I was fortunate enough to attend Tuesday morning’s lecture on “Elections in Latin America—What does the emergence of left-wing governments mean for countries in Latin America?” in person at the library auditorium. I have found I get more out of the lectures if I’m there and not distracted by the dozens of things I try to do while I’m watching them on my computer at home.
Tuesday’s talk was enlivened by an excellent speaker: Ambassador Christer Persson, who spent his career as a member of the Swedish Foreign Ministry. With the Ministry, he held various positions at the home office and abroad largely addressing Latin American affairs. For 4 ½ years he served as Senior Adviser for Latin American Affairs at the European Council Secretariat, Directorate General for International Affairs. In retirement, he is Adjunct Professor in Political Science at Old Dominion University.
The FPA briefing book article was written by Jorge Casteneda, described in the book as
“a renowned public intellectual, political scientist, and prolific writer, with an interest in Mexican and Latin American politics, comparative politics, and US-Mexican and US-Latin American relations. Among his more than 15 books published in the United States and elsewhere are: Ex-Mex: From Migrants to Immigrants (The New Press, 2007), Manana Forever? Mexico and the Mexicans (Vintage, Random House, 2012), and America Through Foreign Eyes (Oxford University Press, 2020). He was Foreign Minister of Mexico from 2000 to 2003. He taught at Mexico’s National Autonomous University (UNAM) from 1978 through 2004, at Princeton University, and the University of California, Berkeley and (since 1997) at NYU. Jorge Casteneda is the Global Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Latin American Studies at New York University.”
The first sentence of the briefing book article sets the stage for the rest of the analysis: “Electoral results in Latin America over the past four years have led many observers of the regional/political scene to discern a left-wing surge in the hemisphere. . . .[evoking] what occurred during the closing years of the last century and the first decade of the current one, when what was then labeled a ‘pink tide,’ or wave, swept through the area.”
This map (taken from the briefing book) illustrates just a part of the complexity of this vast and diverse region. When you talk about “the left,” you have to differentiate between different types of “lefts,” because their origins and the issues they face are different from one another.
He also sorts out the governments that do not even pretend to be democratic – Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua – and dismisses them from any serious discussion when you try to talk about “the left” in Latin America. These countries may use some democratic terminology in their public statements, but they differ markedly: none of these countries have held democratic elections since 2018, not of them enjoy basic freedoms, market economies, engage in globalization, or maintain cordial relations with Washington. In all of them, the military is clearly subordinate to civilian rule.
The most prominent of the democratic left-leaning countries in the region – Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia -- fall in the category of social democracies. They do not all align with the type of social democracy we see in western Europe, particularly in the Scandinavian countries. However, they have a common belief in democracy, the market, and globalization. They favor pro-active, vigorous social programs and policies; they are committed to tax reform; and they generally get along with Washington.
Then there are the left-leaning populist countries – Mexico, Peru, and Argentina. They generally sit in the middle of the political spectrum, balancing the divergent interests of the fragile coalitions they have built to attain and then keep power. He separates Mexico from this general statement; because of its electoral system, that nation’s authoritarian leader does not have to rely on anyone outside of his base.
Ambassador Persson, who spoke to the audience in the library, did not attempt to talk about all of the issues raised in the article during his 45-minute talk. Instead, he took what I thought was a very interesting and helpful approach: first, he looked at three recent votes in the United Nations about the war in Ukraine and then he assessed the voting pattern he saw in Latin America.
March 3, 2020, UN General Assembly Resolution condemning the 24 February 2022 declaration by the Russian Federation of a “special military operation” in Ukraine: no Latin American countries voted against this resolution, but four abstained: Bolivia, Cuba, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. Venezuela does not appear to have voted at all.
October 12, 2022: UN General Assembly passes “Territorial integrity of Ukraine; defending the principles of the UN Charter,” a resolution condemning Russia’s illegal annexation of four occupies regions in Ukraine. Nicaragua was the only Latin American country among the five countries that voted against it. Of the 35 countries that abstained, three of them – Bolivia, Cuba, and Honduras – were from Latin America. Again, Venezuela did not vote at all.
February 23, 20223, UN General Assembly resolution demanding that Russia leave Ukraine. The countries in Latin America mostly voted in favor of this resolution, with the exception of Bolivia, Cuba, and El Salvador, all of which abstained. It did not appear that Venezuela voted at all. None of the Latin American nations voted “No.”
Ambassador Persson used these votes as a way to draw a quick distinction between the democratic and authoritarian regimes in Latin America. I don’t exactly understand why Bolivia abstained on these three votes, and the Ambassador was able to speak only briefly about any one country. I’ll have to do a little reading if I want to know more about this.
He then walked quickly – and alphabetically – through the countries of Latin America, sketching the current political situation in each country and its likely immediate political future. It was a breathtaking walk but one that was interesting and stimulating.
During the question period, I was able to ask him about the role of the military in Latin America. During his overview of each country, one commonality that emerged was that many of these countries had seen the military take an active role sometime in the not-so-distant past. He regularly referenced military coups or the end of military regimes as parts of the normal political cycle. My question was whether he could give us an idea of why the military played such a prominent role across the region, and his answer was interesting. He said that when a population ceases to trust civilian political institutions, they often turn to – and welcome – a military takeover in the interest of maintaining civility and order. The US could perhaps learn something.
In response to another question, Ambassador Persson talked a little about the growth in the influence of China in Latin America. He spoke to this only briefly – we were WAY out of time by this point – but he commented that China’s domestic economic development between 2000 and 2010 was fueled by natural resources it bought from Latin America. China has been investing in infrastructure in these countries, hoping to buy good will along with strategic minerals. It appears to be working.
In case you are left wanting to know more, here are three of the FPA’s recommended readings:
Latin America’s Left Turns: Politics, Policies, and Trajectories of Change. Maxwell A. Cameron and Eric Hershberg, editors. 2010
Leftovers: Tales of the Latin American Left. Jorge Casteneda and Marco A. Morales, editors. 2008
United States and Latin America after the Cold War. Russell Crandall. 2008.
I was a little surprised that these three cited books were all more than 10 years out of date. Things happen fast these days, and I suspect that developments in Latin America since 2010 would change the observations these scholars make in their books.
Thanks for taking the time to share this information. It’s most interesting and worthy of further study.
Very interesting. Good wrap up.