The Amsterdam-based Transnational Institute recently published a booklet, T
The Latin American Left Between Governability and Change, on struggles that have erupted in Latin America . Numsa Bulletin reprints the publication’s preface whose author is Beatriz Stolowicz.
Latin America has entered a new political conjuncture. In 1997, more than 60 million Latin Americans lived in municipalities governed by the left. In 2003, they are more than 200 million, with two national governments in addition to Cuba : Venezuela since 1999 and Brazil since 2003.
The electoral force of the left is a relevant indicator of the new political moment, but it is neither sufficient as an expression nor as an explanation for that moment.
It could even lead to mistaken conclusions, such as the supposition that the electoral force of the left in itself means an absolute decline of conservative forces in Latin America .
While such signs of the advance of popular forces justly inspire hope and enthusiasm, this should not obscure the complexity of the region’s political processes.
Struggles across the region
In January 2000, an indigenous revolt in Ecuador removed President Jamil Mahuad from office. In April 2000, a popular uprising in Cochabamba , Bolivia , stopped the privatisation of water. In February 2001, the Dignity March summoned by the Zapatista National Liberation Army mobilised millions of Mexicans across the country. In December 2001, popular uprisings in Argentina overthrew President Fernando de la Rúa and three other presidents in 15 days. In April 20002, Venezuelan grassroots organisations reversed a coup d’etat.
Between May 2002 and February 2003, an uninterrupted nation-wide mobilisation in Bolivia resisted anti-popular economic policies, demanded a Constituent National Assembly, and established the social basis for the almost successful presidential candidacy of Evo Morales in 2002.
In June 20002, a popular uprising in Arequipa , Peru , stopped the privatisation of electricity. In the same months, social mobilisations in Paraguay halted the privatisation of telecommunications, electricity, water, and railroads, and prevented the approval of an “˜Antiterrorist Law’. In August 2002, the communal farmers of San Salvador Atenco , Mexico , prevented the construction of a mega airport and halted the expropriation of their land. In August 2002, unionised medical doctors and workers of El Salvador launched a seven-month strike against the privatisation of social security. In September 2002, one month before Brazil ‘s presidential elections, a popular plebiscite against the Free Trade Area of the America (FTAA) rejected the proposal of the hemispheric liberalisation of trade with the participation of ten million citizens.
In Colombia , in the middle of the war intensified by the Plan Colombia, unions organised a general strike on 16 September 2002 , and in October 2003 the citizens rejected a referendum imposed by President Alvaro Uribe.
In Vieques, Puerto Rico , after years of resistance, civil society organisations expelled the United States Navy from their island in April 2003.
And between February and October 2003 a broad coalition of Bolivian social and political movements engaged in the so-called Guerra del Gas (the “˜gas war’) stopped the loss of sovereignty over national energy reserves and forced President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada to resign.
These are only some of the most recent and well-known examples, but many more similar struggles from across the region could be mentioned.
Danger of generalisation
Therefore, to speak of the Latin American left always entails the risk of generalisations which obscure the specificities of each political action, the historical conditions in which it was constituted and took on an identity; the social and political variables that define it, and the concrete circumstances in which it operates.
When we speak of parties, it is necessary to further specify ideological distinctions, degrees of internal organisation and homogeneity, the bond and roots they have with social sectors they seek to represent, or the extent of elaboration and development of their political projects.
Nowadays, analysis of the Latin American left has to go beyond the habitual references to the parties of greater consolidation or longer tradition.
If we include in our definition of the left those who struggle against exploitation, marginalisation and the plunder of national wealth by transnational capital, we observe a left much bigger and more diverse than traditional left parties, even though objectives may coincide in general terms.
From the mid-1990s, politically significant new left organisations have emerged. Some do not participate in the representative system, like the Zapatista National Liberation Army of Mexico.
Others challenge right-wing state and national governments, but are born of specific social movements from which they extend popular representation without losing their original identities.
This is the case with the Pachakutic Movement, for instance, which was constituted in 1995 as the political instrument of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador, and participated in the government presided over by Lucio Gutiérrez.
It is also the case with the Bolivian Movement for Socialism (MAS), created in 1998, rooted in the indigenous movement, farmers, and miners, and nearly victorious in the 2002 presidential race with its candidate Evo Morales, an Aymara indigenous leader.
It is also the case with Colombia ‘s Alternative Social Bloc, born in 1999 from an alliance of indigenous and peasant organisations with trade unions, students, urban residents, and left parties in the context of a 26-day regional general strike, which resulted in the Guambio indigenous leader Floro Tunubalá being elected governor of the Cauca province in Colombia in 2000.
And this has been the case with the Fifth Republican Movement in Venezuela, with its origins in a heterogeneous alliance between military sectors and diverse left groups, supported by a wide range of popular sectors, all united in the common objective of ending the traditional bi-party system that had monopolised government since 1958, which they achieved with the election of Hugo Chávez as president in 1998.
Political action goes beyond electoral contestation
The left’s range of political action is much broader than electoral contestation. Electoral politics currently enjoy a greater vitality, however, as the left has seized on the possibilities for challenging governments to the right in the face of both the failure and amplified rejection of neo-liberalism. The probability of turning those electoral advances into possibilities for changing present Latin American reality requires more than securing numerous parliamentary seats and municipal or even national governments.
It will also depend on the left being able to wield sufficient political force to focus organised collective will on changing the power relations across the life through which neo-liberal capitalism reproduces itself.
[ Stolowicz, is a lecturer and a researcher at the Department of Politics and Culture of the Autonomous Metropolitan University of Mexico ]
If you want to get a copy download it from www.tni.org
Chávez thwarts counter-revolution
In an edition of Numsa Bulletin published at the end of 2003, we published an article on the struggle in Venezuela . The article traced the bosses and opposition’s attempts to topple as well as frustrate the programmes of elected President Hugo Chávez.
This year, the same opposition took another shot at Chávez whose land and socio-economic reforms are popular with workers, peasants, landless and the poor. They used recall provisions in the constitution which they were opposed to, to press for a referendum.
As in previous attempts, they failed. In a referendum held on August 15, 59 ,25% of those who cast their votes said no, to calls for Chávez’s impeachment – a real defeat for counter-revolution and imperialism.