Roguish Lawyer
03-01-2005, 18:01
This is why I hate the LA Times op-ed page. But it is good for a little trolling among the red flashes. ;)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shifter1mar01,0,4197031.story
Latin America Defies Old Labels
In Uruguay and elsewhere, the 'leftist' tag is no longer meaningful.
COMMENTARY
By Michael Shifter and Vinay Jawahar, Michael Shifter is vice president for policy and Vinay Jawahar is program associate at the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington.
It is tempting to view today's inauguration of Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez as further proof of a shift to the "left" in South America. After all, Vazquez comes from the Broad Front-Progressive Encounter coalition of communists, socialists and former Tupamaro urban guerrillas. And he fits with other leaders in the neighborhood: Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Brazil's president from the leftist Workers' Party; Ricardo Lagos, Chile's first socialist president in more than three decades; and Nestor Kirchner, whose political origins can be traced to the "leftist" faction of Argentina's Peronist party in the 1970s.
Vazquez, 65, was shaped by Cold War politics, back in the decades when the region was an ideological battleground. Those were the days, after the Cuban revolution, when armed guerrilla movements (like the Tupamaros in Uruguay) were scattered through Latin America and won support from large segments of the population. There were governments — which came to power either through force (like the Sandinistas in Nicaragua) or elections (like Salvador Allende in Chile) — that favored a radical reordering of their economies and took positions sharply at odds with the United States. For nearly half a century Cuba's Fidel Castro — with whose country Vazquez intends to reestablish diplomatic relations — has largely embodied and practically defined such leftism in Latin America.
But times have changed. As president, Vazquez will almost certainly be pragmatic and moderate, mirroring the evolution of the "left" in the region over the last generation.
His chosen finance minister, Danilo Astori, is, like his counterparts in Brazil, Chile and Argentina, a model of economic orthodoxy and fiscal discipline. He has concurred with the position of the current (conservative) government on most matters of economic policy.
Of course, given the constraints imposed by the global economy, sharp policy departures are admittedly difficult. But Vazquez, eager to succeed, will be inclined to take his cues from Lula, Lagos and Kirchner, all of whom enjoy high levels of public approval and have so far delivered results.
The "leftist" label is by now an artificial construct that should be jettisoned. It confuses more than it clarifies. In the minds of many, the term is still associated with irresponsible economic policies and populist appeals, a recipe for political instability. Yet a review of Chile, Brazil and even Argentina suggests that such concerns may be anachronistic. Far from pursuing such a path, these countries are seeking the right balance between economic growth and serious attention to the urgent social agenda. That is the chief task facing Vazquez, as well as all the other Latin American leaders.
It will not be easy. Latin America is unsettled, marked by continuing discontent and ferment over poverty and social inequality, long the region's Achilles' heel. In the last 25 years, Chile is the only country that has seen a significant increase in its per capita income.
The prescriptions that have come from Washington and global financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund — advocating greater privatization and liberalization — have produced disappointing results. Rates of poverty and inequality have remained stubbornly stagnant or have deteriorated.
It is thus not surprising that voters in Uruguay, where poverty has climbed by about 45% since 2000, turned to an alternative like Vazquez.
In some countries, the alternatives that voters have chosen have not been so attractive. Venezuela is a case in point. In that country, the dramatic drop in living standards in recent decades was fertile ground for the election of Hugo Chavez, now in office six years. Chavez, close to Castro, resembles the classic definition of a leftist far more than the Southern Cone presidents. He explicitly rejects the kind of market economics and democratic politics embraced by the other leaders. But even Chavez, who has not to date undertaken any dramatic economic restructuring and has managed to keep Wall Street relatively happy, doesn't conform easily to that traditional label.
The differences among governments in Latin America are instructive. To merely lump it all together as leftism sweeping the region can easily blind outsiders — including U.S. officials — to nuances that matter a great deal.
There is a world of difference, for example, between Lula and Chavez. The former comes from a party that defied Brazil's military dictatorship; the latter was a lieutenant colonel who once attempted a military coup, and now he relies on the armed forces to rule Venezuela.
To its credit, the Bush administration has developed a good relationship with Lula's and Lagos' governments. But there are few signs that it sees upgrading those relationships as a way to deal more effectively with the real challenge posed by Chavez and others who might practice his brand of politics and virulent anti-Americanism. Charged rhetorical exchanges between Washington and Caracas are no substitute for strategy. For Washington the stakes are huge and call for greater engagement in a region buffeted by serious problems, where leaders like Vazquez may well be part of the solution.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shifter1mar01,0,4197031.story
Latin America Defies Old Labels
In Uruguay and elsewhere, the 'leftist' tag is no longer meaningful.
COMMENTARY
By Michael Shifter and Vinay Jawahar, Michael Shifter is vice president for policy and Vinay Jawahar is program associate at the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington.
It is tempting to view today's inauguration of Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez as further proof of a shift to the "left" in South America. After all, Vazquez comes from the Broad Front-Progressive Encounter coalition of communists, socialists and former Tupamaro urban guerrillas. And he fits with other leaders in the neighborhood: Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Brazil's president from the leftist Workers' Party; Ricardo Lagos, Chile's first socialist president in more than three decades; and Nestor Kirchner, whose political origins can be traced to the "leftist" faction of Argentina's Peronist party in the 1970s.
Vazquez, 65, was shaped by Cold War politics, back in the decades when the region was an ideological battleground. Those were the days, after the Cuban revolution, when armed guerrilla movements (like the Tupamaros in Uruguay) were scattered through Latin America and won support from large segments of the population. There were governments — which came to power either through force (like the Sandinistas in Nicaragua) or elections (like Salvador Allende in Chile) — that favored a radical reordering of their economies and took positions sharply at odds with the United States. For nearly half a century Cuba's Fidel Castro — with whose country Vazquez intends to reestablish diplomatic relations — has largely embodied and practically defined such leftism in Latin America.
But times have changed. As president, Vazquez will almost certainly be pragmatic and moderate, mirroring the evolution of the "left" in the region over the last generation.
His chosen finance minister, Danilo Astori, is, like his counterparts in Brazil, Chile and Argentina, a model of economic orthodoxy and fiscal discipline. He has concurred with the position of the current (conservative) government on most matters of economic policy.
Of course, given the constraints imposed by the global economy, sharp policy departures are admittedly difficult. But Vazquez, eager to succeed, will be inclined to take his cues from Lula, Lagos and Kirchner, all of whom enjoy high levels of public approval and have so far delivered results.
The "leftist" label is by now an artificial construct that should be jettisoned. It confuses more than it clarifies. In the minds of many, the term is still associated with irresponsible economic policies and populist appeals, a recipe for political instability. Yet a review of Chile, Brazil and even Argentina suggests that such concerns may be anachronistic. Far from pursuing such a path, these countries are seeking the right balance between economic growth and serious attention to the urgent social agenda. That is the chief task facing Vazquez, as well as all the other Latin American leaders.
It will not be easy. Latin America is unsettled, marked by continuing discontent and ferment over poverty and social inequality, long the region's Achilles' heel. In the last 25 years, Chile is the only country that has seen a significant increase in its per capita income.
The prescriptions that have come from Washington and global financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund — advocating greater privatization and liberalization — have produced disappointing results. Rates of poverty and inequality have remained stubbornly stagnant or have deteriorated.
It is thus not surprising that voters in Uruguay, where poverty has climbed by about 45% since 2000, turned to an alternative like Vazquez.
In some countries, the alternatives that voters have chosen have not been so attractive. Venezuela is a case in point. In that country, the dramatic drop in living standards in recent decades was fertile ground for the election of Hugo Chavez, now in office six years. Chavez, close to Castro, resembles the classic definition of a leftist far more than the Southern Cone presidents. He explicitly rejects the kind of market economics and democratic politics embraced by the other leaders. But even Chavez, who has not to date undertaken any dramatic economic restructuring and has managed to keep Wall Street relatively happy, doesn't conform easily to that traditional label.
The differences among governments in Latin America are instructive. To merely lump it all together as leftism sweeping the region can easily blind outsiders — including U.S. officials — to nuances that matter a great deal.
There is a world of difference, for example, between Lula and Chavez. The former comes from a party that defied Brazil's military dictatorship; the latter was a lieutenant colonel who once attempted a military coup, and now he relies on the armed forces to rule Venezuela.
To its credit, the Bush administration has developed a good relationship with Lula's and Lagos' governments. But there are few signs that it sees upgrading those relationships as a way to deal more effectively with the real challenge posed by Chavez and others who might practice his brand of politics and virulent anti-Americanism. Charged rhetorical exchanges between Washington and Caracas are no substitute for strategy. For Washington the stakes are huge and call for greater engagement in a region buffeted by serious problems, where leaders like Vazquez may well be part of the solution.