The Latin American Left: between accountability and corruption. Interview with Jorge G. Against
The Latin American Left: between responsibility and corruption Interview with Jorge G. Castañeda
Ariel Ruiz Mondragón
already long since been highlighted in the political arena in Latin America said the wave of electoral victories by the left, which led governments to lead, a position from which they intend to implement his ideas and promises processing, especially in the social field.
nearly two decades ago, Jorge G. Castaneda published a book in which he noted the promising paths left the continent if the lessons learned by the end of the Cold War and the failure of armed struggle for power. Apparently it happened in many cases, what has given them access to the government, which has also undergone changes.
As a way of taking stock of the Latin American left in power, Castro and Marco Antonio Morales has published the book What's left of the left. Tales of the Latin American left (Mexico, Taurus, 2010), which gathered 11 papers by specialists in those studied from the ideological location of the six Latin American case studies in as many countries. Just over a number of issues raised in the book M Weekly held talks with Castro, who has a PhD in Economic History from the University of Paris Sorbonne, has taught at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, New York, Princeton and Berkeley, author of 15 books and contributor to publications such as Reform, The Country Newsweek and . He was secretary of Foreign Affairs of Mexico between 2000 and 2003.
Ariel Ruiz (AR): What are the reasons why it was written and published this book, especially his other books on the topic, as Utopia Unarmed or The red life?
Jorge G. Castañeda (JC): Just is a sort of return, 16 or 17 years later, Utopia Unarmed , which I published in 1993. This work was quite an impact on America America because there came a time when it was finally ending the era of the revolutionary left, armed and violent, the last gasp in this regard were the Zapatistas, which was like a pantomime (as Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, said RPA purpose).
In all the years that followed were giving many of the things I mentioned in that book: the hard left, radical, armed was disappearing and was transformed into an electoral left, social democratic, moderate, but not likes to be called that, what is your problem ", as well as to some extent, global. From 2000 we started to see how in several countries, having left everything and for taking many of the views I mentioned in Utopia Unarmed, I simply resumed, not invented, and left only his statements that I made collected, began to win elections: in Chile, Ricardo Lagos, then in Brazil with Lula in 2002, in Uruguay, Vázquez in 2004, and in its way, very strange, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 1999, and so on.
Then I thought it was a good time (two years ago, when the book came out first in English in the U.S.) to make a kind review what we said and where we were in the region, and that's what I did with this friend of mine, Marco Morales, with whom I have already published several papers in journals, and now works in Presidency of the Republic where he is Director of Policy Analysis, and was also a colleague, my assistant and professor at New York for many years, he mainly managed the various authors who made this book.
AR: The left has said his main struggle is against inequality and social justice, however, the trial of Jose Merino shows that social policies have not been very higher than the right. What explains this?
JC: is difficult to know whether the undoubted progress that has been specific policies from some leftist governments have implemented, or social policies from more or less widespread in Latin America for and about 15 years, and that with time and growth began to take effect. It is true that we see very similar results, for example, in Mexico, where in the last 10 years has ruled the center-right in Brazil, which in the past eight years has ruled the center-left social policies and are almost identical. Then we have a third case is even more complicated, which is Chile, where a kind of center-left ruling has spent 20 years with many of the policies including the dictatorship with more orthodox or neo-liberal policies that have no or very little social policy but where economic growth has been such that poverty reduction has been immense, ie has not been much for anti-poverty social policy has been applied, but by 25 years of economic growth.
So it is not easy to know, so it is a bit Merino submits to ask a question: "Is there a social policy Left? ". It is evident, there is an intention, a will, an emphasis, but beyond that is very difficult to determine.
AR: In two works, one about Brazil and the other on Chile, which are two success stories on the left, it emphasizes the neoliberal economic policy. Why have followed this policy, much criticized by many leftist intellectuals, what does have leeway left governments to change?
JC: Well , intellectuals who criticize those policies can afford to do so because they are ruling, but those in government can not afford such luxuries unless they want to, say, a paradigm shift. What I raised from Utopia Unarmed and we raised all in this book is that the left has basically adopted, and is resigned to a greater or lesser enthusiasm, to market it more or less market are pure stories. The left in Latin America is a market policy, free trade, globalization, stable public finances, privatization, and so on.
Why? First, because if these parties and leftist governments are not committed to such policies would not have won, because the middle classes who had begun to emerge, and even the most popular and had things to lose, the last thing I wanted were financial debacles like those populist governments in the past had been. Then, if they had not committed Lula, the Coalition and all others to follow the scheme, people would not have voted for them in the first place.
Second, and in government, the left is given very well aware that the margin is extremely narrow: you pay an immediate price to skyrocket your risk country in international markets, and any deviation will cost you in dollars and cents a fortune the next day. Upload your risk country, you have to increase domestic interest rates to keep the money you go, that means you increase the interest rate for housing, credit cards, cars, televisions, refrigerators, and increased for all products more expensive because it decreases the consumption. "Consumption who? Of those who elected you. So either you have that margin.
why all these left-wing governments have resigned themselves somehow, some more enthusiastically than others, to basically follow the canons neoliberalism, and Consensus of Washington or contact one wishes, it imports. So, you know what it is, otherwise not come.
AR: There is a lesson that could remove many of the cases in which the left has won the election, like that of their parties and candidates understand that not all voters are left, and during election campaigns should not turn big conflicts, but try to establish wide-ranging alliances. Does the failure of López Obrador in Mexico and Ollanta Humala in Peru was missing this?
JC: I think there were two cases of Mexico and Humala, in which the process did not update (or whatever you want to call it) on the left. Humala's case is different because it is not itself the Peruvian left, but that's become a fairly traditional populist phenomenon, which basically do not think it can easily be assimilated to the others who try.
In the case of Mexico and the PRD, its great drama it has not done this update I spoke from Utopia Unarmed, which everyone talks about now and have made all the Latin American left. The PRD still believes in the revolution in Cuba (not that have good relations with Cuba, which is different, but believes that this is a successful project) is still very anti-American. On the contrary, we now know, by Wikileaks, the degree of closeness between the secret government had Lula and George W. Bush (not Obama): cooperation in areas such as security, terrorism, the Amazon or moderate the madman Chavez. In Mexico all this has not been given: a López Obrador PRD followed, but began to distance themselves from him in the camp of reform. But the Mexican left has not taken that step today.
AR: On this aspect of the update there is a trial of you, Morales and Patricio Navia on nationalism still flying several Latin American left, and has as its "black beast" to America. However, you do not pose a radical break with nationalism.
JC: I personally, beyond what this text and others do not believe that nationalism can be a "modern" do not understand. In Europe, for example, what is? Because it is part of the community or not. Strong nationalism in Europe are increasingly regional: the Basque Country, Catalonia, parts of Germany, etc., but are not nationals. Why? Because they carry half a century of European economic integration has been changing things and also because Europeans know well the cost of nationalism, of national socialism, for example. Already lived.
elsewhere if there is some basis for nationalism, but really one has to wonder what it means today in a Latin American country. What is it? Is it anti-American, primarily, or is an affirmation of self? With the exception of Brazil for its size, no other Latin American country has the dimensions to translate into facts alleged nationalism, except in rhetoric, because they are too small countries. Let's see, Rafael Correa in Ecuador: very nationalistic, very angry with the Americans because they led their father to jail, blah, blah, blah, but it takes three years in office, and the dollar remains the currency of Ecuador. The FMLN in El Salvador is a year in government, and the dollar remains the currency, the only thing flowing. The motto of these two countries is the U.S. dollar. What does nationalism Ecuador or El Salvador when your currency is the dollar? In Chile, the degree of openness of the economy, what is a Chilean nationalism? It is the football, something nostalgia for some things half Chilean folk because they have a great pre-Columbian culture as it was still nomadic indigenous people. Argentina: very nationalistic, but there are a huge number of Argentines who have dual Italian citizenship. What does it mean that beyond the rhetoric Peron, Maradona, football and all that? And in Mexico the problem is what it means to be a nationalist when for all practical purposes your economy is part of the economic space of North America.
AR: In political terms, the left always says it will seek a deepening of democracy. "Indeed progress has been made in terms of democracy in countries that rule? A point we have given emphasis to participatory democracy, almost directly.
JC: I'm not so convinced, I do not think there has been great progress. I get the impression that all the Brazilian participatory budgeting have been left out because it did not work too well. I think there has been some progress at the level of regionalization in lower levels of decision making to a level closer to the citizenry, but also left many governments have realized that sometimes the best works is the central state, federal, national government that works better than the regional and municipal governments. There is less corruption, more efficiency and transparency. But I'm not sure that the left in Latin America really has found new ways of participation.
In other cases, like Venezuela, are very serious backsliding on democracy, because there is not only a temptation, but as a drift towards authoritarianism which has worsened dramatically in recent months and is posing a serious challenge to the Latin American Left: return to the long held policy with Cuba, namely authoritarianism and human rights violations in that country are a legitimate subject of concern. That now turns to present to Venezuela, where it is more serious: control of internet and media, expropriation or Chavez Enabling Law that for all practical purposes is to dissolve the Congress have a choice, and you lose opposition wins a majority, but you use the camera to disable outbound for all practical purposes the incoming Congress, which is equivalent to shutting down the Congress. What will they say Correa, Evo Morales or Dilma Roussef? What is your business, it does not matter?
AR: There is what the democratic clause of Mercosur.
JC: As it entered Venezuela, even though Chavez was present at all meetings, has not formally agreed to Mercosur because it lacks the Paraguayan Senate ratification. So you can not apply the democracy clause because it is part, but what will happen if he is?, What will happen to a number of conditions that exist in democratic American system? There is a democratic challenge to the left is becoming much more complicated than when we published the book in the Together for over two years.
AR: Another important issue is how power has shifted to the left. Within the parties there has been strong internal conflicts. How has transformed the power to the left in Latin America?
JC: I think there certainly is a problem of corruption in some cases, not all but many-not necessarily that of other governments, but only when Left parties were not government. Why? Because it is not easy to steal when you are not in government, and when it is it is easier. Then there is a real transformation to some extent inevitable, it has been corruption.
authoritarian temptations There have been almost never been fulfilled, as they have been able to resist most governments. Always there is the ambiguous case of Argentina, one never knows where to put.
Another element is undoubtedly some responsibility "in the best sense of the word, ie, have come to understand they can not do anything crazy or on economic or planning international or-what they love. Have become very responsible, and I gave the example, I insist Rate: Mauricio Funes Correa and will not run the risk of de-dollarization, because they know it would be irresponsible and contrary to the interests and aspirations of their electorates. They have become responsible, perhaps in spite of themselves: if one had asked him to strap or FMLN five years ago, "Hey, are you going to keep the dollar as its currency?" You had said that for any reason, but what have made and will not change. The same Brazil, for example, to maintain a floating exchange rate that comes and goes and does everything chicotea whatever, but the government has been married to the defense of an exchange rate at any cost, have been responsible, as well as the fiscal deficit.
This is part of the transformation, good, and the bad part, inevitable, yes there is corruption, yes there are authoritarian temptations, and there are also some irresponsible international adventures, such as Brazil with Iran and Turkey, as in Argentina (which I sometimes doubt call left), which are weird things like fighting with the IMF and creditors, and then have to return with them. At other times there is a little irresponsible.
AR: Which of the successful experiences that found in the book could be recovered by the Mexican left? Any social, as Bolsa Familia in Brazil?
JC: Well are different things. For example, Bolsa Familia, Brazil's program comes from the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who was the Bolsa Escola, which in turn comes from Progresa and Oportunidades in Mexico, which were invented, as well as Santiago Levy, by José Gómez de León ( who has died) at the time of Ernesto Zedillo, and that is what is called conditional cash transfer quota, which is that when you make direct transfers to families poor is a condition which has to do with children going to school and have the vaccines. This led Lula to a dimension that we do not know whether to be or not in Brazil are almost 15 million families who receive this stipend, and says (I do not know) that conditionality has declined dramatically and in fact nothing more than handing out money and go and there is not really the emphasis on verifying that the mothers themselves are taking the kids to school, to vaccinate health clinics, etcetera. So there is a problem there first.
A second problem is that when these policies were designed always thought were not to lift poor people, but to sever the link transgenerational poverty, ie feeding, leading health and school children, and these 10 or 15 years later would be less poor than their parents. They're not really programs to get parents out of poverty, we know that more or less that is impossible, the idea was that children had a greater human capital, and when they reached the labor market could generate income in excess of that were their parents or who have obtained without the Family Exchange Program or whatever you want to call. All this we know yet, because they have not yet reached these children the labor market, the former are arriving in Mexico, where the program began in 1998 with children six years and now have 18. It is not safe, the first evaluations suggest (I have not followed closely enough) that has not worked, that is, to give some money to dads and moms, but of course, a little out of poverty, but they do because they are giving money, but you're giving them employment, you are not educated nor are healing. It was assumed you were actually investing in children, and that these children today would be better than the parents or children who have not received this support. But it seems not.
Then there we have a very complicated problem in Brazil, Mexico, Peru, which are the three countries where more was done. And I think for the Mexican left-do not think much about these things or any other except in their lawsuits, because there's a fertile ground for thinking and working.
The other experience that seems to me the most interesting of all is the computer in Uruguay: Vázquez children given a computer to each primary school pupil in the country, all . Are computers for elementary school children, not young, and given away. That's me seems an interesting experience for many people in Mexico, leftist or not, could learn.
AR: At the end of the book you raise some great issues, including antitrust policy. Have you seen any of the leftists in power are working on this?
JC: What I think is that the ruling parties of the left have a contradiction, for example in Brazil: they are, to some extent, antitrust, and have set certain standards of regulation more stringent, but they are very supportive of monopolies state. Then, it is very difficult to be in private antitrust and promonopolio in the State, a contradiction that will eventually lead to difficulties in Brazil, in Chile and not because they lost, but they caused problems for a while, and never could really just get into background to the issue of copper in Chile to decide what to do. Mexico is a huge problem because how can antitrust with Slim, but not with Pemex? You can not, or whether it can reveal a degree of contradiction that people say "I'm not going with this, as with the left in Mexico.
* A slightly shorter version of this interview appeared in M Weekly, no. 689, January 17, 2011. Reprinted with permission from the director.
