Götzen-Dämmerung
or Götterdämmerung
Rise and Fall of the Personalist Left
Introduction
Over
the past three years Latin American leftist leaders, who presided over
heterodox ‘free trade’ and commodity based welfare economies, lost
presidential, legislative and municipal elections and referendums or faced
impeachment. They fell because they lost competitive elections, not because of
US invasions or military coups. These same leftist leaders, who had
successfully defeated coups and withstood gross US political intervention via
AID, NED, the DEA and other US government agencies, lost at the ballot box.
What
accounts for the changing capacity of leftist presidents to retain majoritarian
electoral support over almost a decade? Why did the US-backed and funded
candidates win this time, when they had been defeated in several previous
elections? What accounts for the defeat of the rightist violent road to power
and their subsequent victory via the electoral process?
Class Struggle and Popular Mobilization
as a Prelude to Leftist Electoral Victories
The
electoral victories of the Left were preceded by a deep crisis in the ‘free
market’ and deregulated economies, which were accompanied by intense class
struggle from below. Class struggle polarized and radicalized vast sections of
the working and middle classes.
In Argentina,
the total collapse of the financial and manufacturing system led to a popular
uprising and the rapid overthrow of three presidents. In Bolivia, two popular
uprisings overthrew two US backed ‘free market’ presidents. In Ecuador, a
popular ‘citizen movement’ ousted a US-backed president.
In Brazil,
Paraguay and Venezuela, burgeoning peasant and urban movements, engaged in
direct action and in opposition to their ‘free market’ presidents, resulted in
the election of left presidents.
Four
inter-connected factors came to the fore to explain the left’s rise to power: First,
the dramatic collapse and ensuing socio-economic crisis, entailing poverty,
stagnation and repression by rightwing regimes, precipitated a large-scale
shift to the left. Secondly, the intense class struggle, responding to the
crisis, politicized the workers, radicalized the downwardly mobile middle
classes and eroded the influence of the ruling class and the impact of their
elite-controlled mass media. Thirdly, the leftist presidents promised long-term
large-scale structural changes and successfully implemented immediate social
impact programs (employment, social benefits, bank deposit protection, pay
raises and large scale public investments). Last, but not least, the leftist
presidents came to power at the beginning of or during a mega-cycle commodity
boom providing multi-billion dollar surpluses in export earnings and tax
revenues with which to finance new inclusionary social programs.
Electoral Clientalized Politics, Social
De-Mobilization and Extractive Partnerships
During
the first years of the left governments, they kept the heat on the rightwing
elites: defeating abortive coups, expelling intrusive US Ambassadors and US
agencies and defeating the local US clients.
They
moved on the legal front to consolidate political power by convoking
constitutional assemblies to approve progressive constitutions. They attracted
and built on the support from their new indigenous, popular and middle class
constituents.
The
constitutional changes reorganized new social alignments, especially the rights
of indigenous people, but fell far short of serving as the basis for a change
of property relations.
The
left governments reinforced their dependence on agro-mineral exports by
designing a growth strategy based on economic partnership with multi-nationals
and agro-business plantation owners.
The
rising prices of commodities on the world market led to increases in government
revenues, public investment in infrastructure and expanded employment in the
public sector. The left governments constructed large-scale patronage systems
and clientelistic electoral machines, which ‘mobilized’ the masses on electoral
and ceremonial occasions and for international forums.
International
left academics and journalists were impressed by the left administrations’
fiery rhetoric supporting anti-imperialist, anti-neoliberal policies. Local and
overseas pundits parroted the rhetoric about new forms of ‘socialism’, 21st century socialism in Ecuador and Venezuela and Andean socialism in Bolivia.
In
actual practice long-term, large-scale contracts were signed with international
giants like, Repsol, Monsanto, Jindel and scores of other imperial backed
multi-nationals.
Big
agro-exporters received credits, loans and technical aid while peasants and
local producers received only the paper ‘land titles’ for their small holdings.
No large-scale land distributions were undertaken. Landless peasants, who were
engaged in land occupations, were forcibly evicted. Increased government
spending on credit and technical assistance was channeled almost exclusively to
large-scale soya, cattle, cotton and other agro-exporters, which increased
rural class inequalities and exacerbated the decline of food security.
During
the decade, militants became functionaries, who developed ties with business
groups and began their own process of ‘social mobility’.
The
agro-mineral export model raised incomes and reduced poverty but also
accentuated inequalities between government functionaries and peasants and
urban workers. The newly affluent, upwardly mobile middle class no longer flocked
to hear ‘egalitarian rhetoric’. They sought security, pursued credit-financed
consumerism and looked upward toward the wealthy elite for their role models
and life style changes – rather than expressing solidarity with those left
behind.
From Retreat to Defeat: Pragmatic
Accommodation as a Formula for Neo-Liberal Restoration
The
leaders’ anti-imperialist rhetoric was increasingly discounted by most people
as it was contrasted with the large-scale inflow of capital and the contracts
with multi-nationals.
The
symbolic ‘gestures’ and local projects celebrated before large crowds were
accepted but increasingly failed to compensate for the daily routines of
centralized power and local corruption.
Over
the decade the political cadres of the left governments rounded-up votes via
electoral patronage favors, financed by bribes from contractors and illicit
transfers of public funds.
Re-election
bred complacency, arrogance and a sense of impunity. The perquisites of office
were taken for granted by party leader but were perceived as unwarranted
privileges by many working class and peasant voters.
The
de-radicalization process at the top and middle levels of the left regimes led
the lower classes to rely on individualistic, family and local solutions to
their everyday problems.
With
the demise of the commodity cycle, the broad coalition of workers, peasants,
middle class and professional groups splintered. Many rejected the malfeasance
of the left regimes as a betrayal of the promise of change.
Thus
the popular sectors embraced the moralizing critique mounted by the right.
The
retrograde radical right exploited discontent with the incumbents and played
down or disguised their plans to reverse and undermine the employment and
salary gains, pensions and family allowance gained over the decade.
Conclusion
The
left governments stimulated the growth of extractive capitalism and converted
their mass base into a passive recipient of regime reforms.
The
unequal power between leaders and followers was tolerated as long as the
incremental rewards continued to flow.
As
classes rose in the social hierarchy they shed their leftist ideology born of
crisis and looked to elite politicians as the new ‘modernizers’.
The left regimes encouraged a ‘dependency
culture’ in which they competed for votes on the bases of growth, markets and
patronage.
The
left functionaries, unable to rise via the ‘closed’ agro-mineral sectors -
under the control of the multi-nationals, turned to state corruption,
extracting ‘commissions’ as intermediaries for the MNC, or simply
absconding with public funds allocated for municipal health, education and
infrastructure projects.
As a
result, electoral promises were not kept. The corrupt practices were ignored by
their elected leaders, deeply offending the popular electorate, who were
disgusted by the spectacle of corrupt left politicians applauding radical
rhetoric while raiding federal funds with impunity.
Party
loyalty undermined any national political oversight of local politicians and
functionaries. Disenchantment with the local functionaries spread up to the
top. Popular leaders, who were repeatedly elected soon, were implicated or at
least complicit in bribe-taking.
The end of the decade and the end of the commodity
boom marked the twilight of idols. The left lost elections throughout the
region.
Epilogue
- The
Kirchner-Fernandez regime was defeated in Argentina (2015).
- The
Lula-Rousseff regime faces indictment and impeachment in Brazil (2014-2016).
- The
Chavez-Maduro regime lost the legislative election in Venezuela (2015).
- The
Evo Morales regime lost the constitutional amendment allowing the president’s
third term re-election in Bolivia (2016).
Note
James Petras's latest books include:
- James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer (2014), Extractive Imperialism in the Americas: Capitalism’s New Frontier, published by Brill (Leiden/Boston) (Studies in Critical Social Sciences Series).
- James Petras (2014), The Politics of Empire: The US, Israel and the Middle East, published by Clarity Press, Atlanta.
© Copyright 2016 by AxisofLogic.com
This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!
|