|
 Radical
Latin America
A NEW wave of radicalisation is sweeping through the Latin
American continent. It is reflected in increased support for radical populist
movements in many countries and the landslide victory of the Workers’ Party (PT)
candidate, Luiz Inacio ‘Lula’ da Silva, in Brazil’s presidential election.
The strengthening of radical populist movements follows a
series of right-wing capitalist governments which carried through sweeping
privatisation and opened the national economies to increased domination and
control by Western multinationals during the 1990s. These policies had a
devastating effect on the mass of the population. Poverty levels and misery
increased alongside a widening of the gap between rich and poor. The present
radicalisation is a sign that the working class and others exploited by
capitalism are beginning to seek an alternative to neo-liberalism and
capitalism.
A recent electoral breakthrough of this populist revival
took place in Ecuador where Lucio Guitiérrez took the lead in the first round of
the presidential elections. Guitiérrez, a retired army officer who is
sympathetic to and comparable with Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, led the January 21
Patriotic Society, and participated in the mass uprising in January 2000 against
the former president Jamil Mahuad. Like Chávez, Guitiérrez is resting
overwhelmingly on the poor and most downtrodden, including indigenous peoples.
His opponent in the second round is Álvaro Noboa, a multi-millionaire who owns
more than 100 companies in Ecuador. These developments have an added
significance in that they follow the dollarisation of the economy which has
failed to resolve the social and economic instability. Between 1999 and 2001,
400,000 Ecuadorians left the country – out of a population of 13 million.
Earlier this year in Bolivia, Evo Morales, a peasant farmer
backed by the working class and indigenous peasants, narrowly missed being
elected president. Throughout the continent there is a revolt against the
neo-liberal polices of the 1990s, the market and the establishment political
parties. All parties and institutions associated with capitalism and the ruling
elite have seen an erosion of their support. In the recent elections in Ecuador
while Guitiérrez took 20.3% of the vote in the first round, Xavier Neira, the
candidate of the Partido Social Cristiano (PSC), the country’s main political
party, took a mere 12.2% of the vote and came in a poor fifth! The same process
took place in Venezuela when Chávez won the presidency in 1998 and the vote for
traditional parties of the ruling class collapsed. The same loss of trust and
confidence was seen in Argentina following the uprisings which took place during
December 2001 and January 2002.
A recent poll organised by the Santiago-based
Latinobarometro, reflected the new mood. It is shown in the contempt towards the
established pro-capitalist parties. In Argentina in 1996, 19% indicated that
they had ‘a lot’ or ‘some’ confidence and trust in the political parties. In
2002 this had fallen to 0%! In Ecuador it fell from 18% to about 8%. Paraguay,
which has recently experienced mass riots against privatization, saw the
steepest decline from 38% to 6%. The only exception to this trend is Venezuela –
reflecting the highly-polarised and politicised situation there – where those
responding positively to political parties rose from 10% to 20%.
The radicalisation was also reflected in attitudes towards
the economy. When compared to 1998 (the last time the poll was taken), support
for keeping the state out of the economy had dramatically fallen in all
countries. When asked if the economy should be left to the private sector
without state intervention, now 39% agreed in Brazil, 38% in Argentina, 36% in
Venezuela, and 41% in Ecuador (from 55% in 1998).
Behind the growth in support for radical populist movements
are demands for far-reaching change by the working class and the mass of the
population. The victory of Lula in Brazil reflects this process. Lula has
adopted a more ‘moderate’ stance, trying to reassure the ruling class by
promising to honour existing agreements with the international financial markets
and banks. Despite this ‘PT-lite’ stance, his victory will arouse massive
enthusiasm and expectations amongst the working class.
These developments have alarmed US imperialism. Constantine
Menges, an official in Reagan’s administration, said the process was "tantamount
to the creation of a new ‘axis of evil’."
The real threat to the interests of capitalism, however, is
the mass movement of the working class and oppressed which is behind such
populist figures as Chávez and Guitiérrez and, now, Lula’s victory. They have
denounced neo-liberalism and the grotesque wealth, corruption and power of the
ruling elites in their respective countries. In the case of Chávez, some of the
privileges of the corrupt capitalist politicians have been curbed and some
reforms that benefit the poor have been implemented. More than 3,000 new schools
which distribute free school meals have been built since Chávez came to power
and state universities are now free for students. Such reforms have won the
enthusiastic backing of the urban poor and oppressed. The reactionary campaign
against him by the ruling class and US imperialism has also helped maintain this
support.
However, these populist movements have not attempted to
break from capitalism and carry through a socialist transformation of society.
They have not even gone so far as to nationalise sections of the economy. The
deepening crisis of world capitalism and the rising pressure of the working
class, however, may drive such regimes as Chávez in a more radical direction.
Significant blows could be struck against the interests of capitalism, and in
particular US imperialism – for example, the nationalisation of important
sectors of the economy or defaulting on foreign debt.
So long as the regimes remain with capitalism, however, and
do not present a socialist alternative, they will stay prisoners of the market
system. Chávez does not mobilise the mass of the working class and oppressed to
carry through a socialist transformation of society. Nor does he appeal to the
masses of Latin America and the United States to overthrow capitalism and
imperialism. As a result, his regime is facing an impasse.
The ruling class has carried through a policy of sabotage
and destabilisation and, in April, attempted to overthrow Chávez with the
backing of the USA. This was defeated because of a spontaneous movement from the
shanty towns and armed forces rank-and-file, along with some junior officers,
rallying to his defence.
However, the ruling class is mobilising a massive campaign
against him, fuelled by his inability to resolve the economic crisis which
exists because he will not break from capitalism. This has resulted in a massive
polarisation in society. In October, one million people took to the streets
demanding that Chávez resign. One week later, another million took to the
streets in his support! The polarisation is along class lines. The recent
‘general strike’ called by the employers and the corrupt trade union federation,
CTV, reflected this. The Spanish daily El País reported: "In the popular zones
few companies closed their doors and remained open… in the petrol sector, the
administration and the offices in Caracas were paralysed but extraction,
refinery and transport were unaffected". (22 October)
How long this deadlock can last is an open question but it
cannot continue indefinitely. The economic crisis is slashing the standard of
living of the middle class on a daily basis. In the first quarter of this year,
$10 billion flooded out of Venezuela, the equivalent of 7% of gross domestic
product. This has given the right-wing reactionary forces the opportunity to
build a powerful opposition to Chávez.
This impasse is also a warning to Lula’s new administration.
The mass of workers will have tremendous expectations and illusions in the first
ever PT-dominated government. However, the swing to the right by Lula and the
party’s leadership could result in these hopes being dashed. Sections of the
ruling class have swung behind him, intent on shackling the PT government to the
commitments made during the campaign not to adopt radical measures and to
support pro-capitalist policies. Nonetheless, the economic crisis and workers’
struggles will put the government under enormous pressure. It is certain to
provoke a political crisis at some point. Despite Lula’s promises to the ruling
class, he could be compelled by the pressure of mass movements to adopt measures
which conflict with the short-term and strategic interests of the capitalists
and US imperialism.
As the experience of Venezuela and other recent developments
show, there is a need to build an independent working class and socialist
alternative. It needs to be based on a programme to break with capitalism and
establish workers’ and peasants’ governments which would begin to build
socialism, based on the nationalisation of the major monopolies, banks and
financial institutions and the introduction of a democratic plan of production.
The emergence of a new wave of radical populist movements represents the first
steps by the masses of Latin America to search for a socialist alternative which
is now an urgent necessity.
Tony Saunois
|