COMMENTARY
Even the vehicle in which President Correa
Nobel Prize, Elections and
Coup d’état in Latin America:
Some Thoughts
Andres Lazzarini, Margarita Olivera
The biased way in which the local
and global media groups have
reported on three recent events
in Latin America – the attempted
coup in Ecuador, the presidential
elections in Brazil and the award
of the Nobel Prize in literature
to Mario Vargas Llosa – indicates
what pro-democracy and pro-
poor formations in the continent
are up against in their battle to
effect change.
Andres Lazzarini and Margarita Olivera
(alazzarini@gmail.com and marga.oli@gmail.
com) are currently research fellows of the
Institute of Advanced Study at the Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New Delhi.
Economic & Political Weekly  EPW   october 30, 2010  vol xlv no 44
1  Ecuador
O
n the morning of 30 September,
the Ecuadorian people woke up to
a chaotic situation. On that
Thursday, Ecuador police officers started
what seemed to be a strike against the
new national service law, which was to in­
crease the time necessary for promotion
and would also reduce the benefits con­
nected to such promotions.
Demonstrations started with the n­ation­
wide occupation of the police barracks and
a blockade of the main routes, but suddenly
when they decided to kidnap Ecuador Pres­
ident Rafael Correa, it became something
far more dangerous than a simple strike.
Nevertheless, President Correa, a hetero­
dox United States-trained economist, who
was elected in 2006 and has since under­
taken a left-oriented agenda, combining
development with environmental con­
cerns, had the previous day v­etoed the con­
troversial features of the national law. He
had also raised the benefits for policemen
from $700 to $1,200 during his presidential
term. These “trivialities” were forgotten
in the international mass media reports,
which actually showed the demonstrations
as the police exercising a right of protest
against the national government’s law, and
did not mention that the president was
being detained against his will. In fact,
when President Correa headed for the police
headquarters in Quito, he was subjected to
tear gas and then directed to the police hos­
pital in the same complex. The hospital was
surrounded by the rebels who did not allow
the president to come out. On Thursday
afternoon, Correa was actually kidnapped.
Massive groups of people, concerned about
the president’s whereabouts, spontaneously
crowded in front of the hospital, but were
attacked by the rebellious police officers.
Twelve hours after being abducted, loyal
army forces eventually broke into the
hospital to rescue Correa amid crossfire.
was rushed out received four gun bullets.
In the meanwhile, on the same Thursday
evening, Latin American leaders headed
for Buenos Aires, Argentina, to a­ttend an
emergency meeting of the Union of South
American Nations (­UNASUR), founded in
2008 to deal with the Ecuadorian situa­
tion. The assessment was unanimous that
it was as President Correa claimed: there
had been an a­ttempt at a coup d’état (the
not infrequent Golpe de Estado in Latin
American) to overthrow his government.
Also the general secretary of the Organisa­
tion of American States (OAS) denounced
and condemned the coup d’état attempt.
Like the successful June 2009 coup
which displaced Honduras President Manuel
Zelaya, the corporate-controlled media
played, not unexpected, a dirty role. Indeed,
both foreign and national media set the
stage by calling it an “institutional crisis” or
at best an “act of police indiscipline”. From
within the country the news came that along
with the police force, the air force had para­
lysed Quito international airport while the
opposition parties called for demonstrations
against Correa. However, for the media all
this did not exist despite several deaths and
i­njuries. A conspiracy of silence ruled. It was
thanks to the Venezuelan TV channel Telesur
that the emergency declared by Correa
from the hospital where he was interned
came to be known by the population which,
by and large, reacted in support of President
Correa. The following day, Correa spoke to
the people and ordered an investigation
which is now under way.
Since 2006, Ecuador’s government has
implemented economic measures that have
clashed with the interests of the United States
(US) and other powerful countries. It has
defaulted on foreign debts and cut itself off
from foreign capital markets and the Inter­
national Monetary Fund (IMF). On the other
hand, although the US and the European
Union (EU) condemned attempts to disrupt
law and order, none of the big powers in the
world talked explicitly about the coup. But,
would anyone in the US describe it as just “an
act of police indiscipline” if Barack Obama
had been kidnapped by police officers? Of
course, they would not, but mainstream
politics analysts in the global media, with
their cosy relations with multinational cor­
porate giants, seemed to agree that what in
23
COMMENTARY
Authority and Legitimation

During the academic years 2010/11 and 2011/12 the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for
Historical Studies will focus on problems of authority and legitimation. We welcome
proposals that explore the popular claims of authority. How have regimes of power been
legitimated, sustained, and identified with realms of justice, the sacred, or the natural?
How have cultures of consent and allegiance been created and maintained? Under what
historical conditions have those cultures fractured or dissolved?

The field of inquiry includes the study of political culture but it is by no means limited
to modern politics; inquiries into other forms of religious, domestic, and social authority,
broadly defined, are encouraged across a wide variety of periods and places, from
prehistory to the present and from all parts of the world. Problems could include the
rise of nationalist and civic cultures; the symbolic construction of the authority of kings,
chieftains, texts, and law; the mobilization of religious and social movements; the
legitimation of empires and regimes of labor; the naturalization of everyday forms of
domestic power; as well as challenges to authority in the form of delegitimation, resistance,
withdrawal, or revolution.

The Center will offer a limited number of research fellowships for one or two semesters,
running from September to January and from February to June. Early career scholars must
have their doctoral degrees in hand at the time of the application. Fellows are expected
to live in Princeton in order to take an active part in the intellectual interchange with other
members of the Seminar. Funds are limited, and candidates are, therefore, strongly urged
to apply to other grant-giving institutions as well as the Center if they wish to come for a
full year.

To apply please link to:  http://jobs.princeton.edu, requisition # 1000414. The deadline

for receipt of applications and letters of recommendation for fellowships for 2011/2012
is December 1, 2010. Please note that we will not accept faxed applications. Applicants
must apply online and submit a CV, cover letter, research proposal, abstract of proposal,
and contact information for three references. For further information about the Davis
Center, please go to http://www.princeton.edu/dav  

Daniel T. Rodgers
Director

24 october 30, 2010  vol xlv no 44  EPW   Economic & Political Weekly

their countries would be a serious attempt
at coup, was in Latin American just mis­
chief, especially if the country’s president
opposes multinational and US interests!
2  Brazil
The Sunday after the failed coup attempt
in Ecuador, a presidential ballot took place
in Brazil. Going against most forecasts,
former Lula Da Silva’s cabinet chief Dilma
Rousseff failed to cross the 50% mark nec­
essary to win in the first round for the next
presi­dency. The Workers Party’s Dilma
Rousseff obtained 47% against the S­ocial-
Democrat José Serra who got a 33%. The
third place went to the Green Party, which is
led by a former Lula Da Silva’s environment
minister Marina Silva, who obtained 20%.
The second round will take place on 31
October, but the victory for the governing
party’s candidate is not in the bag. Indeed
this election is challenging for the PT (Work­
ers Party, to which Lula belongs) not only
because it is for the first time that a woman is
contesting to become president of Brazil, but
also because two d­ifferent models are at play.
The two-term Lula government undoubt­
edly made a good beginning for the poorest
in Brazil. Thanks to social progra­mmes like
“Beca Familia” (Family Grant), poverty has
decreased by a massive 11% between 2006
and 2007 (Statistics N­ational Institute of
Brazil). In addition, Brazil, known formally
as among the most unequal societies in the
world, has i­mproved substantially in all the
inequality indices, while economic (GDP)
growth has shown an incredible trend over
the last decade and the mostly state-led
industrialisation is successfully under way.
It has made Brazil a model countering the
neo­liberal agenda, by sticking to the idea
that a fundamental economic role must be
assigned to the government to boost devel­
opment. The election of Dilma Rousseff
would mean a continuity of this agenda.
On the other hand, José Serra stands for
the pro-market policies of liberalisation and
privatisations. The candidate was planning
minister in the previous F­er­nando Henrique
Cardoso government in the 1990s and initi­
ated privatisation suggested at that time by
the Washington Consensus. Moreover,
since 2006 he has been the governor of the
rich region of Sao Paulo and has authorised
the privatisation of the Sao Paulo State
Bank. With these records, he seems to be
Economic & Political Weekly  EPW   october 30, 2010  vol xlv no 44
extraordi­narily keen to pursue selective pri­
vatisation programmes. In addition, he is
strongly against strengthening of Brazil’s re­
lations with Venezuela and Bolivia. Instead
his focus is on bilateral free trade agree­
ments. So a Serra victory in the second round
could put at risk the Latin American under­
standing that has been framed during the
last decade. Once again, like in other Latin
American countries, the corporate media
groups in Brazil are driving the campaign to
discredit the PT candidate on alleged corrup­
tion charges when in office as chief minister,
while paying less attention to the contrast­
ing programmes of the two candidates.
3  The Nobel
These two salient events could negatively
influence the future of the current left wing
agenda in Latin America. However, on
Thursday, 7 October, the attention of the in­
ternational mass media drastically shifted.
For the first time now in 20 years, the
Swedish Academy awarded the Nobel Prize
in literature to a Latin American writer –
the Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa.
At this point, the main question that any­
one reading this article could legitimately
raise is: what is the problem if the media gave
more attention to the Nobel Prize than to the
coup d’état in Ecuador or the future of the
left programme in Latin America? What has
the Nobel Prize for a famous writer Vargas
Llosa got to do with Latin America politics?
For many Latin Americans, like the
w­riters of this article, it is clear that this
prize has come not only as recognition for
his books and prose. The 74-year-old writer
who once used to be a left wing supporter in
the 1970s is currently recognised as the most
high-profile critic of the “current threats” to
Latin American democracy from within,
and in particular of the C­uban, Venezuelan
and Bolivian governments (now, though,
he also added Argentine President Cristina
Fernández de Kirchner among his targets).
As a matter of fact, the current Latin-Ameri­
can political experiments are seen with con­
cern by the world establishment – Chavez,
the Castros, Morales, Lula, the Kirchners
and Correa are seen as examples which real
western, democratic tradition must avoid
in Latin America. Vargas Llosa as one of
the most prominent scribblers highlights
this from his abode in Spain, and the US,
dismissing all these governments as guided
COMMENTARY
by leftist dictatorships, irrespective of the
fact that almost all are governments elected
in multiparty democracies.
The mass media highlighted the news of
the Nobel Prize with an emphasis on his
challenging political views rather than on
his prose. For example, on 7 October, BBC
quoted the art critic, Oscar Guardiola-Rivera,
as saying that the Nobel Prize “is indeed an
acknowledgement not only of Mario Vargas
Llosa’s immense contribution to world litera­
ture, but also of the cultural, economic and
political renaissance taking place across
Latin America”. However, it is hard to find
evidence from recent Latin American expe­
riences that the views of the right wing, pro-
market oligarchy s­upported by the awardee,
who campaigned unsuccessfully for such
policies for the Peruvian presidency in 1990,
are compatible with the popular mood. And
yet, scribblers abound on the web who want
Vargas Llosa to misrepresent the p­olitical
changes in Latin America: “Every­one knows
that interesting things are happening there
[in Latin America], though their meaning
r­emains somewhat hidden”, Guardiola-­
Rivera stated. Perhaps the Nobel Prize in
literature is following a trend similar to
that in economics: writing and theorising
favourably about right wing pro-market de­
mocracy is the only r­espectable thing to do!
The new trends in politics since 2000
have given hope to ordinary citizens in Latin
America. Nevertheless, the privileged few
with the power of money and the media
naturally opposes the changes: the deve­lop­
ment of national and regional processes fo­
cusing on regional cooperation and integra­
tion, sustained economic growth with pro­
gressive income distribution, and most im­
portantly democracy for the once-forgotten
sections of the society. They attempt to return
instead to market-friendly policies, accept
uncritically the advice of international
financial institutions and shape their foreign
policies to suit US interests. Recent develop­
ments are significant insofar as commissions
(news misinterpreting the prize for Vargas
Llosa) or omissions (the attempted coup in
Ecuador) indicate that the powerful e­cono­mic
and political groups are at work at the re­
gional and international levels. They seem to
have made up their mind that these govern­
ments, democratic or not, must be opposed.
We hope that the Latin American people will
not be deceived by the media smokescreen.
25