Apropos ‘the unsaddled horses’
The lefts (and the not-so-lefts) in Latin America
By Eduardo Dimas
I shall always remember the telephone conversation I held during a radio program with a high-ranking Argentine official from a traditional leftist party, at the time of the collapse of the neoliberal model in Argentina, which plunged that country into total crisis.
It was December 2001, and the government of Fernando de la Rúa had frozen all bank accounts in a misguided attempt to prevent the total economic paralyzation of the country. The Argentine middle class — the same that had supported the military dictatorship to a great degree and, later, the administration of Carlos Menem — took to the streets to protest because its interests had been directly affected by the government’s measures.
Let us remember that the slogan was "out with everyone." De la Rúa and other government leaders were kicked out. However, he was not the principal culprit.
We asked the Argentine leader what role his party was playing in the protests and he answered that the situation had caught them "with the horse unsaddled." Translated from Argentine Spanish, that expression means that the situation had caught them by surprise and that they had not been prepared to deal with it. A worse interpretation (and one closer to reality) was that they were eating "what the chickens peck at."
I don’t blame the man. In reality, the traditional Latin American lefts have experienced the same as the historical political parties in oligarchies and bourgeoisies: they have been overtaken by reality.
The lefts (and the not-so-lefts) in Latin America
By Eduardo Dimas Read Spanish Version
I shall always remember the telephone conversation I held during a radio program with a high-ranking Argentine official from a traditional leftist party, at the time of the collapse of the neoliberal model in Argentina, which plunged that country into total crisis.
It was December 2001, and the government of Fernando de la Rúa had frozen all bank accounts in a misguided attempt to prevent the total economic paralyzation of the country. The Argentine middle class — the same that had supported the military dictatorship to a great degree and, later, the administration of Carlos Menem — took to the streets to protest because its interests had been directly affected by the government’s measures.
Let us remember that the slogan was "out with everyone." De la Rúa and other government leaders were kicked out. However, he was not the principal culprit.
We asked the Argentine leader what role his party was playing in the protests and he answered that the situation had caught them "with the horse unsaddled." Translated from Argentine Spanish, that expression means that the situation had caught them by surprise and that they had not been prepared to deal with it. A worse interpretation (and one closer to reality) was that they were eating "what the chickens peck at."
I don’t blame the man. In reality, the traditional Latin American lefts have experienced the same as the historical political parties in oligarchies and bourgeoisies: they have been overtaken by reality.
The former, because of the enormous campaign of discredit and repression aimed at them before, during and after the military dictatorships controlled by the United States, whose objective was precisely that. And that doesn’t include their ambitions, their dogmatism and, in the case of the communist parties, of their close links to the bureaucracy of the late Soviet Union, which financed them.
One remarkable fact — which in a way is repeated in Latin American history, particularly in the cases of Venezuela and Bolivia — is that the traditional lefts, with some exceptions, do not support progressive governments. Some have even gone to the side of the opposition.
The latter, because over the years they have made all kinds of promises that have never kept — they have discredited themselves by applying the neoliberal model, with all its consequences — and the people have placed their hopes on other forces that, in some cases, have betrayed those hopes, e.g., Alberto Fujimori and Alejandro Toledo in Peru, and Lucio Gutiérrez in Ecuador.
In other instances, the leaders have kept their promises, e.g., Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia.
The new leftist forces that have emerged in Latin America are not homogeneous. They appeared as a consequence of the deterioration of the traditional lefts, and as an expression of the new breezes that are blowing through the region. In many cases, they are the product of grassroots movements that have acquired national relevance and that the traditional parties were incapable of leading.
Worth mentioning are the Workers Party in Brazil, the Movement Toward Socialism in Bolivia, the Fifth Republic Movement in Venezuela, the Federation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) and its political arm, the Pachakutik Group.
Others, like the Broad Front in Uruguay and the Sandinista Front of National Liberation (FSLN) in Nicaragua, were born before these new organizations, but they managed to maintain their ascendancy over the population.
After 16 years, the FSLN returned to power through the ballot box, after it seized in 1979 through armed struggle. The Broad Front, which confronted the military dictatorship, also triumphed through the ballot box.
I said that these organizations do not have a homogeneous line of thought. It is no coincidence that Washington has divided the new Latin American governments between "the good left" (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay) and "the bad left" (Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador.) What differentiates them? They differ in priorities, objectives, rejection or acceptance of the neoliberal model that has augmented poverty in the region.
What the White House calls "the good left" does not go beyond a nationalistic position, the defense of certain national interests (especially those of the oligarchy and the bourgeoisie) and the practice of a neoliberal model. Those countries also look for closer ties with the United States or accept Washington’s plans of domination, as is the case with the production of ethanol.
"The bad left" confronts the hegemonic designs of the United States. (Like "the good left," with the exception of Uruguay, it refuses to accept free-trade treaties that would harm their national interests.) Those countries oppose the neoliberal model and, most important, seek a more equitable distribution of wealth and control over natural resources.
In the cases of Venezuela (the most advanced), Bolivia (with the most problems) and Ecuador, the governments attempt to transform society through new Constitutions that will return the national sovereignty over natural resources and will allow the payment of the social debt incurred by previous administrations with the people.
For obvious reasons, these objectives are incompatible with the current economic model, which favors privatization and mercantilism. But even "the good left" is not compatible with the interests of domination of the U.S. power elite, because it defends (to a greater or lesser degree) the national interests and seeks to free itself from the tools of imperial domination, such as the International Monetary Fund.
This is unacceptable and we should remember that, during the campaigns that carried to power the present nationalist and progressive governments, the White House endorsed the other parties and candidates, in most cases members of the most traditional national oligarchies.
Such was the case in Brazil with the candidate for the Socialist Democratic Party, Gerardo Aklim. Such was also the case in Uruguay and, most recently, in Venezuela, Ecuador and Nicaragua, even though these are part of "the bad left."
As you can see, even the solely nationalistic position has a revolutionary tinge in these neoliberal times for Latin America and the world. What can we say, then, about "the bad left" that attempts to change social structures that don’t match the interests of their people?
What can we say about Hugo Chávez, who wants to build 21st-Century socialism, or Evo Morales, who aspires to nationalize his country’s natural resources, to distribute wealth in an equitable manner, and to give the Bolivian Indian the place he deserves in society?
For reasons of interests — and probably of ideology and education — that’s more than the Empire and its allies in the Latin American oligarchy and bourgeoisie can accept. The campaigns of defamation and demonization against those two governments (campaigns that are also being aimed at Ecuador and Nicaragua) are self-explanatory.
When you think about it, what "the bad lefts" are doing is most convenient to the long-range interests of the oligarchies and bourgeoisies of the region — even to the interests of the transnational corporations. Nobody takes their property away. And if they are nationalized, they are paid a fair price.
What is reduced is the transnationals’ ability to fleece the people. The equitable distribution of the national wealth generates social tranquillity, raises hopes, curbs crime and, above all, limits the possibility of social explosions. Is that so difficult to understand? Apparently the imperial and oligarchic arrogance keeps intelligent and robust brains from foreseeing the future.
Finally, I think you are not unaware of the fact that all these progressive governments — which rose to power through elections — are in danger of wearing themselves out and losing the support of the people as a result of the enormous problems they face when they tackle the necessary social transformations.
On one hand are the social exigencies that can seldom be solved in a short time. On the other are the problems created by the policies of the Empire and its national allies. In the case of Bolivia, the government of Evo Morales has not managed to produce a new Magna Carta in the time allotted. Nationalizations have not proceeded smoothly. In Ecuador, the government of Rafael Correa faces similar problems.
That is a card the Empire and its allies are playing — along with systematic media campaigns both inside and outside the U.S. — to try to create a state of opinion that could be negative to a government that needs to be re-elected.
It is up to the people to learn what’s most convenient for them, and to have a historic memory good enough to remember who are opposing these governments in "the good left" and "the bad left," which, to varying degrees, are defending their interests.
Because if these governments fail in their objectives, the Empire and its allies will have managed to "unsaddle the horse" just the way they did it before, and the neoliberal will continue to create more poverty. And let the people pay the consequences.
There are only two options. Time will tell.
