The New State Left in Latin America
By Hugo José Suárez. If the Latin American left wants to show that it can truly offer the continent a fresh path, it has to start by shaking off its immediate past and looking at itself critically.
By Hugo José Suárez
With the victory of Gustavo Petro in Colombia, many voices of hope were raised. The most enthusiastic affirm that Latin America is again turning to the left, even circulating a map that would prove it. But the truth is, at this point, I have learned that caution is a better companion than blind enthusiasm.
In 2006 I applauded and reverberated with Evo Morales’ victory in Bolivia. Still naive, I thought that a new cycle was truly opening. In part it was, but only in part. In a short period, Evo showed that he never had a democratic calling, that he was authoritarian, and that he could be as corrupt and deceitful as previous presidents. In those years we thought that Evo, by proclaiming himself Indigenous, implied a new form of politics. It was a bust. Now I distrust essentialist discourses that have a foundation in moral superiority for ethnic, class, generational or gender reasons. Rather I pay attention to the results, not just the packaging. And I no longer believe in heroes and villains.
But let’s get back to the point. Is there really a Latin American left beyond a strategic rhetoric in some sectors? Although in certain countries and on specific issues it does imply a historical inflection, I have doubts that it is possible to speak of a homogeneous bloc. Someone said it on social media: what do Ortega in Nicaragua and Fernández in Argentina have in common? Boric in Chile began with a surprising confession: he said that Álvaro García was his guru. Curious, but if Boric did a little bit of what the “process of change” promoted in Bolivia -use the justice system at will, control all the institutions of public administration, demand a commission from public officials on their salary to maintain the party without any oversight, promote fraud, ignore the result of a referendum and twist the constitution, organize a State manipulated election, divide social movements, buy newspapers and television channels to control them at will, etc.- his government would not last a month. Chilean institutions, I think, would not allow it. With his religious-intellectual affiliation, Boric shows that he either prefers to look the other way on fundamental issues, or that he ignores the reality of Bolivian politics.
The parameters are not always clear for differentiating left and right on some issues (on others they are). For example, López Obrador’s strategy to fight drug trafficking (if we pay attention to the number of victims) is as inefficient as that of his predecessors Peña Ñieto or Calderón. Maduro’s policy of repression against marginalized urban youth is just as abusive as that of Bolsonaro. The repression in Nicaragua of social movements was similar to that of the Chilean police in the previous government. Corruption in Bolivia is identical to that of the neoliberal era. And so on until exhaustion.
If the Latin American left wants to show that it can truly offer the continent a fresh path, it has to start by shaking off its immediate past and looking at itself critically. There are at least three issues that should be rethought.
First, human rights. In the Bolivian case, it is estimated that in the era of the “process of change” there were at least a hundred deaths with State responsibility. Should they be hidden? Shouldn’t we find those responsible and judge them? Or are we to believe the authoritative maxim that only makes examples of the crimes that suits those in power, and sweeps the rest under the rug? Not to mention the harassment and dismantling of human rights defender institutions: if they are not aligned with State discourse, they are simply destroyed. Will these new lefts be able to denounce those responsible for all excesses? Or will we act as if nothing had happened, flattening everything with a new narrative that exempts those responsible?
Democracy. The management of daily politics in 21st century “socialist” governments has been as shameful as any other period. In 2019 in Bolivia, we experienced scandalous state elections, as in the best times of the PRI in Mexico. Something similar happened in Venezuela and worse in Nicaragua. Will the new left be capable of taking democratic rules seriously? Hand over power when they lose? Organize clean elections, without intervening in them with public resources?
Justice. Again Bolivia is the worst example. During these years the handling of the judicial apparatus has been shameful (what Felix Patzi called “the resource of terror”). Will the State left be able to reform the judicial system and not use it at the whim of the ruler? Will it be able to judge its own leaders for the crimes they committed?
When I was young I enthusiastically repeated the slogan “always on the left”. I still subscribe to it, but with the complement: always to the left of the State left; always critical of power and its excesses wherever it comes from.
I return to the initial question: will the new State left live up to history? can it look critically at itself? Will it know how to shake off its dogmas and stop believing its own lies? can it give us hope? Could it really be on the left? We’ll see.
Hugo Jose Suarez is a sociologist, researcher at the Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Originally published in Página Siete. Translated and published with permission of the author.