Towards an Uncertain Future
I can’t believe that this term, this class is already coming to an end. I didn’t expect to learn about this many types of ideologies that I never heard of, besides learning about the history of Latin America. For this week, I decided to watch a video of a conversation with Max Cameron.
Starting with Hugo Chavez’ presidential campaign, Latin America has shifted to the left in recent years. Before that, there were various powerful social movements like the Zapatistas in Mexico. Dawson claims that left’s successes in Latin America were disenchantment with neoliberalism, disappointment with the functioning of a democracy and its international context.
Latin America was forced to go through wrenching programs of structural adjustment through the 1980s where the world was calling for democracy. However, growth under neoliberalism in Latin America had been disappointing. There is economic growth due to the consequences of not the market reforms, but the change in international prices.
Those reforms were particularly destructive in countries with weak institutions such as Bolivia. Because the adjustment process for the poorest of the poor is difficult, neoliberalist failed, and there were no alternatives to democracy, Bolivia followed a left different to countries like Uruguay and Chile.
There are two types of left: a radical populist, anti-democratic left in Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela, while the mature reformist in Chile, Uruguay, and Brazil. These types of left-wing government that emerge reflect local conditions.
Bolivia, where everything seems to be against democratic movements, a lot of extraction of resources, substantial excluded indigenous, long and difficult legacy of colonial rules in the countryside, highly military intervened. But, it has uninterrupted democratic rule since the 1980s, with Evo Morales. Social movements come to power and carry out sweeping reforms, which enables indigenous people to organize according to their own customs. It also promoted development to reduce poverty, which showed a success. Though not done democratically, as Morales is a radical, anti-imperialist, with corruption, consider its circumstances…
Brazil has a history of having citizens with unequal wealth and rights. Now, their policy focuses on redistribution. But, when you distribute wealth, you will generate angry politics and reaction. So, the business promoted investment in the poorest of the poor. But another problem arises, where the middle-class questions, “What about us?” The politics of redistribution can produce a backlash from the middle classes, where ‘lazy’ people in the northeast are not receiving aid without any action.
Reflecting on its history, the largest challenge Latin America will face is going to be distributing the wealth. Should wealth distribution be based on skin colour or the residential area? Based on what should wealth be distributed in a such a complex Latin America?