<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Welcome to the world of post-democratic electoralism
Review: Over the past two decades democratic governments have spread over the world. The Turkish coup in 1980 appears in retrospect to have been the last of its kind in Europe. While the seventies had marked some important victories for democracy (in Spain, Portugal and Greece) it also faced some major setbacks (in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay). In 1982 and 1983 with the return of consitutional government in Brazil and Argentina, democracy increasingly gained momentum. One victory followed another: the Phillipines in 1986, South Korea in 1987, Pakistan in 1988, the liberation of Eastern Europe in 1989, peace in Central America and the victory of Patricio Aylwin in Chile in 1990, the return to multiparty government in much of Africa, the recognition of the PLO in 1993, the election of Nelson Mandela in 1994. Even Iran has a quasi-parliamentary government, even China has multicandidate local elections. But something is missing. Why is it that the old cliches about voting ("If voting could things it would be abolished") and choice ("In New Hampshire your house can be any colour you want, as long as it is white") have such resonance? Why does it appear that as the number of democracies increase, the actual options they have decrease? This is the subject of Roberts' important book on the fate of the Chilean and Peruvian left. Although somewhat repetitive and poorly written Roberts presents an important account of the problems facing democracy today. Roberts' title refers to the idea of "deepening democracy." Instead of imposing the autocratic and ultimately inefficient state socialisms of the past, many Latin American leftists looked to more grassroots and localized decision-making. Such decision making would be healthier than the clientist approach of many previous Latin American populists. At the same time they sought to create a strategy that would not concentrate in classic Marxist fashion on the industrial working-class, historically a relatively small portion of the Latin American population. Instead they would concentrate on new popular movements (women, environmental, leftist Christians, local, etc) to supplement their base. In turn they would also remove their utopian and Leninist illusions of the past which encouraged them to undervalue Liberal Democracy and which encouraged a polarization that led to their defeat. So far, so good, but the results, as Roberts shows, is very depressing. The savagery of the Pinochet years shattered the traditional trade union movements, industrial base, and what peasant base the left had. The result was a powerful atomization that limited the capacity of the left to get popular support. Of course, Pinochet ensured that the new constitutional order would leave the army's privileges intact and give the Right special bonuses. Moderate Socialist intellectuals theorized about how "deepening democracy" might serve as a substitute for attempts to abolish capitalism outright. In practice, however, they favored a policy of compromise with moderate centrists. Fearing that an aggressive, or even moderately principled position, would encourage the right to support a return to dictatorship, the moderate Left did nothing to encourage or mobilize the grassroots for a more radical democracy. It could provide little help to a shattered trade union movement. Instead political life has been demobilized, with political life confined to elections and the rather atomistic and limited viewpoint it fosters. At the same time the once strong Chilean Communist Party has not moved beyond the limits of a Vanguard Leninist strategy which hampers mobilizing the Chilean population. Even more distressing is the situation in Peru, where the United Left got a third of the vote in the mid-eighties and at one point seemed to be about to win the presidency. But in a brilliant chapter Roberts shows how it all fell apart. The union movement and much of the hard work the Left had put into organizing the shantytowns of Lima collapsed in the late 1980s when the economy collapsed. At the same time the terrorist Sendero Luminiso encouraged popular fear and panic while brutally attacking the Democratic Left's institutions. Meanwhile the United Left became divided between its moderate and leftist forces. "Indeed, the moderate and radical agendas were mutually negating: the electoralism of Barrantes marginalized and diffused the grass-roots organs of popular power that were integral to the PUM's strategy, while its radical demands polarized the political arena in ways that made it impossible for Barrantes to perform an integrative role." Economic disaster shattered the grassroots groups and it also put the political institutions of the country into contempt, so both radical and moderate approaches failed. Instead into the vacuum appeared Alberto Fujimori who established an authoritarian regime occasionally vindicated by elections. Roberts concludes that "democracy is not served by self-containment, it thrives on deep social roots, a broad base of support, and a capacity to adapt to changing circumstances and newly emerging social pressures, all of which require a participatory civil society." Instead of a vibrant democracy we get an emasculated one, with consequences to be felt far into the future. Maybe forever.
<< 1 >>
| 
