Perspectives on Latin America

In the build up to today's annual Latin America Conference, a group of socialists with a Latin American interest meet across the road from Parliament to discuss why Latin America works. Brian Precious reports

Photo: World Bank Photo Collection: Young boy works with his family tending potatoes

The series has been initiated by Argentinian intellectual Essex Univeristy Professor, Ernesto Laclau. The meeting aims to give a sympathetic view of the left-wing transformation of contemporary Latin America, and to do so within easy reach of Parliamentarians. This year the meeting took place in the presence of Alicia Castro, Ambassador of Argentina to the UK. The speakers were Ernesto Laclau, Dr Francisco Panizza ((LSE), author of the well-received 'Contemporary Latin America: Development and Democracy beyond the Washington Consensus', and innovative researcher Dr Sara Motta (Nottingham University). Leading Parliamentary fighter for global justice Jeremy Corbyn MP was Chair. Laclau opened the discussion by recounting the historical interaction between democracy and liberalism, comparing Latin America and Europe: In Europe the early chasm between the two was partially bridged by the advances of the 19th Century, but in Latin America this gap was never closed. Indeed democracy and liberalism have often been antagonistic in Latin America.

By the late 19th Century, Latin America had liberal political systems which were not democratic at all. Demands of the masses were never institutionally absorbed and political systems were dominated by land-owning oligarchies. This continued until the 1930s Depression, when there was an accumulation of democratic demands which the system could not absorb, leading to a political crisis across Latin America and the advent of populist governments - a populist rupture - typified by the Peron governments in Argentina after World War 2. This political instability has only very recently been stabilised with the present set of national-popular governments elected since the 1990s. They respect democracy but are very different from the liberal democracies of Europe. The European left wrongly dismisses populism as demagogic manipulation of the mob, argued Laclau. In fact, populism mobilises those at the bottom of the system against the power elites.

Asked about the distinction between European social democracy and contemporary Latin America, Ernesto Laclau suggested that Latin America is becoming a beacon, a model of what Europe and the world should be doing about the present massive economic crisis. Europe is doing everything wrong, he insisted, in pursuing neoliberal adjustment. Latin America has avoided the worst of the crisis simply because it has not followed the advice of the IMF. Neoliberalism is collapsing everywhere, to the point where governments must completely change orientation.

Such change is emerging: In France, Melenchon's audience in the French Socialist Party is increasing. Die Linke is progressing in Germany, while in the Netherlands the Dutch Socialist Party has established itself as a leading party in that Country. In Greece the present govt could soon lose power to Syriza. Ernesto quoted Eric Hobsbawm saying Blair is Thatcherism in trousers, and Stuart Hall saying we need to Latin Americanise Europe! Good advice! Jeremy Corbyn noted Europe and China are building trade with Latin America - in the UK policy is dominated by the Malvinas issue - in terms of the extractive industries, and expressed concern as this is unsustainable long-term.

Francisco Panizza acknowledged the economic advance of Latin America, but cautioned against it being too dependent on a commodity boom of exports, especially to China. It is vital therefore, he argued to go beyond the traditional international division of labour. He stressed the importance of the development of Latin American education, so that there are more internationally recognised universities, and an expansion of primary education. At present there is often a huge gap between public and private education.

He urged a rise in the pay, conditions and competitiveness of domestic small and medium sized enterprises in Latin America. He also argued for the importance of developing the capacities of the state to achieve the most important objective: the enhancement of citizenship, economically, socially, politically. This is what democracy is about. There has been great progress but it is a work in progress. 170m people are still in poverty in Latin America.

Jeremy responded by insisting that growth on its own is not the solution without redistribution. Mal-distribution in Mexico is the worst on the continent and getting worse.

Francisco said he likes the concept of 'pre-distribution' i.e. better education, social and health services, better paid jobs and working conditions, and social networking. It is for these that we need the enhancement of the state.

Sara Motta emphasised the experience and the voices of those at the grass-roots who are often excluded from the narrative of politics, such as the single mother, the indigent peasant, the illiterate street vendor. We need more humility with regard to how we frame what is going on politically. There are multiple re-imaginings of going beyond neoliberalism, going well beyond asking how we make the market work. We should construct forms of work, community, social reproduction and family, she argued, which move beyond casual social relationships. In turn this requires a focus on the invisible work done by those excluded, which is essential to re-imagining the political. Hence the grass roots is not forgotten or misrepresented as delinquent, uneducated, non-political, or indeed manipulated. Grass roots politics occurs around social reproduction: food, shelter, health, child-care, water-rights, land. It is built through long struggle in communities, with non-dominant educational forms: Forms which don't treat people as empty vessels to be filled, but which offer people different possibilities. Solidarity is this dialogue.

Jeremy asked if there is a very different experience, of the poor vis a vis the state, in Latin America as compared to Europe? The European left has promoted things such as health and social service provision by the state, whereas this is hardly the case for most of Latin American history.

Finally Ambassador Alicia Castro to commented on the discussion. She noted that there can be very different understandings of terms such as 'liberal', 'populist' and so on, since different countries have very different traditions. She was a long time in Venezuela (she was Argentine Ambassador to Venezuela before taking up that role in the UK), and is very enthusiastic about the Bolivarian revolution there. She described it as a fascinating laboratory. Chavez says the people know where they are today but don't know where they will be tomorrow. Argentina has a very different history from Venezuela, so this is one example of why we shouldn't treat Latin America as an homogeneous bloc.

In the present crisis, however, Europe can take many lessons from Latin America. In Argentina we suffered greatly from the neoliberal crisis of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Our unions had to fight privatisation. Now nobody in Argentina can say we should follow IMF recommendations. We are very positive about what is happening today in Argentina and Latin America. We are young republics, living through our 'medieval' times! She said. We must be free to live them in our own style. We have a rich and flexible approach to culture. We are free to re-examine our values. On a recent league table of the happiest countries, the first 20 were in Latin America. Venezuela is 5th while the USA is 171st! This is the USA which tells us what to do - criticising our nationalisation of oil companies, for example.

She said the Malvinas is very important for us as a region. It is about water, fisheries and oil. Oil exploration is not feasible without proper relations with continental Latin America, as any problem could cause an ecological disaster. So we are dealing with many issues. For us, Malvinas is a legacy of empire, and we advocate a proper dialogue with the UK. The international community recognises the controversy over the sovereignty of the Malvinas, so the UK can't take the attitude that there is nothing to discuss There will be a referendum in March 2013, in which Falkland-Malvinas islanders will vote on their political status. The islanders are British. We don't want to take away their Britishness. Britain invaded the islands in 1833, so what is not British is the territory. The transformation of Latin America over the past decade means we are clear about our unity, sovereignty, and hence the need for dialogue.

Jeremy was very clear his position on the Falklands-Malvinas is very different from the Labour Party's. He met representatives of the Nobel laureates who have written an open letter calling for dialogue, which is a very important document. A solution will not be found without dialogue, and the history of the 1982 war was one of a deeply unpopular UK prime minister who cleverly spotted an opportunity to whip up jingoism to help her win the 1983 election in the UK. Some leading Labour figures were very confused but Tony Benn was clear on the real issues of fisheries and oil.The help given by Pinochet during the Falklands war was rewarded by the UK, even though the former was presiding over a bloodbath in Chile almost as big as that in Argentine. Hopefully the Labour Party will follow the example of the Nobel laureates.

Francisco said he doubted there would be enthusiasm for another war in the South Atlantic, after the UK and the world saw the great movement against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ambassador Castro said the 1982 Falklands War was a stupid cruel war with an unpopular military junta trying to save itself after killing at least 30,000 Argentinians in South America's biggest dirty war. She asked why the UK treats Argentina's President Kirchner as though she is like the junta which used to rule that country.