Zapatista in Mexico, have shown their capacity not just to survive, but even grow and establish some socialist and democratic structures against almost impossible odds.

DEPRESSING

SCENARIO

For the last two decades, though, the news from that region has been mostly depressing. After the external debt crisis of the early 1980s, many countries in Latin America underwent the now-standard package of IMF-World Bank style structural adjustment, with disastrous effects. The 1980s is known as a "lost decade" in the region, when real incomes of workers collapsed to a fraction of their earlier levels, employment shrank, the development process was halted to slowed, and material insecurity increased.

Things were hardly much better in the 1990s. The process of economic liberalization actually intensified in the region, leading to even more de-industrialisation in the major economies. Despite higher rates of growth than in the previous decade, inequalities of income worsened, in countries which already had the most unequal distribution in the world. The economic growth has not generated more job creation in the net, and the newer jobs have anyway been of a more insecure and fragile type, with less benefits for workers.

The worst part of this seemed to be the almost complete collapse of alternatives with a broad social base, to this systematic destruction of people’s economic and social rights by neo-liberal economic policies. Parties of the older social democratic or left type were either completely thrown off or confused by the turn of events, and proved to be unable to protect the interests of workers or peasants. Barring a few exceptions – like the Zapatista in Chiapas region of Mexico – there were no major social movements that could pose real alternatives in a democratic way. Indeed, the democratic electoral process in most countries seemed to throw up more of the same in terms of governments hell bent on privatising all state assets, reducing public services, withdrawing from basic economic responsibilities.

SOME SIGNS

OF CHANGE

Much of this still remains true, but there are some signs that this may be changing. Indeed, there is a political ferment in Latin America now, to a degree which has not been witnessed since the late 1960s and early 1970s. Across the continent, there are signs that the mass of people are no longer willing to accept social and political arrangements in which they are systematically denied their rights and forced to pay the burden of placating large multinational companies which are themselves engaged in major economic crimes.

In Argentina, street protests continue against the economic policies which are being imposed by the IMF, in which international bankers are to be let off and pardoned for their crimes of removing large amounts of money out of the country illegally just before and during the crisis. In Peru, the huge protests against the large-scale privatisation drive have been so large and brought out so many people from different walks of life, ethnic groups and regions, that the government is being forced to reconsider its strategy.

In Venezuela, the president Hugo Chavez (who was almost unseated by a US-supported military coup recently) wants to embark on a more pro-poor and pro-worker economic programme. In Brazil, all the current signs are the Workers Party leader Luis da Silva (or "Lula" as he is more popularly known) will win the next presidential elections, despite large capital’s attempts to scare the voters by making the currency and stock markets more volatile.

One of the more interesting of such recent events indicating the degree of social dissatisfaction, was in Bolivia, which recently had a presidential election. The election, held on June 30, provided results which surprised even those who thought they had been tracking the growing dissatisfaction of the electorate with the effects of the standard neo-liberal economic policies. The ex-president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, who is known for pushing free market reforms in Bolivia, suffered a humiliating defeat. The first place was taken by the populist leader Manfred Reyes Villa of the ‘New Republican Force’. He, like most of the other candidates, had argued that he favours a "social revolution" and "moving beyond" the country's free market system. However, so far he has not provided more details.

            The bigger surprise – and what may be of more significance in the long run – was the emergence of native Indian leftist leader Evo Morales, of the ‘Movement Toward Socialism’, who has been leading the struggle for the rights of coca growers. Morales, whose candidacy was explicitly opposed by the United States administration, represents the poor peasants whose main source of livelihood is the growing of coca, which has been traditionally grown by the local peasants. Since the plant coca flourishes easily and is not very vulnerable to rotting or disease, it has ensured high and stable incomes, which other proposed alternatives like pineapples and other fruits cannot provide.

            Bolivia is the poorest country in Latin America, with 70 per cent of the population living under the poverty line. It has been facing severe recession for the last four years, which has been much worse by the wholehearted adoption of free market oriented policies. While Bolivia is rich in natural resources, most of the resources have not been exploited due to lack of investment, and the recent liberalization has led to more reduction of investment and employment. The unemployment and poverty situation has been made much worse by the government’s decision to ban the cultivation of coca, at the behest of the United States.

            It is clear the next government in Bolivia, whatever it own proclivities, will at least have to take account of these sentiments expressed by the electorate. And with it, this may signal a more general change for the better in the continent, when rulers will finally have to take some account of the needs and wishes of the people.