A tool for learning about Latin America. Interview with Ricardo Nudelman
Ariel Ruiz Mondragón is always necessary and useful to have instruments of consultation that we provide easy access, prompt and quick information, data and references on specific subjects, which shortens our way to knowledge and allows us to avoid sinking into a world of little or no systematic information.
To whom is the study of politics, last year published a revised and expanded second edition of a tool that was released originally in 2005: Dictionary of contemporary American politics (Mexico, Ocean), Richard Nudelman, valuable work which brings together facts and figures of characters, events, organizations and countries in the region.
We had a chat with the author about his work, we play the following topics: the reasons of his book, the use of criteria and categories on it, its main sources, the inclusion of certain actors, the role of Latin America in the twentieth century and the lessons you keep for your future.
Nudelman is a lawyer from the University of Buenos Aires was general manager of Librería Gandhi of Mexico (1976-1984), editorial director of Folio editions in Mexico (1981-1984), general manager of the publishing of the University of Buenos Aires (1989-1990) and Group CEO of Mexico Libraries Gandhi (1994-1998). He is currently general manager of the Fondo de Cultura Economica.
Ariel Ruiz (AR): Although it explains something in the preface to the dictionary, which mentioned the missing tools like this for students, why write a book like yours?
Ricardo Nudelman (RN): The main thing is that it is on the prologue and you read it carefully. True, I intended to find a helpful tool for students of Political Science, International Relations, as well as for journalists and other professionals who may be interested in certain issues related to Latin American politics, for which data may be necessary and have it faster by hand, or at least an indication. That was the intention.
The other: you must be a little crazy to be doing at this stage of things, a dictionary whose features require an obsession that can only take someone who has a faculty upset (laughs).
The fact that the publisher has now raised this updated second edition of 2005 reveals that, indeed, at least in one sector there was a need like that and could have an interest in having this tool to distinguish the data quickly without need for further research (although it is true that today the computer solves a lot of things) had to make synthetic make it short, do not give a mass of information that perhaps was excessive. Around a student needs to know in a period that is working who was president of a Latin American country, which party ruled and what political orientation had. If you keep track of a political trend, what developing countries had influence? Here are this type of data, I imagine, someone might need and that solves that.
There are several indexes: entries by author, character, country, political movements, etc., and then a little easier handling. You already know that there are powerful tools such as the Internet, which can give a mass of information much larger.
AR: But most often disorganized. You discuss this in the prologue that his work should have criteria for defining what was going and what not. Mentioned that it took a decision policy to establish these criteria, exactly, but it is not explicit in the text. Could you talk about it and of those criteria?
RN: I'll be honest: they mixed a little interest to anyone in politics, and things of politics in particular, my profession for over forty years as editor and as a bookseller. Actually I did a reverse process when I decided to do this book because I thought it was a need for certain sectors of students, teachers and others.
Then I said: It must be a dictionary, but one that is not too bulky, because it also makes things difficult: if I look for quick access to information, I need something manageable. I thought: there must be more than many pages to be truly open to the public. If you have many pages, you have to have as many tickets as we will devote much space to each. If you have X number of entries, how do we divide? We chose a number of countries, category A by the political importance, as I could have. Without underestimating anyone, with all respect for any country in Latin America, it is clear that there is greater political wealth in countries like Mexico, Brazil, etc., that in countries like the Dominican Republic and Haiti, which is not to say that there are countries complicated and have had a very complex story.
A category 1 countries so we gave them tickets to the next so many others, and so ruled. Once I decided that Mexico and Brazil had many innings, also had to decide who came and who did not. This is, I say, an endpoint policy. I decided they were all presidents, all characters that had political significance: here comes as a subjective: who I think is relevant if it was the president. Also, all political parties or groups had a significant impact and transformed, and what not. Then
there is always an assessment. I am saying in the preface that I do a completely objective story, because you can not do because you have a position and look at things from one place and not from another, you may not coincide with others my opinion, and it is likely that the decision to put some and not others is not shared. "How you forgot to put a guy?" No, I forgot: I chose not to put it. But it is a political decision in any case questionable.
I tried to be as "objective as possible," it quotes. Say there is a type of government that kills people, prohibits political parties their performance, does not allow freedom of expression and the free flow of ideas, etc., as we define it as a dictatorship. So I say "so and so government was a dictatorship rather than a political opinion is a specific definition. What some people may consider that the dictatorship of any American president was not? Well, it's an opinion as respectable as others.
I find that there are definitions which are incontrovertible, but it is also my opinion.
AR: In that sense I found references to the characters displayed here used to describe categories: conservative, liberal, socialist, etc.. What so difficult was it to apply? You say yourself that this is a bit embarrassing.
RN: It is difficult and may not be correct in some cases, and also depends on the opinions of each. This is not a dictionary of political concepts.
AR: As you say, there are others who do that.
RN: Yes, there are others. One has to refer to these to say what you mean by liberal or conservative? Because liberal today is a word that means many things. Perhaps I am referring more to how the characters define themselves as liberal or conservative in the political history of the twentieth century. Pongo
very general definitions trying not to fall into specifics because then it already undertakes certain things. I say "this is a leftist" includes both a social as a Trotskyist, a guerrilla revolutionary and a communist orthodoxy. I define it and to give an idea any more, and then at the entrance to this character are the respective comments were said to have spent by such party, then switched to another and so on.
the constraints are both the same text and content as the extension.
AR: Another point that struck me is that for a dictionary of politics and politicians, here are characters that many would left out: the intellectuals. Meeting, for example, Daniel Cosio Villegas, Franz Fanon, Anibal Ponce and Mario Vargas Llosa, Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Jose Enrique Rodo. Why include them? Was the importance of his role in American politics?
RN: I think that yes, it is clear that, more in the nineteenth century than the twentieth. This will see one in Latin American countries because they are the same characters intellectuals who played a role in independence revolutionary activity, which were very clear. In the twentieth century the intellectual might not have the same features, but there were political figures who played a political role and were intellectual by definition, as is the case of Daniel Cosio Villegas, that's undeniable. He could not be defined as a politician because he was not joined a political party, a political trend and others, but his work speaks of an undeniable political dimension. Anibal Ponce
same thing: although he was a member of the Communist Party, his main activity was intellectual, but even in this it shone through their political ideology. I get the impression that run parallel, which go hand in hand and can not be removed.
I think that certain characters have played an important political role, although they have not held office, or not only to hold office. Don Daniel was not Foreign Minister, and perhaps would have liked to be, do not know, but it was a man who had all the qualities to be developed as a political activity if he had so loved.
AR: Other characters also might not have been included in a job like this, are the characters and criminal groups that you include in the case of Colombia, the Medellin cartel, Pablo Escobar Gaviria and even the famous PEPES. What influence did these criminal groups in Latin American politics, especially since the late twentieth century?
RN: I think today is clearer than ever. Such you had more time before the vision of their criminal activity, but today would be impossible to think that drug trafficking activity is off from the same state, its institutions and policies of certain parties. The paradigmatic case of Colombia, but the link between organized crime, especially drug trafficking, the State is not confined to Colombia, there are many other countries that have that link in quantities that might not suspect.
But I think that today would be impossible not to recognize the existence of this link. When one thinks of the relationship between drug trafficking and the U.S. government or certain state institutions American (justice, police, prisons, etc.), you can see which are clearly linked to criminal activities, not just to repress them, but sometimes in collusion.
I think today is very clear that. In other years we said we would so completely amazed that such a link exists, we no longer think it surprised anyone.
AR: What were the main sources in the preparation of the dictionary?
RN: The book was through the work of many years, very slowly, I started in the eighties, when he was pursuing a master's degree at UNAM, and wanted to get to 2000 to complete the century. No one had a long enough perspective to analyze certain processes.
The sources were varied. Fortunately my job as editor and as a bookseller I had to travel many countries in Latin America, and I took those trips to read and provide me with books on contemporary history. I fed them, I was very helpful to make the base from the early twentieth century to which I myself might have different experiences.
All I can feed the first part of local history books. The second source of information after this first stage was based on newspapers and magazines, anything that will provide news, the data, and so on.
The third source consisted of personal interviews I conducted. Embassies also provided me with documentation and figures that helped me to resolve some issues.
Anyway there are some data that were blank, and dates of birth of some politicians, I could not discover.
AR: One of the entries made in the preface that struck me was his challenge to the consolidation of democracy in Latin America. How do you see today the democratic future of Latin America? I say this also by some data presented in the book: the polls show in the area to 70 percent of citizens little interest in policy issues, and less than 30 percent of them are satisfied with democracy. How watches that can advance democracy in this scenario?
RN: It is difficult to project. It also depends on the attitude that the politicians have about it. See, in October 2007 presidential elections were held in Argentina. If you read the newspapers, both Mexicans and Argentines, which will see the indisputable victory of Cristina Fernández with a very noticeable difference between her and second place. This will highlight all.
What we do not stand out is another issue for the first time since 1928, Argentina recorded a 30 percent abstention. The average turnout in all these years Argentina is approximately 85 percent, which is very high, this time was 72 percent.
AR: Even so is high.
RN: It is very high, but Argentina did not: low, and significantly. What happened? From the notes I've read and the comments that I receive is that there was a very apathetic campaign, people involved was not considered. Perhaps this has to do with the policy developed by the government itself, or may be related to the fact that we're slowly getting used (as in the U.S.) to policy is done through television or media in general.
So the political message comes through television. I was used, as a man who had any political activity, we were going to rallies, assemblies, to see and listen to our candidates, to see the flyers and newspaper, and so on. Today it seems that all this activity has disappeared, and it is better that people stay home and receive messages on television, radio or newspaper deployed, and that conforms. Is more than a political program, a program of instructions what touches people, sometimes slogans that have no content. You do not know what they want say a word, an adjective, and nothing else.
I think it changed that policy advocacy and political participation of citizens, and that does not know whether it is favorable because it gives me the impression that the fact that people move away from the remaining political content, leaves empty little political activity.
In the U.S., where it is clear that the institutions work, political participation is almost nil, people only bother to vote on the election (and they do very few) and nothing else. Who decide the political decision makers who act, are increasingly groups small and have a very distant relationship with the rest of society.
That I think is not good, not for us. I think the interesting thing is an important part in political decision making and how those decisions are made. Although I do not believe in the assembly, or direct democracy (can not bring the world to decide, but that is through representatives), must have an intense relationship between representatives and represented, an activity permanent political parties not only at election time. I remember not a country but in many countries, people say, "They're fixing the streets, wants that there will be elections. "
I think that is an important issue in our countries. What I say, besides this, is that there are lines that you can follow in Latin American history, and there are a few that will leave you satisfied. There are two basic lines in this story: one, the corruption, the other social inequality. For me is clear, obvious to anyone that we are living in countries with very small differences with almost half the population in poverty. This must necessarily call attention.
AR: Of course this work is the product of someone who has closely watched the recent Latin American history. In this regard, What do you think are the main lessons that the twentieth century left for the future of Latin America?
RN: If I had to take a definition on that side, I have to take what I just said, if I think the two main problems are social inequality and corruption, because I have to think is that any political program seeking to redress such unfair situations like these, must necessarily adopt policies that lead to similar correction of social inequalities and the scourge of corruption that invades us on all sides.
That will be the responsibility of political parties to take decisions that involve combat these problems, and also to address other major national issues that are common: education, health, housing, work, etc., to which all aspire.
To achieve a stable political society needs some correction in that sense, if not done, it is impossible to think of a peaceful society or relatively satisfied if those elements are still dominant. There will always be social groups that will try to fight against it, and that creates movement.
AR: Do you see that are already adopting policies to address these challenges which states?
RN: There are glimpses of some things to try to rebuild, but they are nothing more than that. I'll give an example which I think is important: the Mexican Transparency Law. I think it's a very good attempt, modern, and should be adopted by all countries, correcting some problems that have existed, but that people, anyone can access information leading to a public entity is important.
If not done until now is because the ruling classes still had not been able to absorb a strong need felt by the people, who want to know where to go, who manages and how he manages their tax dollars. If that is hidden, is a form of corruption.
This is an issue, I am not saying that is the main far from it. But if you follow paths like these, it is likely that some things could be thought of differently and it is likely that American society in general, with features that are different countries, these political processes might see otherwise, without suspect, because it is always what governments do is suspect. If you ask people will always say that.
To disarm this image, we all want that political activity is clear, transparent, open, because we want to see politics, not that there is no policy. For it is, must have mechanisms that allow society to verify that fact that is being said is true.
In that sense, this would be the road. I'm not saying that is the only or the principal, but merely an example.
AR: Finally, what role did Latin America in the twentieth century world history?
RN: It would be very easy for me to say that Latin America is a region that plays an important role. The truth is no. What I think is that during the twentieth century was a time when some Latin American countries loomed as possible people who had a particular weight on the world.
I am thinking, for example, Argentina in 1910 was the fifth world power, and look today. I am also Brazil in 1980 thinking that was declared by the United States as the country whose inclination was to define the trend of other countries of Latin America today is not so. There are regional leaders, but there is no leader in the region.
What I think is that Latin America did not fulfill its historic obligations. Bolivar's dream (I'm not talking about Hugo Chavez, but Simon Bolivar) had a sense of how to look at the future from this kind of mosaic that had been built after independence. He and many others in the nineteenth century thought that if there was a sort of Latin American common interest, it was difficult to have weight enough to change what Europe and America could mean.
The world has moved quickly and changed many things in the twentieth century. Countries today have unexpected for us, which are the ones setting the pace. I remember not long ago (no more than 20 years) had declared the end of history because capitalism, as liberal, had triumphed in the world and that was indisputable. Since that time America was in decline, while in Asia, for example, pushed through a new power like China, which at that time no one could envision.
change much the facts of politics, and Latin America is not involved, not in this world, figured in another world, like soccer, but not in global economic development, social equality, development of policies that incorporate a structured society and fairer societies and egalitarian. I do not think that we are moving a lot. That's what hurts.
