Reemergence in Latin America - Essay Example

REEMERGENCE IN LATIN AMERICA: LEVITSKY AND ROBERTS VIEW Box #xxx Paper/ 19th April, Reemergence in Latin America: Levitsky and Roberts View Steven Levitsky and Kenneth Roberts in their book “The Resurgence of the Latin American Left” asks three questions and gives their answers: what are the reasons that led to the flourishing of the left-wing parties and their candidates in the Latin America? How were the leftist parties managed and governed, especially in terms of economic and social policies? What were the impacts of the rise of the leftists on economic development and democracy in the region? The authors address these three major questions through two sections. The first section looks at numerous major themes in line to the traditional Latin American Left, including the understanding whether the Latin American public opinion which changed leftwards in the early 2000s. Other areas looked at include reasons for the win by the Left in some countries and failure in others, and how the left shift impacted the market economies, social welfare, citizenship rights, and popular political participation. The leftist movement roots emerged from Venezuela elections in 1998 when Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chavez was elected. The newly created movement gained momentum and power1 with the election of the Brazilian Union leader in 2002, Luiz Inancio Lula da Silva, and the election of Tabare Vazquez in 2004 (Uruguay)1. Sebastian Pinera was the first conservative candidate to win in the 2010 presidential election in Chile. After this win, it was evident that Argentina and Peru would soon follow and move to the leftist. The leftward tilt in the region reached its peak in 2005 when the Bolivian Evo Morales was elected, the election of Nicaraguan guerrilla leader Daniel Ortega. In the 1990s, Latin America was characterized by left-wing elected politicians or populist platforms that opted for neoliberal policies upon inauguration. The left turn is, therefore, a combination of two connected factors: the left-wing aspiring presidential candidates and the choices of policies the presidents made once elected. The 2000s world economy boom reduced the need for the states in the region to go for external funding. The external funding is known to come with policy conditionalities. The presidents were, as a result, free to implement domestic policies. This meant that the presidents who took their campaigns on the left were empowered to implement their policies due to reduced external funding. This was directly opposite to what happened in the 1990s when the presidential candidates had funding constraints. In 2003, the Latin America experienced a historical change in terms of growth in revenue due to increase in commodity prices. This gave the lawmakers the freedom to make their policies. In chapter 1, the authors show that the leftists gains across Latin America at the elite level have not been adhered to at the mass level by similar gains. At this point, Levitsky and Kenneth thought that the left return by the Latin America was a representation of a “shallow electoral phenomenon instead of the main realignment of the ideological beliefs by the citizens.” The necessary question at this point is, if the success was not motivated by ideology than what brought it about? The duo discovers that a good part of Latin Americans in a number of countries wants to be associated with the ideological spectrum of the left. In some countries, including those with leftist presidents, there is no mass shift to the left. In overall, most Latin Americans are more of ideologically conservative as compared to citizens from other regions of the globe. This explains that the transformation to the left was not based on ideologies. The authors prove that the leftist success was driven by retrospective evaluations of pocketbook issues and incumbent performance instead of ideology. The contemporary American leftism was continuously related to anti-Americanism. The 2001, there was a huge number of Latin Americans moving to the right. These figures reduced by 2008. The entire region did not swing to the left. The swing occurred in seven states. The proportioned remained stable or even declined in the other countries. Uruguay, Peru, Honduras, and Venezuela he only states that exhibited consistent shift to the left. During the 2000s, the leftist politicians did not emphasize on wealth distribution yet this is one major area that they could have easily swung votes to their sides. The citizens were also evidently not concerned with “very fair” or “unfair” distribution of wealth (1997- 2000s). Initially, the citizens are dissatisfied with the performance of democracy. This dissatisfaction declined between the years 1996 to 2005. The dissatisfaction was mainly based on lack of confidence in the main institutions of representative political parties, legislatures, and democracy. However, the citizens popularly supported the democratic government as opposed to the authoritarian rule. The authors also demonstrate that the Latin Americans preferred representative efficacy, electoral democracy. They believed that voting changes live positively. The leftists have been portrayed as more supportive of democracy even more than the nonleftists2. Even though the leftists had faith in democracy, they did not believe in various institutions, groups and certain people running them. The neoliberal and conservative observers have feared the advance of the contemporary Latin America. In their view, spreading a famous discontent with the new development framework risks a backlash. In the hard gained reforms in the 1990s were to be brought back again, the neoliberalism would change into a mere phenomenon in the area. Social redistribution and economic nationalism may rise from the ashes very rapidly, again. The study of the contemporary leftists, however, brings different view. The radical left has not been successful in bringing a viable solution or alternative to neoliberalism. The moderate leftists, by contrast, have achieved more social accomplishments and sustainable economic developments as seen in the Chile poverty reduction case and Brazil social inequality radiation. Irrespective of the opportunities brought about by the commodity boom, the 2000 to 2010 leftist’s government macroeconomic policies significantly differed from those of their predecessors. And this was particularly with respect to their exchange rate and fiscal policies. During those days, their methods of maintaining stability were spread across a wide spectrum with Venezuela at one end and social-liberal governments at the other. The differences between the left contemporary and old government are owed to several factor, but the 1980s catastrophic failures of the heterodox policies, end of ISI era and the structuralism approaches eclipse figure in the explanation. The differences evidenced by the contemporary left government are also attributed to several political, economic and ideological factors. The trade sector condition is very crucial. No matter how powerful how the ideology may be, the capacity of the government to sustain the radical macroeconomic policies for any period largely depends on the foreign exchange constraints easing. Even the commodity boom beneficiaries like Argentina and Venezuela have discovered that policies that are ignorant of the macroeconomic constraints are not sustainable in the long run. The response of the government to these constraints will also depend on political and economic situation. REFERENCE Levitsky, Kenneth M. The Resurgence of the Latin American Left. 1 Edition. Hopkins University Press. July 12, 2011 Read More