For several decades most of Latin
America was ruled by right-wing leaders who believed that people who could not
own their own land or run their own business, did not deserve money. There are certainly
leaders in the US who believe that also, but Central and South America lack the
checks and balances that North America has in place. Thus, the Latin American
middle class was wiped out. The rich not only controlled the money, but were
the only people spoken to or about by politicians. Understandable mistrust of the right led to
the Latino community’s extreme and misguided reliance on leftists.
Today, all of the major newspapers are abuzz with
information about the recent election in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez, the current
president of the country is a perfect example of what Kurt Weyland refers to in
his article "The Rise of Latin American’s Two Left Turns”, as the wrong
left. He was elected as a champion of
the poor but his government has become close- minded, nationalistic and
forceful. Venezuelans
fell in love with the Chavez led populist movement, promising the underprivileged
citizens of his country representation in a world that had been ruled by the
wealthy since the Cold War. Unfortunately, this former military commander
quickly became the leader of a gigantic and oppressive government. (Luhnow, 2012)
He and his followers are not the only power-sick Latin-American government.
Bolivia and Honduras and Ecuador followed a similar pattern and therefore have
the same problem. What corrupted Chavez?
Weyland blames the fact that Venezuela is a Rentier state. He argues that the
ability to control other countries access to resources like oil has ruined
Chavez and his devotees. The good news for Latinas though, is that non-Rentier
states in the region like Chile, El Salvador,
Brazil have had to adopt a new left,(
called neoliberalism) one that is open-minded, internationalist and smaller.
Venezuelans will have a chance to follow this trend in this election, by
choosing Henrique Capriles, a centrist who refuses to ignore the benefits of
market reform. Weyland and the writers he references in his article agree that neoliberalism
would be the best alternative for nations like Venezuela. Jorge Castanada
summarizes their point beautifully, in his article “Latin America’s Two Left
Turns” when he wrote, “With all the talk of Latin America's turn to the left,
few have noticed that there are really two lefts in the region. One has radical
roots but is now open-minded and modern; the other is close-minded and
stridently populist. Rather than fretting over the left's rise in general, the
rest of the world should focus on fostering the former rather than the latter
-- because it is exactly what Latin America needs.” (Castanada, 2005)
It is mentioned above that Weyland
blames Rentier States for the corruption of many populist movements. That is a
meaningless statement, unless populist movement and Rentier state are clearly
defined. A populist movement is a movement from the people for the people of a nation,
usually protesting something being done by a group in power. The American Civil
rights movement of the 1960’s, for example, was a populist movement, protesting
the unfair treatment of African-Americans. Populist movements can archive great
things if they are led by individuals who keep the best interest of both the
minority and the majority in mind. Sometimes however, the oppressed feel so
hopeless that they forget to examine the values of those in charge . That is
where trouble can begin. A Rentier State
is a country or region that has something of value to other countries or
regions, such as oil, water or other natural resources. Countries like this are prone to more tumultuous
boom and bust cycles than non-Rentier states. Predictably, if the demand for
whatever resource is being rented decreases, so does the nation’s income. Another major issue for Rentier states is that
their economy often becomes so dependent on the rent from other nations that
they do not diversify their interests. This makes it very easy for corrupt governments
to take advantage of their people, because they have very few ways to make a
living. (Yates, 1996)
In Latin America during the
Cold War the combination of the burning desire for a populist movement and the
bust-boom tendencies of Rentier states, proved to be a dangerous combination
for many of their nations. The
poor justifiably felt slighted and consequently, leaders like Chavez, including
Evo Morales of Bolivia and Raefel Correa, in Ecuador, were able to rob them as
soon as they realized they were sitting on goldmines. The underprivileged of
Latin America were so desperate to be spoken to in the political arena that
they would vote into power, whoever took the time to do so. Tragically, the majority of citizens were
silenced more by this movement than the one that spurred their righteous anger.
(Weyland, 2009)
Though benevolent, ethical heads of government certainly can be advantageous,
it is probably more likely Brazil, Uruguay and Chile were just lucky. The fact that they do not have as many
natural resources to lend the rest of the world meant that their leaders had no
choice but to strengthen the middle class. For instance, Brazil has learned to use corn
to create ethanol, which provided jobs for countless Brazilians, however the government
is not big enough to demand all their profits. Therefore, citizens are able to
earn money in basically any way that they wish and a middle class has been
created. Creation of the middle class
has, according to the Latino Opinion Survey (LAOPS), cited by Mitchell Seligson
in his article “The Rise of Populism in Latin America”, decreased feeling of
inequality among both Brazilians and Chileans. (Seligson, 2007)
Both Weyland and Castanada believe the biggest difference between
the “right” left and the “wrong” left is the willingness to accept the free
market. They agree that that the only way to keep both the government and the private-sector
from becoming too controlling is to give both entities some influence. Giving
one or the other too much power promotes inequality. If one has all the power,
it will have all the responsibility. As a result, it will fail. When economies fail the rich never suffer as
greatly as the poor. For too many generations
poor Latin-Americans have suffered. It seems that the only way to stop that
suffering is to put a centrist in power. Intriguingly, the 2011 LAOPS shows
that Latin -Americans are starting to agree. It reported that ten percent more Latinos are
in favor of market reform than in 2006. This indicates a moderate shift to the
right. Hopefully, the corruption of the Venezuelan and Bolivian left-wing governments
will not lead to the empowerment of the right-wing. Eventually it has to become
obvious that extreme political thinking, left or right, is always wrong.
In a perfect world, the fairest of candidates would be elected,
but that never happens. No matter where
they are from, people vote for the candidate who promises them the most. This
leads to massive corruption in both the government and business. Tragically,
those without money have a very difficult time being treated well in either
arena. Nobody powerful is in their pockets. In order for inequality to
sincerely lessen in Latin America and around the globe, we all have to stop
speaking for ourselves and those similar to us, and start trying to give
everyone a voice. If and when that happens, government and business will
respect one another. Only then will the poor truly have a chance. Of course,
not everyone will have an easy time earning money, but it will be possible for
them. Underprivileged people do not want a free ride; they just want the
privileged to acknowledge that they have been stuck in their unlucky lots for
far too long.
WORK CITED
Luhnow, D. (2012,
Oct 7). Venezuelans turn out pick a leader.Wall Street Journal, p. A8.
Weyland, K.
(2009). The rise of latin america's two left turns. Forgiven Affair, 146-166.
Seligson, M.
(2007). The rise of populism in latin america.Forgien Affair, 18(7), July 7.
