1/26/2010

Hemispheric Echoes: The Reverberatio

Home
About COHA
Support COHA
Contact Us
Internships
RSS

Search

In the News
Opinion
Reports
Undersung Heroes
Recommended Books
Washington Report on the Hemisphere
Research Fellow Spotlight

Hemispheric Echoes: The Reverberations of Latin American

Populism
by COHA Director Larry Birns and COHA Senior Research Fellow Dr. Nicholas Birns

Published in the Harvard International Review online at http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1592/1/

A Resurgent Populism
In the immediate post-Cold War world, Latin America did not ignite much diplomatic interest. Though the
growth of democratic processes in formerly authoritarian countries was brusquely hailed, the region was seen as
a grateful laboratory for the Washington Consensus, and not as a sphere of potential controversy. The revival of
populism in Latin America has changed this framework. The region is now genuinely out of the doldrums and is
the source of genuine headlines in the world press.
Most of the changes are due to the stirrings promoted by well-intentioned populist figures hoping to promulgate
major organic reforms. Outside observers once saw Latin American populism as hyperbolic rhetoric that might
win elections and ignite occasional political ruckuses, but not as a particularly serious governing creed. Recently,
however, populism has come to the fore in a new way, fueled by a desire to bring the organs of government into
a genuinely closer dialogue with a disempowered and alienated citizenry. The neo-liberal prescriptions handed
down from Washington in the past two decadesinsisting on balanced budgets and fiscal austerity in carrying
out public works or income-redistribution programshave stoked some resentment. Latin Americans are now
more vociferously seeking redress for the economic distortions and the resulting inequalities long present in their
societies.
The recent upsurge of populism in the region comes as a direct riposte to Washington Consensus dogma. The
populist regimes now in power in Latin AmericaNicaragua, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Chile, and
Brazilare diverse and have varying bases of support. The rural campesinos and urban laborers who account
for the core of Evo Moraless support in Bolivia differ demographically from the base behind the successful
campaign of Rafael Correa in Ecuador. But all of these leaders are motivated by a desire for government to be
results-oriented and as close as possible in policy and spirit to the aspirations of the governed.
Though the fabled Hugo Chvez of Venezuela may sometimes comport himself in an overly emotive style
reminiscent of the brimstone balcony declarations of old-style caudillos, todays Latin American populist
standard-bearers are democratically elected. They have managed to keep their eyes peeled on the social
imperatives which carried them to power because they know that if they fail at improving their citizens living

coha.org/hemispheric-echoes-the-rever

1/5

1/26/2010

Hemispheric Echoes: The Reverberatio

standards, they must be prepared to figurativelysometimes even literallyend up biting the dust. In Bolivia and
Ecuador, so-called populists ran on platforms dedicated to serving the goals of the poor and indigenous
populations. Once in office, these leaders revoked their commitments by pleading that the requirements of the
marketplace had forced them to invalidate their earlier pledges to adhere to their platforms. The electorates
proceeded to unceremoniously dispose of them by means of economic blockades and work stoppages. This was
true for Lucio Gutierrez in Ecuador who paid with his presidency when he broke his word with the nations
native people.
PopulismYesterday and Today
Hugo Chvez is a former military officer. Yet most of the current populist presidents come from civilian
backgrounds. The dogmas of these leaders are very diverse, but todays populists are consistent in their
opposition to untrammeled free markets and are skeptical of any manifestation of US hegemony in the region.
They tend to reject wholesale modernization, favor a mixed over a heavily planned economy, and are
predisposed to identify with the outlook of the global South rather than the technologically-propelled major
northern powers. Despite Chvezs braggadocio and hip outbursts, populist leaders have been far from the
caricature (created by populisms detractors) of the unrestrained, wild-eyed demagogue. These detractors
include the conservative-dominated media in many Latin American countries and some of the more tendentious
US policy analysts and press. Close scrutiny of the various populist-style governments reveals that these leaders
are far more than ranting ideologues. More often than not, they are thoughtful dreamers who want to use the state
to achieve their populations aspirations.
Populists such as Evo Morales and Rafael Correa are not one-shot phenomena who quickly fade once in power;
rather, they are the political heralds of a tendency popularly termed the pink tide, meant to signify the process
by which populism has surged from one country to another. Populist movements have nurtured each other as a
result of unabashed generosity, particularly that exhibited by Venezuela.
Populism has started to reengineer the economic equation in those countries in which it has gained power. In
recent years, neo-liberal-flavored institutions and policiessuch as relentless privatization and deflationary
policieshave tended to slash public sector employment as a percentage of the economy. However, the new
populist governments have invariably increased public-sector spending and have not hesitated to increase the
number of government jobs and expand the states areas of responsibility through bureaucracy as well as via a
rich variety of community-based organizations. This process, rather than radical redistribution of wealth, has been
the principal domestic macroeconomic multiplier used by this genre of policy makers to regularize the economy
while sustaining social norms. As for economic norms, these have undeniably shifted in the past thirty years.
During this period, Latin American populism has provided a significant, if ultimately limited rejoinder to the
generally unhindered sweep of free-market initiatives, especially in the wake of the collapse of Soviet
Communism. Populism may be considered best as a partial societal response to a world economic habitat where
the free-market remains paramount but finds itself under growing challenge.
Populist democracies have also innovated in international economic terms. Here, the most visible initiative has
come in the area of debt reduction. Argentinas President Kirchners determination not to bend to IMF-imposed
conditionality was hardly welcomed by advocates of fiscal restraint. The IMF mandated the imposition of a harsh
regime affecting debt servicing that would have most likely hamstrung the resilience of the countrys economy for
as much as a decade. Argentinas resistance has inspired other leaders to ask that their countrys immediate
future not be sacrificed to the single-factor monetarist prescriptions of Washington and other global finance
centers.
One can ask, is there a new vision for restoring economic productivity at play in the region? Populisms resilience
could herald a new and different kind of era, one in which the concept is not per force a dirty word. Latin
American left-leaning governments could demand a new respect from the international arena for the impressive
achievements they are already recording.
But how did these slow but noticeable changes come to pass? In the late 1990s, amid the confidence brought on
by the worldwide preeminence of Washingtons unipolar model of globalization, Latin America duly marched in
stride. At the time, the region was still taken seriously as a premium location for orthodox financial transactions.
But a sensational shift would begin to take place that would affect US trade policy. This change was brought
about by a de facto grassroots implementation of something akin to a Lockean Social Contract. It was
increasingly obvious that IMF-mandated neo-liberal economics and the fiscal stringencies inspired by the
Washington Consensus were neither eternal nor universal. However, it was also argued by many conventional
global fiscal managers that at the time Latin America had no viable alternative. Bolivian activists such as Felipe
Quispe and Evo Morales were seen as vendors of snake oil: even if a populist regime gained power, it eventually
would go down in flames as a result of political and economic realities. These orthodox tribunes prophesied that
without any viable alternative, the populist leaders would have to eventually lash themselves to a neo-liberal
formula in order to survive.

coha.org/hemispheric-echoes-the-rever

2/5

1/26/2010

Hemispheric Echoes: The Reverberatio

The White Houses pressure on the world community to endorse its effort to dislodge Saddam Hussein may have
helped to compromise its gravitational pull over the region. An unexpected example in this respect is Chile, the
only South American country at the time to have initialed a free-trade pact with the United States. Washington
surely counted on Santiagos congruency with its main foreign policy guideline: its unpopular sortie in Iraq. But
during the UN March 2003 deliberations, Soledad Alvear, Chiles foreign minister at the time, presented one of
the strongest cases heard before the UN Security Council against the US thesis that it had the unilateral right to
invade a member state for good cause. Seen for decades as well disposed to the United States, Chiles
unwillingness to back the Iraq invasion registered a pivotal shift in its behavior. Overweening US diplomacy may
well have accelerated the electoral success of parties whose leaders are no longer automatically prepared to
capitulate to US policy mandates. After 2003, the pink tide leadership came into its own.
The Major ActorsChvez, Lula, Kirchner, and Morales
While Washingtons eyes were riveted on Iraq, a foiled coup in Venezuela and the election of new Argentine and
Brazilian presidents were changing the ideological equation in Latin America. In the April 2002 coup attempt
against Chvez, it seemed at first that his administration had been overthrown and that the White House could
now prepare to add another democratizing feather to its cap. But Chvez held on and managed to survive the
attempted coup, which had been bitterly nursed by a disaffected middle-class and business-led opposition. The
coup itself had been kindled by an inflammatory rightist media, 85 percent of which was controlled by owners
who loathed Chavez.
The failed coup all but destroyed an extensive mythology that democratization was at the forefront of US policy
goals for the hemisphere, since Chvez had ruled Venezuela in an entirely constitutional manner for his entire
tenure in office. Thereafter, Chvez was not just a big-mouthed radical and controversial president, but quickly
became the best-known exemplar of the pink tidea wave of left-leaning social reformers who were being
elected to office by strong majorities throughout a turbulent South America. Soon after Chvez came to power,
his policies served as the inspiration for the separate agendas set up in each pink tide country. What united
these agendas was the populist impulsethe belief that the presidency could be used to provide leadership and
social justice for every corner of the nation.
Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva almost won the Brazilian presidency in 1989; his initial series of defeats could be
partially credited to fears that his policies, as well as his personality, would come to antagonize Washington.
Lulas election in 2002 marked a tipping point in the spread of electorally-viable populist candidates in South
America. Although Lulas populist tendencies noticeably diminished into his presidency by his surprising emphasis
on monetarist economic policies and an institutional continuity in foreign policy-making, Lula still used the
presidential voice to rally the citizens with calls for social justice.
Argentina had traditionally been less inhibited about quarreling with a Washington-centered vision of world affairs
than Brazil. When Nestor Kirchner was elected president of Argentina in April 2003, ending a kaleidoscopic
series of temporary tenants of the Casa Rosada, he sent a signal to Washington that strengthening the countrys
internal stability would take precedence over repaying its debt, as mandated by the IMF. Kirchner has since
strengthened relations with a host of countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa and has become an important force on
the side of the world stage that does not swiftly move to accommodate itself to Washingtons desiderata.
A great success of the pink tide was the 2006 election of coca farmer, indigenous activist, and professed
socialist, Evo Morales, as president of Bolivia. Morales, who came to power in an unimpeachably democratic
process, has managed so far to only barely placate his largely indigenous supporters while unsuccessfully making
conciliatory gestures to the rest of the Bolivian polity. Even a clearly hostile US State Department has nominally
accommodated itself to his presidency as demonstrated by the relatively lukewarm treatment he has received
from the State Department through much of his tenure. But this acquiescence was coupled with a rather dire
warning to the victor by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who insists that she has her own definition of
democracy. Even Paul Wolfowitz, attempting to rebrand himself from Iraq hawk to World Bank high-flying
dove, reached out to Morales in hopes of finding common ground.
Where the Tide is Rising: Chile, Mexico, and Peru
Even countries that are not overtly populist are still subject to contending forces that cause them to be far from
quiescent regarding US policy. The election of the Socialist Michelle Bachelet to the Chilean presidency in 2006
was an important event, although Chile is not yet considered part of the pink tide. But this fact cannot give
comfort to those in Washington who counted on Santiagos automatic backing. As the daughter of military
officers tortured by the Pinochet dictatorship, Bachelet is not likely to be a major sword carrier for the White
House.
Andres Manuel Lopez Obradors headstrong decision to squander his moral capital in what became an
increasingly ineffective populist-sponsored protest against Mexicos last presidential election undermined his
reputation. In spite of the enormous support he had mustered when he contested last years close election mano
a mano, his support had since dwindled, while Felipe Calderon buttressed his conservative rule. Though no

coha.org/hemispheric-echoes-the-rever

3/5

1/26/2010

Hemispheric Echoes: The Reverberatio

occupant of Los Pinos is likely to take on the United States in a directly confrontational way, Mexico has
become used to regular post-September 11 brush offs by the Bush administration and can expect more of the
same under President Caldern. It is unlikely that the Bush administrations guest workers programaffecting as
many as eleven million undocumented workers in the United Stateswill solve the problem of illegal immigration.
Therefore, the troubled border is likely to persist as a prime irritant between the United States and Mexico and
can be expected to periodically invoke ringing populist outbursts from Mexico.
In Peru, former President Alan Garcia, much reviled when he left office in 1990, made an unexpected return to
power last year. Though, as with the returned Sandinistas in Nicaragua, his once-venerable Aprista party has
shed any genuinely populist associations, even a defanged APRA cannot fully sympathize with the road to
prosperity pioneered by the Washington Consensus. However, Washington has tried to woo Lima, while Ollanta
Humalas populist movementwhich espoused indigenous rightshas yet to achieve the successes of some of
its more articulate counterparts elsewhere on the continent. Yet the movement has been further refining its
socioeconomic credo and proposed administrative system, making it into a formidable rival of Garcia, particularly
if the Garcia presidency stumbles.
Multipolarity: the Pink Tide and the Monroe Doctrine
Populism often causes Washington to distrust indigenous ideals and can turn race and culture into something of a
shibboleth used to fan paranoia and a fear of change. Populism, in the eyes of the State Department and
conservative Washington think tanks, has become a convenient, encapsulating slogan to depict Chvez and
Morales and their school as irresponsible radicals who would not make seemly diplomatic partners.
One of the key differences between the current face-off between the United States and a left-leaning segment of
Latin American nations and how that relationship has been previously carried out is the absence of a Monroe
Doctrine to invoke with respect to interventions by foreign powers in the hemisphere. Most recently, Soviet
interest in the region, especially after the Cuban Revolution, gave US policymakers sufficient reason for
Washington to play a hegemonic card. The force of this move was heightened by the irony that the Monroe
Doctrine was first invoked against the Czarist Russia-led Holy Alliance, which had made rhetorical threats about
re-conquering Spains former Latin American colonies after the colonial era had ended. The post-Cold War era
experienced echoes of the Monroe Doctrine but not any systematic use of it as a guiding principle for foreign
policy.
With Venezuela seeking a multipolar alliance relationship with such declared or tacit opponents of the United
States as Iran, China, North Korea, and Russia, the current situation is very much set for the invocation of a new
and somewhat transformed round of populist-driven indictments of current US policy worldwide. Unlike
Castros Cuba, which needed Soviet logistical and financial support to guarantee its survival, Venezuela is not a
beachhead requiring constant monitoring, but a large, wealthy country situated on the South American mainland
and sitting astride immense reserves of oil and natural gas the largest in the hemisphere. What is even more
difficult for Washington is that the case against Chvez cannot be made credibly, while that against the United
States can. There is no dynamic of Chvez being a puppet under the control of some extra-continental power.
When he deals with China, Russia, or Iran, it is entirely on equal terms.
US policy initiatives directed against Chvez cannot hide behind the purported altruism of the Monroe Doctrine
to disguise what some observers see as Washington hankering after continued regional hegemony. The
emergence of autochthonous leaders such as Kirchner, Morales, and Ecuadors Correa, inspired to different
degrees by Chvezs example and with unimpeachably legitimate democratic credentials of their own, renders
somewhat implausible any attempt at a binary division of the hemisphere into black hats and white hats. We now
see democratically elected regimes that have adopted traditional populism for the twenty-first century in a way
that attracts the votes of the discontented but is also able to enact its ideological convictions in practical terms
once in office. Populism has put the region back into global diplomatic play. Washington may now have to deal
with more unrest than was ever expected in its own so-called backyard.
Share and Enjoy:

This analysis was prepared by COHA Director Larry Birns and COHA Senior Research Fellow Dr.
Nicholas Birns
Posted 20 Jun 2007
Word Count: 2900

Comments

Login

There are no comments posted yet. Be the first one!

coha.org/hemispheric-echoes-the-rever

4/5

1/26/2010

Hemispheric Echoes: The Reverberatio

Post a new comment

Comment as a Guest, or login:

Name

Email

Website (optional)

Displayed next to your comments.

Not displayed publicly.

If you have a website, link to it here.

Subscribe to None

Submit Comment

Comments by

Ecuador On A Tightrope: Foreign Minister Espinosa Uses Caution In Casting Ecuadors Divergencies and Affinities In Its
Regional Policies
Monsters and Critics.com: Bolivia to sell gas to Chile

Recent Posts
Tomorrows Upcoming Articles
Inflation and Corruption on the Horizon as an Endangered Chvez Gambles to Retain Popularity
Peacekeeping and Military Operations by Latin American Militaries: Between Being a Good Samaritan and
Servicing the National Interest
COHA: This Week in the Public Arena
A new president in Honduras same old Uncle Sam

Archives
Select Month

Pages
About COHA
Archives
COHA Publications
Contact Us
Internships
Former Research Associates
Senior Research Fellows
Spotlight on COHA Research Fellow Alex Sanchez
Support COHA
Washington Report on the Hemisphere

1250 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 1C Washington, D.C. 20036

Council on Hemispheric Affairs 2010 All Rights Reserved.
managed by Baiganchoka.com - Support

coha.org/hemispheric-echoes-the-rever

5/5