The Roots of Latin America’s Crisis
Fragile Institutions have shaped a season of unrest
The nations of Latin America are experiencing one of their most dramatic crises in decades. Although diverse in nature and intensity, these national crises, developed under both left and right-wing regimes, are rooted in fragile institutions unable to deliver democratic demands.
The countercurrents beneath the waves of the “pink tide”
At the beginning of the century, with the disastrous Cold War-era behind, new forces started to form a new regional political establishment, claiming to be more progressive and more democratic. With China’s ascent to the economic world stage, Latin America, a natural commodity exporter, started to quickly grow. With promising times ahead, these new left-wing regimes known as the pink tide started to gain momentum.
In a region where weak democratic institutions have allowed the rule of small politico-economic elites, their message resonated throughout borders. A hopeful message for ending poverty, reducing inequality, and fighting corruption and impunity.
As the waves began to come along with booming economies, these governments had in common a narrative of ending the long pressing socioeconomic inequalities that have ravaged their nations for centuries.
It seemed like the region was heading to a brighter future. However, the foundations of such an experiment started to crack as economies felt short to deliver the high pace economic growth needed to sustain those changes. Furthermore, the same perpetuated fragile democratic institutions were easily captured at the service of the new elite, not only perpetuating old ways of corruption but also creating new ones.
Once the commodity boom that propelled their political projects faded away and the political tide that surfed it rescinded, the people of the Americas started to feel unease as the economic growth and development they were promised, started to crumble.
Venezuela, the ALBA and the ideological wall
Relying on skyrocketing oil prices, Chavez’s socialist government in Venezuela adopted a hard-line populist agenda, dramatically expanding social investments through the nationalizing of oil, banking, and industry.
Chavez’s ambitions drove him to the creation of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America or ALBA, and its oil subsidizing program, Petro Caribe. These multilateral organizations aimed not only to expand his political sphere of influence but also support allied political projects such as Cuba’s totalitarian regime and Nicaragua’s backslide to dictatorship.
Emboldened by Brazil’s increasing leadership role in the region, Chavez’s attempts to build an ideological wall against “American Imperialism” soon were followed by Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador.
At home, Chavez’s policies resulted in poverty reduction, fostering strong popular support by traditionally marginalized classes that saw on Chavez a redeemer to their grievances. However, these policies were sustained on an economic line that proved itself not viable in the long run as oil prices could not keep up with popular demands.
By 2013, soon after oil prices started to fall, Venezuela’s authoritarian government embarked on a desperate attempt to continue its “Bolivarian revolution” alive. By clawing itself to power after Chavez’s death, Maduro completed his predecessor’s plans to capture the state at his will. By consolidating the Chavista dictatorship, Maduro condemned his country to its ongoing collapse.
Maduro’s infamous success to maintain control was the result of the elimination of Venezuela’s traditional high classes by replacing it with a new military-led elite loyal to Maduro. Praying not only on oil but also illegal gold extraction in the Amazon and drug trafficking, Venezuela has fallen into the hand of the few, consolidating a narco-state and a security threat to the hemisphere.
Despite mountainous evidence, Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis, and Maduro’s gross violations of human rights unfolded under the silence of the fading pink tide’s old guard.
Lula, UNASUR, and Brazil’s implosion into the far-right
In June 2013, after a 20 cents hike on public transportation fares, a generalized feeling of uncertainty started to mobilize masses in the streets of Brazil’s main cities. It was the start of a five-year-long crisis that ended with the election of the far-right populist leader Jair Bolsonaro.
Brazil saw the rise and fall of President Lula as a prominent leader of the Americas during an economic miracle that lifted millions out of poverty. Under his political support and leadership, South America embarked on what was aimed to be its most ambitious regional integration project, the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR).
The organization quickly became a symbol of the “progressive” paradigm ruling the region, legitimating the ideals of regionalism and sovereignty in the world stage.
Despite Lula’s successes in fighting socio-economic injustices in one of the most unequal countries in the world, corruption during his tenure was rampant.
Lula’s successor, Dilma Rousseff, had to deal with a failing economy amid the end of the commodities boom and the revelations of the Odebrecht scandal. It was the unveiling of a colossal private and public graft scheme involving Brazil’s leading construction companies and the national oil company, Petrobras. Soon after, it became the largest transnational bribery case in Latin America’s history.
President Rousseff quickly became a scapegoat for the new middle classes that demanded their government accountability and reassurance that the socioeconomic progress they conquered would not wither away.
The downfall of Lula for related corruption charges and Rousseff’s impeachment out of office marked a pivotal moment for Brazil. Nonetheless, the recent disclosure of allegedly private messages between Lula’s judge Sergio Moro, and ranking prosecutor Deltan Dallagnol cast a cloud of doubt of the process Lula was subject in the trial that took him to prison.
Brazil fallout translated into a final blow into UNASUR and the initiative to sustain a major political project for Latin America. with the engage of the returning right-wing governments in the second-largest economy on the region, Argentina, and the support of Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, and Chile, the organization recently closed its headquarters in Quito.
Lula’s recent release from prison as the Supreme Court decides his fate continues to polarize the country. Despite being a divisive figure, Bolsonaro’s authoritarian views and incapacity to solve the country’s pressing issues remain an open window for Lula’s return.
The pacific and the weak consolidation of the right
After social unrest ravaged Ecuador amid the elimination of oil subsidies, and a constitutional crisis shocked Peru, Chilean President Piñera claimed: “our country is a real oasis ”. A week and a half later, overwhelming protests in the southern country erupted after metro fares were raised in the capital, Santiago de Chile.
The crisis in Chile is the result of a generalized feeling of indignation that led into a figureless, people-led outcry for justice.
Swiftly the manifestations transformed into a major movement against socioeconomic inequalities that have persisted despite massive economic growth. Decades of neoliberal policies instituted by Pinochet’s military dictatorship and followed by democratically elected regimes since 1990 generated both economic development and consistent inequality.
With a vibrant democracy and strong economic prospects, Chile’s bouncing stability shocked the continent. Regardless of the recent political pact for a new constitution, the Chilean crisis will bear consequences for his neoliberal regional partners in the Pacific, Peru, and Colombia.
The return of Kirchnerism and the economic crisis in Argentina
A year ago, Buenos Aires prepared to receive what would be the most important international summit under President Macri, the G-20. With the election of the right-wing leader, the country tried to cope with its economic decline after the end of the Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s populist regime.
Under the majestic Colon Theater, leaders from the most important economies in the world gather to watch Argentum, a spectacle aimed to present a renovated image of a modern country, open to the world and proud of its history. Internationally, Macri supported the return of the right to the region, joining the group of Lima in denouncing the Maduro regime and aiding Guaido’s failed attempts to form an “interim presidency” in Venezuela.
Macri’s policies to gradually transform Argentina into an open market society, called gradualismo, failed to meet the expectations of an economic revival. Despite his fruitful relations with Trump and the IMF, during his administration, Argentinians have seen a dramatic rise in poverty and a severe devaluation of their wages.
As frustration mounted, October’s elections marked the return of the former President as VP of her unrelated ally, Alberto Fernandez. As soon as the election was conceded, the new president-elect moved to support old allies, distancing himself from Macri’s stances, denouncing a coup d’état in Bolivia, thanking Maduro for his support, and calling Lula a friend.
Social justice, anarchy, and Bolivia
Bolivia’s anarchy made headlines as Evo Morales, the first indigenous President of the nation, fled to Mexico after trying to according to the Organization of the Americas States, mount a fraud to remain in power.
Morales rose into leadership in one of the poorest nations of the region, where socioeconomic injustices have discriminated against the indigenous majority of the country. Relying on gas and mining, Morales founded his “anti-imperialist” economic model, joining Chavez’s bloc.
Morales’s popularity derived from not only his economic miracle but also his social reforms aiming to include indigenous elements and identities to the state. However, during his thirteen-year long tenure, his consolidation of power critically debilitated the country’s democratic foundations.
Morales’s dilemma arrived after seeking reelection despite losing a referendum to amend his own constitution. Former president Meza and conservative opposition leader Camacho led the national manifestations that ended with the military “suggestion” for Morales to resign.
Unable to pacify the nation, right-wing interim President Añez has swiftly moved to support military suppression of the protesters, while Morales threatens to return to continue his political project.
The anarchy left by Morales is the latest crisis in a leader-less and politically stagnated corner of the world. After the ideologization of international relations, the failure of multilateralism, and the absence of the US, the high pace wings in the region are blowing towards a new era of isolationism. However, could Mexico’s proactive support for not only Morales but for the return of left in South America, under Lopez Obrador rule, be the beginning of a new regional leader in the near future?
