The Resurgence of the Latin American Left:
At the beginning of the 21st century, an upsurge of triumphs by leftist runners has resided in Latin America, where substitutions are connected with an expansion of social and economic practice possibilities in this particular region. This week’s reading further indulges in this notion of “left turn,” focusing exclusively on how it transformed not only who ruled in Latin America, but just as significantly, in what way these particular parties governed. Several factors have contributed to the intensification of Leftist parties in varying Latin American countries, where some countries established a more conventional macroeconomic approach, ensuing closely to the idea of liberal democratic components, while other countries shadowed a more populist and redistributive development.
Based on these particular influences, Levitsky mentions three predominantly crucial classifications in outlining the overall construction of the Left regimes’ economic strategies. The first concept he references is that of “orthodox policies,” which in sum follows the innate procedures and values of economic liberalism. The second notion is that of “statist policies,” where cost-effective rules of the game came about by an efficient growth of state strength over economic action. Lastly, Levitsky refers to the last concept of “heterodoxy” as one of state-run involvement, solely focusing on forming the state as the prime instrument of improvement. These certain concepts, I found to be of great importance, for these three key ideas ultimately sum up the general aims, or explanations, for why and how Leftist governments, or parties, are established, as well as the motives and means in which they go about to accomplishing their overall objectives.
I found these outcomes to be a significant insight as to why and how Leftist parties have ascended to power over the past decades in Latin America, essentially deserting the concept of neoliberalism and accepting more social strategies of redistribution. For recently, the Leftist parties have had to redefine themselves into a more practical entity, one where they were obligated to exercise a more social conversion, becoming more sensible. I support Levitsky’s conclusions that this refers to those Leftists who search to diminish economic and social discriminations, seeking to use communal power to reorganize wealth to low-income masses, thus reinforcing the expression of those disadvantaged within the political procedure.
We can see this particular occurrence during Hugo Chavez’s power in Venezuela, for the 1990’s produced a struggling period where organizational modifications had created a bulk of layoffs and cuts in social amenities, establishing greater differences where the wealthy profited the most from the denationalization schemes. And with Chavez’s pushing against American interventionism, matters begin to arise where military coups would collapse this threat, most of which were backed by the United States, leaving this particular institute into weakness and fearful feelings, yet as we have come to notice, radical replacements have fundamentally vanished, leaving the Latin American Lefts to recognize liberal equality, ultimately consenting to the central types of capitalism.