The Shift to the Left

Levitsky and Roberts discuss at the length the rise of the left in Latin American politics. The rise started with Chavez in Venezuela and continued with elections in Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil, among others. Much of the result of this rise was due to the debt crisis in the decade prior. The debt crisis was worsened by Washington Consensus policies, and it fueled a great backlash domestically–hence the move to the left. The end of the Cold War was a critical geopolitical event that had cultural implications. There was no longer a fear that a turn to the left was an alliance with the Soviet Union. A common misconception is that leftist governments seek to implement a strict socialist policy. The authors countered this narrative: “The Left in Latin America is no longer defined by a commitment to a socialist model of development. Instead, its commitments to equality, social justice, and popular participation produce an open-ended struggle for social transform” (Levitsky and Roberts). In my research paper, I will specifically examine the social justice side of this turn to the left specifically regarding marriage equality in Argentina. This shift to a social justice focus in particular has strongly impacted the campaign there. The appeal of the left exists with investment in the middle and working classes. The right often keeps an appeal in the working class due to the religious component.

 

The authors go on to cite the electoral competition as the reason leftist groups failed to gain power before. This was seen in Mexico with the PRI and also with Ecuador with Shining Path turning to terrorism. In the past, leftist governments were elected only to shift to the right after election. The authors also make two distinctions between types of leftist uprisings. In places where there a history of dictatorship and an economic burden of the debt crisis, leftist movements worked within the existing order; in places where there was a history of struggling democracy and neoliberal backlash, the status quo in the institution of the system was challenged.

 

In the textbook, Smith and Sells elaborate on this geopolitical landscape that allowed the left to rise more easily. Prior to the end of the Cold War, the left was normally boxed into a corner of supporting the Soviets and advancing American hostility–which was often against their macroeconomic interests. Post 1990, the left could seek implementation of its platform while still keeping American alliances. In my opinion, this was the biggest reason for the rise of the left especially given the timing of it.

 

In illustrate this in politics today, we once again must turn to Venezuela. Nicolas Maduro of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela is becoming increasing dictatorial. Mr. Maduro recently suspended the Congress and put their affairs under the control of the Supreme Court under which he has manipulated to have de facto control over due to friendly appointments. This is where the turn to the left is going very badly. The opposition and demos are protesting, but Mr. Maduro has remained in power longer than most thought he would. Most foreign policy analysts think that his time is limited however. 
In Argentina, leftist president Kirchner recently preceded Mauricio Macri of the more conservative Republican Party. The people of Argentina became disenchanted with Ms. Kirchner’s left policies and corruption scandals and wanted to turn to the more free market policies of Mr. Macri.  

To conclude, while the rise of the left has been a strong force, there are indications that a move to the right is happening in some places.