Oh, the left

Many people and friends view with great sympathy how the left has taken over power in most South American countries. With the exception of Chile and Colombia, all South American countries (Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia) are now governed from the left. Peru is the latest example. After 20 years of right-wing rule, last July Peru shifted to the left as President Humala, a former military and Hugo Chavez admirer, took office. These left-wing governments have a very progressive discourse, one about social inclusiveness, fight against corruption, rupture with the status quo, nationalism, and respect for minorities.

But is this really the case? Bebbington reveals some flaws in the alleged progressiveness of the left. He shows how Morales in Bolivia and Correa in Ecuador have dealt with social movements in an undemocratic way, censoring media and repressing indigenous peoples. More recently, Morales had to forgo his project to build a highway that would cut in half a national park due to indigenous riots.

But they have also failed to fight corruption. Dilma Rousseff in Brazil has faced grave corruption accusations and at least 3 of her ministers (chosen by her!) have had to resign for corruption charges. The Peruvian vice-president (after only 2 months in office!) has been suspended from his duties due to alleged corruption acts. Social conflicts are boiling out of control in Peru, despite the new government’s promise to solve them. Ecuador and Bolivia governments have further struggled to keep their promises to change the economic model from natural resources exploitation to something else.

Brazil is facing serious criticism to its energy projects in the Amazon, as shown by the precautionary/interim measure recently issued by the Inter-American human rights system. The Belo Monte Dam in Brazil, a $17 billion hydroelectric project scheduled for completion in 2015, has been a source of opposition among environmentalist and human rights groups who claim that the life and physical integrity of indigenous peoples is at risk. The dam will flood an estimated 195 square miles of the Amazonian rainforest along the Xingú River and displace some 50,000 people. The Belo Monte Dam will be the world’s third largest and will provide electricity to 23 million homes.

Yet, on April 1, 2011 the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACmHR), a regional human rights body, issued an interim measures asking the Brazilian government to immediately suspend its licensing process for the dam.[1] The IACHR recommended that the Brazilian government consult with the affected groups before proceeding with the project, undertake measures to protect local tribes, and make environmental and social impact statements available in local indigenous languages. The Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded by calling the IACmHR recommendations “precipitous and unwarranted”. Brazilian President Rousseff has ordered an immediate cessation of relations with the IACmHR. Brazil’s justification for this reaction is that the IACmHR is "threatening its national sovereignty".

Why can Brazil get away with this project and, even worse, suspend relationships with a regional human rights body (yes, it’s true that this is a very weak system, especially because Canada and USA are not part of it, but it’s all we have in Latin America)? Would the outcome have been the same is Brazil was government by the right? Brazil is a superpower and this is probably why it can get away with breaching its human rights obligations. Nobody cares about indigenous tribes, unfortunately.

While I risk generalization, my view is that the narrative of left-wing governments (progressive discourse, social inclusiveness, fight against corruption, rupture with the status quo, nationalism, and respect for minorities) has proven to be a false illusion of change for most of their constituencies. Politicians from the right or left are prone to corruption, capture and self-interestedness in the same proportion. New left wing governments are beginning to realize that is not easy to govern a country (as Obama once recognized), to be social inclusive and to respect indigenous rights when the “national interest” (i.e. building dams for power) is at stake. But the right has also learned its lesson: it cannot expect the market to solve the profound injustices of the region, as shown by inequality and poverty figures.

---

[1] See Precautionary Measure 382/10 - Indigenous Communities of the Xingu River Basin, Pará, Brazil http://www.cidh.org/medidas/2011.eng.htm