With Chavez in Venezuela, Lula in Brazil and Kirchner in Argentina are we seeing the beginning of a wave of fresh people-first governance that will will enrich the lives of South Americans or are we seeing a return to tired, proved-unworkable socialist daydreams.
The little I know about the three leaders suggests to me they are decent men attempting to better the lives of their compatriots.
Will they succeed or will they succomb to a) home-grown human failings in the shape of greed, corruption etc or b) meddling from the likes of the IMF, the World Bank and the United States, pushing buisiness-first policies?
What do we think?
Well, as a friend of mine from Bolivia says, the more things change, the more they stay the same. She claims that things in South America change on the surface, but very little actually translates to the majority of the people. Only to those close to the government (i.e. the wealthy and influential). Her own family (who is still in there…I think she said they live in Trinidad) is doing well…because their company is tied into the government. However, according to her, under the surface its pretty much the same ole same ole. Purely anacedotal I know…take it with a grain of salt.
-XT
Can’t provide a cite, but I heard a news story on Brazil’s Lula recently on a local left-wing radio station (WMNF, 88.5 FM, Tampa, Florida – “Not a member of the Big Brother Broadcasting Network!”). Apparently a lot of Lula’s supporters are disappointed with what he’s done, or not done, since he took office. He’s not trying to revolutionize Brazilian society, only to find plum government jobs for his cronies and relatives. Lula even claims, now, that he never was a leftist – this from a man who used to wear a red star on his lapel.
As for Chavez, I think he’s too preoccupied just with hanging on until the end of his term, to have any attention to spare for seriously changing social and economic conditions in Venezuela.
Kirchner in Argentina I know nothing about. Can anyone here fill us in?
Is there a link that can describe what this is all about?
Regards,
Shodan
Yep, corruption, cartels and heavy government are killing even the best intentions of the Lula and Kirchner governments. Chavez is a fanatic and self absorbed and shouldn’t be compared to the other two.
Some explanations: Lula is a Union guy and therefore doesn’t “feel” leftist. He never followed Marxist Bullshit. - The economy is stagnated and therefore for the unemployed Lula hasn’t done enough.
I feel Lula is well intentioned and honest... the problem is his party that is ever trying to become a mainstay in government and also keep trying to fit in more friends and party members into government positions. This creates ineficiency and burocratic confusion of the worst sort.
The problem is that PT (Lula's party) are concentrating too much in politics and talk ... and way to little in administering government and the economy. Conservative economic measures helped investor confidence but have created no jobs and no growth. What good is having happy investors with a country dead in the water ?
Like xtisme said.... "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"Forgot to add… Argentina’s Kirchner seems to be standing up to the IMF. I have a very good impression of him. He just has a very tough job of fixing the mess that Argentina has become.
You can’t really compare Chavez with Kirchner or Lula. At least not seriously.
How can I describe Kirchner’s administration? Simple. He is doing what he promised to do in the campaign. That’s a lot.
He managed to remove 3 members (out of 6) of the Supreme Court of Justice. Those 3 represented the worst of Argentina, they participated (and made legal) most of the 90´s corruption scandals. They were replaced by two very respected lawyers (including Carmen Argibay, the first woman to become a memeber of the Court).
He is negotiating the debt with a firm hand. Resisting huge pressure by the IMF.
He also received a lot of pressure from U.S.A. to send troops to Irak (Argentina is an extra-nato ally) thankfully we are not members of the coalition of the willing.
He has a lot of defects, the most important is that he is no negotiator it’s either his way or the highway… that is dangerous in politics.
Enough for today, but before I leave let me shout: ¡Viva la Patria!
(On May 25, we celebrate the May Revolution, the beguining of the end of Spanish rule in Argentina).-
It occurs to me that in most of the world, revolutionary Marxism-Leninism has lost whatever appeal it once had. The Zapatista rebels in Mexico don’t even call themselves Marxists; if their rebellion had started 20 or even 10 years sooner, they almost certainly would have. (Castro must be chewing his foot off.)
But there are still some active Marxist insurgencies in Latin America, most notably in Columbia and Peru. Does anybody know anything about these, and their apparent prospects for the future? Also, what ever happened to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the FMLN in El Salvador? Are they still self-identified Marxists?
One of the biggest problems with Latin American (or developing-world in general) democracy-building is a problem of expectations: too often even a sensible, moderate reformist will be expected to have the “silver bullet” that can in a single term overturn whole generations of misrule. And their opponents wil capitalize on that.
But even if they did have the Silver Bullet, no segment of the establishment wants to be the one who takes that bullet for the good of the nation, and as Lula is finding out, one of the first things a “revolutionary” or “reformist” group does upon reaching power in LatAm is to try and turn itself into The Establishment (recall the long reign of Mexico’s deliciously ironically-named Institutional Revolutionary Party – how the heck are you institutional AND revolutionary?)
So as to the OP, I’d say, it’s a swing in a different direction after a decade of some serious stumbles, but I wouldn’t yet say it looks like the dawn of a Golden Age. Or at least not an ideologically-driven one. Kichner and Lula da Silva at least seem to be trying to do sensible things for the overall benefit of the nation, in the face of some massive sociopolitical inertia. Chavez, as mentioned before, is not in the same league with them: he’s more of an ultranationalist with a Venezuela-centric, Chavez-centric populist “ideology”. The one huge thing he has in his favour is that almost every other political force in Venezuela has been discredited by their own corruption, mismanagement and arrogance; and even the social groupings that are against him seem to offer nothing beyond getting rid of him.
There are some marxists guerrilas in Nepal too… curiousity.
Colombia’s FARC were once marxist… now they are drug smuggling ex-ideologists in my opinion. They have power and are reluctant to let go. Peru’s Sendero is more or less the same thing too… Once you start fighting… you sometimes forget what you started fighting for. This seems to happen to non-Marxists too.
Thankyou for your insight, folks
The reason I included Chavez was this article, which suggested his coup ouster, which was speedily reversed, was engineered by big-business interests. He also comes across as popular with the common man.
I saw a BBC piece on Kurchner that portrayed him as very approachable, walking the streets without bodyguards, etc.
Does this attitude, together with his making powerful enemies, lead to any worries/discussion in Argentinian media about his physical safety.
Marky23, to my knowledge there is no concern for the president safety. No argentinian president has been murdered in office, de facto president Aramburu was kidnapped and murdered by the guerrila when he was no longer president, for attemps of murder you have to go back to the early 20 century and those wackos anarchists.
Because of that, I think, a threat won’t be taking seriously.