The Witherspoon Institute announces the conclusion of its recent conference "Globalization and the Rise of the Left in Latin America."
(Click here for more information about the scope of the conference.)

From December 6 to 8, 2007, a group of academics, politicians, and opinion leaders convened at Princeton University to discuss the changing roles and objectives of the political left in Latin America. Professor John Londregan and Dr. Magaly Sanchez of Princeton University, and Professor Margarita Mooney of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, organized the conference of the Witherspoon Institute that was co-sponsored by Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Some of the questions discussed over the weekend included: What conditions led to the resurgence of the left in Latin America over the last decade? Are there—as Jorge Castañeda argued in his 2006 article in Foreign Affairs—really two lefts: one that traces its roots back to communist or workers parties that formed in the 1930s and 1940s, and another rooted in the populist and nationalist left? If there are two lefts, then how do their leaders interact with each other? Which left is stronger and why? All of these questions pointed to yet another central question of great concern to all at the conference: what is the future of democratic politics in Latin America? What has happened to consensus-building that cuts across party lines? What has happened to the institutions that support democracy, including the judicial branch and the political party system? Who will speak out against human rights abuses?

Arguably, many in this hemisphere and indeed around the globe have already given themselves to discussing these questions. However, the conference on Globalization and the Rise of the Left in Latin America brought together a unique combination of perspectives to the task. On the one hand there were non-academic participants, including former or current elected officials, former left-wing guerilla commanders who have embraced democracy and free markets, life-long political activists, and opinion leaders. At the same time there were academic participants, who presented recent survey data on voting behavior, government social spending, trade, the political leanings of legislators, and the economic impact of Hugo Chavez’s revolution. Presenters gave ground-level observations of some of the social programs most touted by left-wing governments and sharp critiques of the actual achievements of those programs.

All the conference participants agreed that the left in Latin America can be divided into at least two groups: social democrats and populists. The social democratic tradition is perhaps currently best exemplified by Michelle Bachelet of Chile or Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil. The parties of these leaders no longer hold a strong attachment to central economic planning alone, but have embraced more market-friendly economic policies including greater openness to international trade. In contrast, the populist left has a weak attachment to democracy and boasts relatively few economic achievements. As described by conference participant Ignacio Walker, former Foreign Minister of Chile, the populist left is characterized by a “personalism” in which authority is no longer located in institutions and checked by constitutions, but rather resides in one supremely powerful figure, who becomes somewhat like a king or a savior. Hugo Chavez’s actions in Venezuela are an example of this left-wing populism. He has forsaken representative democracy and created a direct democracy that gives power back to the people, but in so doing he has also forsaken those institutions of representative democracy that guarantee stability and the balance of power. Several speakers from Venezuela, such as the renowned journalist Teodoro Petkoff and the social scientist Margarita López Maya, described how Chavez has slowly dismantled political institutions in the legislative and judicial branches while significantly strengthening his own executive power. Chavez has also weakened non-governmental institutions and freedoms that sustain democracy, such as the free press and freedom of religion. What has been the economic payoff of Chavez’s revolution? Very little, according to the Venezuelan economist Francisco Rodríguez, especially considering the enormous wealth that Chavez controls.

Ricardo López Murphy, the former Minister of Defense and former Minister of the Economy in Argentina, portrayed Latin America’s current economic and political scenario in blunt terms. By his account, the social democratic left and the radical left have returned to power by promising to alleviate the stark poverty that continues to be a reality for many Latin Americans. To the extent that the democratic socialists have delivered some economic improvement, they have done so by embracing moderate economic reforms more often associated with the right. The radical left, however, has not delivered on its promises to alleviate poverty, and at best this populist left only produces short-term gains for some followed by severe long-term reverses for all. If the radical left continued to gain ground, Mr. López Murphy predicted that Latin America would face either a complete meltdown characterized by economic disorder and an ungovernable political situation or the return of right-wing authoritarian military regimes that would re-establish some economic and political order at the expense of personal liberties.

The conference raised as many questions as it answered. Political scientist and journalist Patricio Navia wondered whether the moderate or social democratic left would begin to speak louder and even criticize the radical, populist left. Salvadoran guerilla commander and now democratic politician Facundo Guardado predicted that Chavez will “buy” loyalty from poorer Latin American nations such as Nicaragua and Bolivia and then demand that economic debts be converted into political favors, not only in Latin American settings but also at the United Nations. John Londregan asked whether politicians of both the left and the right would reaffirm a commitment to basic liberties and resist the authoritarian tide that could sweep through the region again. Regarding the economy, Ricardo López Murphy posed the question of how both the government and the private sector can invest in education, health care, and other basic programs that generate the human capital needed for sustainable development. The conference also showed a need to think about and devise sensible public policies that could harness macro-economic growth in order to make life better for the average person in Latin America.

The conference highlighted the fact that, although it is well known that politics and economics mutually influence each other, practitioners in each realm often live rather insulated from each other. Additionally, those same practicioners can become isolated from the academic theoreticians whose ideas can help toward developing sound public policy. The consequence of these faults is, in the words of Carlos Alberto Montaner, that the Latin American “idiot” leader repeats the same mistakes twenty times or more. In order to break this cycle of applying the same failed political solutions time and again to Latin America’s economic problems, a wider dialogue needs to take place in the future. Opinion leaders, politicians, and academics must work together in order to put in place the order necessary for permanently establishing growth, democracy, civil liberty, and equality in Latin America. The Witherspoon Institute's program in Ethics, Culture, and Economic Development will continue to assist academics and practioners in their efforts to better understand the needs of the region and move towards more sustainable improvements.

Posted December 17, 2007