Introduction of Brochure "Upsurge in Latin America – Europe on the Defensive?" (RLF Brussels, 2011)

 

Birgit Daiber, RLF Brussels

 

For the second time, political activists from Latin America and Europe met in Brussels at the invitation of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation to discuss their experiences with left governments and/or left participation in government. At the first meeting, the widespread opinion was: yes in spite of some disappointing results, as in France and Italy, the left cannot evade the challenge of government participation.

The second conference was to serve the purpose of deepening our understanding of the issue. How is the left reacting to the global crisis? What strategic concepts exist? What are the political issues in which the left is implementing new concepts? What about such issues as participatory justice, ecology, deepening democracy, or an alternative financial architecture? Are developments in Latin America and Europe comparable in the first place? What can leftists in Latin America and Europe learn from one another?

In his introductory statement, Michael Brie, director of the Institute for Critical Social Analysis of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, pointed to the development of the European social democrats, who have been pursuing deregulatory strategies since the mid-‘90s, and have thus contributed considerably to the neoliberal restructuring of national economies and to the dismantling of social supports in Europe. Especially the New Labour government in Britain and the Red-Green government in Germany played an ominous leading role in this regard. We now see the global crisis and its European aspects as an opportunity to build new contacts and new relationships for the development of counter-hegemonic strategies. For this purpose, several decisive conditions must be met. What is needed is new alliances, transformational projects, left forces capable of cooperation and with a realistic option for power, and strong democratic participation by the citizens.

 

In order for left forces to be able to develop such a perspective in a structurally conservative societal situation characterized by the defensive struggles of social actors, goal perspectives must be drafted which offer development opportunities for the majority of society, such as an improved system for protection against social risks, possibilities for social advancement, and ecological progress. Michael Brie asks the European left whether it is really convinced that a different politics is possible, and whether it is prepared to enter into the alliances necessary for that.

Iole Ilíada, Director of the Perseu Abramo Foundation in Brazil, referred to the general issue at hand at the first Latin America Europe conference of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation in 2009: Under which conditions does it make sense for left political forces to participate in government? How can they arrive at a position where they do not merely administer the existing system, and move towards a transformational perspective of the capitalist system? She refers to Antonio Gramsci, and states with regard to Latin America that not every progressive policy is also a piece of transformation of the relations of power. At the same time, the left must understand that it is not an observer, but an actor in a dynamic process. In Latin America, the left forces have been elected to government due to the crisis of the neoliberal model. This was possible because not only the social movements and the working class, but also parts of the middle strata rejected the negative effects of the neoliberal model. In addition, the socially disadvantaged indigenous population conquered new free spaces. However: being in government does not mean one holds power. In Latin America, left movements and governments continue to be constantly threatened by reactionary political forces, which are still strong, and will use any possibility for a coup d'état. Hence, Iole Ilíada concludes, there is no alternative for the left forces but to their historic opportunity; nonetheless the left must be clear about the fact that the path to real change of the relationships will be long and stony.

Pedro Páez, president of the Ecuadorian government’s Commission for a New International Financial Architecture, refers to Michael Brie and to the question of the extent to which it may be successful to develop a new historical subject of change under conditions of the systemic crisis of capitalism. The crisis is sharpening not only the conflict between pauperization and the accumulation of wealth in the world, it is also providing an opportunity to develop a redefinition of political ethics and economic rationality, which would at the same time move human liberation and individual dignity to centre stage. Páez calls the current era the senile phase of capitalism.

Since what is at issue is a systemic crisis, systemic answers are required. The confrontation not only involves the necessity for transformation of the mode of production, but also the transformation of capitalistically determined mode of living. Especially in Ecuador and Bolivia, this aspect is being formulated through a transformation of values and basic goals, incorporated in the new constitutions with the terms ”buen vivir” and “vivir in plenitude” (living well, living in plenty). At issue here is the fundamentally different relationship between humankind and nature, and fundamentally different social relationships between people. However, such an alternative model of the mode of living can only develop in the context of a transformation of the relations of production – and this in turn can only come about if the means of regulation are changed. In a historical excursus, Páez describes the history of colonial and postcolonial extractivism – the exploitation of resources and people – in Latin America, and its effects today’s progressive and left governments. He emphasizes that not only an analysis of the crisis of capitalism, but also of a new type of crisis capitalism which renders governments, states and even each individual powerless, is necessary.

 

He recommends concentrating on a new mode of regulation. He sees the Banco del Sur as a specific project of this type, incorporating a south-south development bank and the interregional monetary instrument sucre, which is been launched by Latin American countries. He stresses the continued existential importance of international agreements, such as the debt moratorium for countries of the South, a fundamental change in the structure of the IMF, and a ban on criminal financial instruments.

Daniela Trochowski, Secretary of State for Finance of the German state of Brandenburg, describes the extremely difficult financial situation of her state, which is been considerably aggravated by the crisis. The state currently has €20 billion in debts, and depends on the interstate financial compensation mechanism which exists in Germany. Due to the crisis, Brandenburg has received €204 million less in transfer payments from wealthier states under that system, and since tax revenue has also been reduced by the crisis, there are very few possibilities for reducing the structural budget deficit. At the same time, the current crisis of public budgets is first and foremost the result of a neoliberal doctrine which supports tax cuts and the reduction of public services, and rejects market regulation. By contrast, the crisis shows that it is urgently necessary to regulate financial markets and reform financial institutions, so that social and ecological goals can be realized. Regulation is a public duty, and a key demand of the left. Unlike the practice of European states, which have pumped billions of euros of tax money into the financial markets in order to save them, tax revenues should be used for social and ecological transformation.

The Brandenburg state government coalition of Social Democrats and the Left Party is trying in spite of difficult conditions to provide impulses for alternative policies. The qualitative improvement of the educational sector by the hiring of new teachers in schools and kindergartens, the creation of a public employment sector for the long-term unemployed, and the extension of the student basic support programme to include low income secondary school pupils in the last years before leaving school are important steps toward a courageous but realistic politics. Our experience shows that it makes an important difference whether the Left Party is in government or not.

 

Valter Pomar of the Workers’ Party of Brazil, and director of the São Paulo Forum, provided an overview of the current debate on the left in Latin America, and formulated three questions: To what extent do left governments provide an extension of power to the working classes? To what extent does government action contribute to permanent change in the structure of society, and to reducing capitalist hegemony? And finally: could these changes be reversed by a return of the right to power?

Pomar states that in the ten country reports presented, there is a wide range of different assessments of the situation, not only with regard to the issues raised, but also to the direct interests of the various social groups in these countries. He adds that there remain theoretical deficits in the analysis of the social structures of the subcontinent regarding the continued existence of capitalist dominance. The effects of the global crisis are not as great as had been feared, because most countries had already previously initiated redistribution processes in order to diversify their markets. In some countries, new constitutions could be initiated which have the goal of a fundamentally new evaluation of societal goals, and new participatory structures for the citizens.

He identifies three essential levels of intervention of left politics in Latin America: (1) Urgent measures, mostly involving transfers of funds; (2) Implementation of universal policies in the areas of health, education and minimum wages; and (3) Structural reforms with the goal a new relationship between the social classes, such as tax and land reforms.

With regard to ecological demands, the countries are caught in a contradiction between rapid economic growth which is environmentally damaging on the one hand, and slow – and expensive – environmentally compatible growth on the other. At the same time, left governments are forced to defend themselves against the permanent pressure of the disempowered right wing, which is constantly working against them; the offensives of these forces in Central America and the Caribbean have already been successful. Pomar draws the conclusion that the battle for power will be won in a few years – but that the construction of an alternative society will take decades or centuries.

Cornelia Hildebrandt, party researcher at the Institute for Critical Social Analysis at the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, gave an overview of the seven European country reports, and the experiences of left parties in Europe with government participation. Unlike in Latin America, left parties in Europe have always been the smaller partner in governing coalitions with the Social Democrats, or in broader coalitions which have also included centrist parties. That means that the scope of action to realize one's own goals is limited from the outset. It also means that it is not impossible in any of the historic or current instances of participation in government by left parties to implement approaches to a transformation of the capitalist system. The experiences in France, Spain, Italy and Greece also show that the left parties have emerged weakened from their direct participation in governing coalitions, or from the toleration of governments. Often, moreover, left parties and government alliances lose sight of their independent goals in the areas of social policy and peace. They thus run the risk of isolating themselves from the social movements, which however are often the engines of societal emancipation processes. Moreover it becomes much clearer in the course of government participation than it does in opposition that the left parties often – still – have no answers to the current radical processes of transformation of the relations of production. The socio-ecological renewal which encompasses a transformation of production, reproduction and modes of living, is an essential goal of left parties in Europe. At the same time, that goal has yet to be translated into concrete programmes or into practical projects, for the left parties in Europe are still concerned with developing entry projects into the socio-ecological reconstruction process.

Comparing the development of the left in Latin America and Europe, major differences become apparent. The left in Latin America has experienced many electoral successes since 1998, but at the same time, it continues to be confronted with the hegemonic interests of the USA and, increasingly too, of the EU. Undeniably, today’s Latin American left represents a complex and pluralistic heritage, and is very heterogeneous. It includes movements which attempt to realize democracy and justice within the framework of the capitalist system, but also parties and movements fighting for the “socialism of the 21st century”. This heterogeneity is apparent, too, in the profile of leftist governments. Unlike in Europe, the left in Latin America emphasizes not its differences and its ideological conflicts, but its common interests and the building of cooperative structures. Compared with left discourse in Europe, it is apparent that the left in Latin America is engaged in pragmatic reformist activity, and is at the same time anti-capitalistic. It has learned from the long history of resistance and revolutionary tradition that its success depends on democracy and acceptance by the population.

The left in Europe has since 1989 and the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991 been on the defensive. Europe’s social democrats have dedicated themselves to neoliberal policies, and since the beginning of the global crisis in 2008, only with great difficulty found their way back to regulatory policies. After 1989, the left radical parties either became social democratic, withdrew into socio-cultural niches, or changed fundamentally. In addition, Europe – with the exception of Norway – is groaning under the crisis, and the left is forced to fight to preserve the welfare state. In view of massive austerity policies of the nation-states, the scope of action is very restricted, but is being used at the regional level. Currently in Europe, most left government participation – the exception is the Greek part of Cyprus – are located in the North: Iceland, Greenland and Norway. These countries at the same time illustrate the range of crisis developments in Europe: Iceland has only with great difficulty been able to ward off state bankruptcy, while Norway has been virtually unscathed by the crisis. In Iceland, the left in the government coalition is in a peculiar dilemma, in the face of the debt crisis and IMF supervision, so that the scope of action is narrower than it is elsewhere. In Germany, the left is a government in the states of Brandenburg and Berlin, and implementing its own key policies in the areas of education and securing employment. In Italy, the region of Apulia is governed by a leftist regional president, and is attempting to implement the socio-ecological and democratic renewal.

Latin America shows an entirely different picture. In nine countries, the left is in the government, and the anti-capitalist dynamic is very powerful. Gaining control of natural resources in their own countries, building industries, and on the other hand engaging in policies of social redistribution constitute the pragmatic core of the transitory government activity in many countries. The central goal, in the view of left actors, is not blind faith in development – “desarollismo” –but rather alternative focal points to be achieved by deepening democracy and the participation of the population, as well as the concrete struggle against poverty. Here, respect for and participation by the indigenous population is of key importance. At the same time, concepts which are on the verge of realization exist for an alternative financial architecture which could provide important impulses for other world regions as well.

 

The pragmatic core of practical politics is accompanied by very many far-reaching concepts and goals: The Latin American left – in spite of its regional and national differences – is setting new standards in international discourse. Its debates are oriented towards the establishment of new values, such as in the constitutions of Bolivia and Ecuador through the concept of “buen vivir”, which means not prosperity or individualized happiness, but rather a fulfilled life; or raise the issue of “extractivism”, i.e. short-term exploitation of mineral resources without concern for environmental conditions, and propose a new definition of nature as a living entity, and not as an exploitable resource; or which call for new strategies of de-colonization and respect for cultural diverse city and new structures of participatory democracy. All these are elements of a new comprehensive left theory and practice, which cannot really be transferred, but which is of considerable importance for the international discourse.

 

Welcome speech by Lothar Bisky ►