Untitled Page

THE DIVERSE STRANDS AND COMPLEXITY OF “TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY SOCIALISM” IN LATIN AMERICA

Issue Editors: Steve Ellner

Reacting to recent leftist’s inroad in Latin America some scholars and political commentators and the private media in general have sought to divide the continent’s left into a “good” responsible left and a “bad” radical left. This is the focus of a book by Venezuela’s Teodoro Petkoff titled “Las dos izquierdas” published in 2005, while a more recent work “Leftovers” co-edited by Jorge Castañeda attempts to deepen the analysis. According to Castañeda, the “bad left” is steeped in the populist tradition dating back to Juan Domingo Perón, among others, and includes Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa and the Fernández/Kirchner’s. Within the mainstream media, the work of Andres Openheimer serves as an example of those who posit the existence of a so-called “responsible left” made up of Uruguay, El Salvador and previously Chile in order to undermine the idea that joint action is possible in the continent. U.S. foreign policy under Bush and now Obama is also largely premised on the existence of a “radical left” Washington seeks to isolate and a “responsible left” with which it can work. In the build-up to the Summit of the America in Trinidad, Vice President Biden traveled to Chile and met with the presidents of the so-called responsible left.

The salient negative features of “bad” left governments allegedly include: a) their authoritarian tendencies stemming from their failure to respect established rules and institutions; 2) empty anti-U.S. rhetoric, which threatens to distance the country from the most important market in the world; 3) outdated notions of defense of national sovereignty that ignore the supposed imperatives of globalization; 4) their movements’ easily manipulated rank and file; and 6) their failure to stimulate economic growth and their squandering of resources. The “good or responsible left” includes the governments of Brazil and Uruguay.

The articles in this collection should critically examine the “bad” left thesis, while recognizing elements in the analysis which point to, but exaggerate, real problems facing the left in the continent. Far from representing weaknesses for Latin American democracy, the left governments and movements have pioneered new democratic forms and have promoted participatory democracy (through, for example, referendum procedures incorporated in constitutions drafted by left governments) and mobilizations not only on the streets but also in the forms of social programs that produce a sense of empowerment of formerly non-incorporated sectors. The essays should also consider advances in the areas of labor, ecology, gender, social movements, and ethnicity. In addition, the articles could address some of the following issues and observations:

1. The argument that populist leaders fail to promote institutionalization is applicable to a certain extent to countries like Venezuela where many new structures favoring popular sectors are still makeshift and checks have not been effectively implemented. Nevertheless, the Chavista government and movement have taken steps designed to overcome institutional and organizational weakness. The Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV), for instance, was created as a mass-based party committed to internal primaries for candidates and leadership positions.

2. Social movements, more than well structured disciplined political parties, have constituted the main organizational support for the left governments of recent years. In Bolivia and Ecuador they paved the way for the triumph of Evo Morales and Rafael Correa. What is the relationship between these thriving social movements and the deepening of democracy? By defending political parties as the main venue for articulation (see pages 224-225of Leftovers), Castañeda and company argue or imply that social movements weaken democracy. According to this line of reasoning, social movements reproduce the marginalization of the excluded sectors and lack the institutional linkages of political parties.

3. The argument put forward by writers, opposition leaders and the media that left and popular governments demonstrate a high degree of incompetence is exaggerated, if not fallacious. It is true that the left has not always been successful in stimulating production and achieving a high degree of efficiency. These shortcomings, however, may be related to the challenges of engineering far-reaching change by peaceful means with a political structure inherited from past regimes. The introductory essay will discuss this dilemma as well as the historical discussion (Marx and Gramsci) on the peaceful road to socialism.

4. The proponents of the “good left”-“bad left” dichotomy argue that the bad or “populist left” is unconcerned with economic growth and instead privilege popular sectors with doles which they believe will pay dividends at the polls. The allegedly poor economic performance of these countries is also attributed to the incompetence of the populists. Nevertheless, all three nations have taken important steps in severing economic dependence on the developed countries by diversifying economic and technological ties. Expropriations, which have been an important tool to achieve this objective, have reversed the massive privatization which in the case of Venezuela facilitated the transfer of large sectors of the economy to foreign hands and which (unlike Mexico, Brazil, Chile and Argentina) completely bypassed national capital.

5. The argument that charismatic leaders have filled the gap created by weaknesses in political parties. The Castañeda book views the heightened role of social movements at the expense of political parties as conducive to populism in the negative sense of the term. In contrast, some left analysts view Chávez’s status as undisputed head of the Chavista movement in a positive light by positing a “dialectic relationship” between the Venezuelan president and the general populace. While this depiction may be accurate, Chávez’s overwhelming authority preempts mechanisms to stimulate internal competition within the Chavista movement that could contribute to a much needed ideological debate. On the other hand, steps have been taken to stimulate internal democracy and thus it is unfair to call Chávez a populist “caudillo.” This discussion can be applied to other countries governed by the left.

6. Castañeda and company equate social programs sponsored by left governments with handouts. In fact, these programs include massive support for cooperatives, community councils and makeshift educational programs, which provide important learning experiences for underprivileged sectors and thus have a transformational impact. Furthermore, the mass coverage of the pension programs under Chávez and the PRD government in Mexico City can hardly be defined as a “handout” since it benefits the working population.

7. The foreign policy of the populist left is perceived as driven by pure “anti-Americanism” and “power for power’s sake” without furthering national interests in any way. Nevertheless, in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador the responsibility for escalation of tensions with the United States rests with Washington, which initiated the process. Thus, for instance, Chávez’s original discourse was firm but far from aggressive toward the United States until after the U.S.-supported coup of April 2002 and its decision to open an office of transition in the embassy in Caracas. Similarly in the case of Bolivia, the name calling of the U.S. ambassador against Morales set off the escalation of tensions between the two nations.

Proposed individual articles might include:

1. Venezuela
2. Bolivia
3. Ecuador
4. Central America: Nicaragua and/or El Salvador
5. Leftist movement out of power: México, Columbia or Peru
6. Argentina – The Kirchners considered by Castañeda and company as “populist” or “bad” leftists
7. The Latin American left’s foreign policy. This article will demonstrate the convergence between the hard left and moderate left on issues such as economic integration and relations with Cuba, as well as their more critical positions toward the U.S. Examples of this convergence include the unwavering opposition of both “good” and “bad” leftist governments to the coup in Honduras, and Lula’s position toward Iran.
8. The role of the media, depictions and images used to represent the so-called “bad” left and the “responsible” left.
9. Social movements in Latin America.

Those interested in contributing to this issue should contact one of the two of editors before beginning work on the manuscript in order to avoid duplication of articles.

SUBMITTING MANUSCRIPTS
Manuscripts should be no longer than 25 pages (approximately 7,000-7,500 words) of double-spaced 12 point text with 1 inch margins, including notes and references, and paginated. Please follow the LAP style guide which is available at www.latinamericanperspectives.com under the “Submissions” tab. Please use the “About” tab for the LAP Mission Statement and details about the manuscript review process.

Manuscripts may be submitted in English, Spanish, or Portuguese. If submitting in Spanish or Portuguese, please indicate if you will have difficulty reading correspondence from the LAP office in English.

All manuscripts should be original work that has not been published in English and that is not being submitted to or considered for publication elsewhere in identical or similar form.

Please feel free to contact the Issue Editors with questions pertaining to the issue but be sure that manuscripts (including separate file with basic biographical information and e-mail and postal addresses) are sent to the LAP office in Word or rtf format by e-mail to:
laps@ucr.edu with the subject line – “Your name – MS for Good/Bad Left issue”

In addition to electronic submission (e-mail, or CD-R or floppy disk if unable to send by e-mail) if possible submit two print copies including a cover sheet with basic biographical and contact information to:
Managing Editor, Latin American Perspectives¸ P.O. Box 5703, Riverside, California 92517-5703.

Editor contact information:
Steve Ellner - sellner74@gmail.com