Cynthia J. Arnson Kenneth Roberts Leslie Bethell René Antonio Mayorga The ‘New Left’ and Robert Kaufman Felipe Agüero Ariel Armony Democratic Governance in Eric Hershberg Roberto Russell Latin America Edited by Cynthia J. Arnson with José Raúl Perales The ‘New Left’ and Democratic Governance in Latin America Cynthia J. Arnson Kenneth Roberts Leslie Bethell René Antonio Mayorga Robert Kaufman Felipe Agüero Ariel Armony Eric Hershberg Roberto Russell Edited by Cynthia J. Arnson with José Raúl Perales August 2007 The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, established by Congress in 1968 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., is a living national memorial to President Wilson. The Center’s mission is to commemorate the ideals and concerns of Woodrow Wilson by pro- viding a link between the worlds of ideas and policy, while fostering research, study, discussion, and collaboration among a broad spectrum of individuals concerned with policy and scholarship in national and international affairs. Supported by public and private funds, the Center is a nonpartisan institution engaged in the study of national and world affairs. It establishes and maintains a neutral forum for free, open, and informed dialogue. Conclusions or opinions expressed in Center publi- cations and programs are those of the authors and speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center staff, fellows, trustees, advi- sory groups, or any individuals or organizations that provide financial support to the Center. The Center is the publisher of The Wilson Quarterly and home of Woodrow Wilson Center Press, dialogue radio and television, and the monthly news-letter “Centerpoint.” For more information about the Center’s activities and publications, please visit us on the web at www.wilsoncenter.org. Lee H. Hamilton, President and Director Available from : Latin American Program Board of Trustees Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Joseph B. Gildenhorn, Chair One Woodrow Wilson Plaza David A. Metzner, Vice Chair 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Public members: James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress; Bruce Cole, Washington, DC 20004-3027 Chair, National Endowment for the Humanities; Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Tamala L. www.wilsoncenter.org/lap Longaberger, designated appointee within the Federal Government; Condoleezza Rice, Secretary, U.S. Department of State; Cristián Samper, ISBN 1-933549-20-3 Acting Secretary, Smithsonian Institution; Margaret Spellings, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education; Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the Cover photo: © Jorge Silva/Reuters/Corbis United States Supporters of Chilean presidential candidate Michelle Bachelet of the Private Citizen Members: Robert B. Cook, Donald E. Garcia, Socialist Party celebrate after presidential election results were Bruce S. Gelb, Sander Gerber, Charles L. Glazer, Susan Hutchison, released in Santiago, January 15, 2006. Ignacio E. Sanchez Contents 3 Introduction Cynthia J. Arnson 10 Conceptual and Historical Perspectives Kenneth Roberts Leslie Bethell René Antonio Mayorga 24 Political Economy and the ‘New Left’ Robert Kaufman 31 Politics and Society Felipe Agüero Ariel Armony Eric Hershberg 44 Foreign Policy Roberto Russell 50 About the Contributors | 1 | Introduction Cynthia J. Arnson1 s a result of over a dozen presidential elections held in Latin America from late 2005 to the end of 2006, the idea that a “new ALeft” has come to power has defined popular as well as scholarly understanding of political developments in the region. The outcomes of the 2006 presidential elections in Colombia, Peru, and Mexico demon- strated that a perceived hemispheric “swing to the left” in Latin America is by no means universal. Nonetheless, there is truth to the perception that an unprecedented number of current presidents or their followers define themselves as leftists or represent parties or party coalitions his- torically defined as on the Left—the Chilean Socialists, for example, or the Brazilian Partido do Trabalhadores (Worker’s Party) and the Uruguayan Frente Amplio (Broad Front). Taking into account Venezuela under Hugo Chávez (first elected in 1998), Brazil under Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2002 and 2006), Argentina under Néstor Kirchner (2003), Uruguay under Tabaré Vásquez (2004), Bolivia under Evo Morales (2005), Chile under Michele Bachelet (2006), Nicaragua under Daniel Ortega (2006), and Ecuador under Rafael Correa (2006), close to 60 percent of Latin America’s total population of 527 million live in countries governed by elected presidents to the left of the political spectrum. That said, the desire to characterize broad political trends has not necessarily deepened our understanding of how or why left governments have come to power, the nature of the political systems from which they emerge, the types of social coalitions supporting them, the kinds of poli- cies adopted by their leaders, or—most important of all— their impact on the future of democratic governance in the region. Analysts as well as policymakers have drawn a distinction between a “social democratic Left” (represented by Chile, Brazil, and Uruguay), and a “populist Left” | 3 | The ‘New Left’ and Democratic Governance in Latin America Introduction (represented by Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and, to a lesser strategies and others returning to past models of state control and eco- extent, Argentina), each with different implications for domestic as well nomic nationalism. With respect to the making of foreign policy, Roberto as foreign policy.2 Russell argues that the importance of ideological considerations should not As Kenneth Roberts argues in this report, however, such a dichotomy be exaggerated; presumed ideological affinities among countries of the fails to do justice to the diversity of left expression in contemporary Latin region do little to explain the persistent conflicts and tensions that exist. America, a diversity better understood in relationship to political develop- The principal divergences in foreign policy, Russell maintains, are more ments in the aftermath of neo-liberal structural adjustment in the 1990s. related to such issues as the density of linkages with the United States— Leslie Bethell, moreover, points out that being on the Left in Latin America something closely correlated with geographical proximity—and to the today means something different than it did in earlier historical periods degree of support for free trade agreements with the United States. (the 1930s, for example, or the years following the Cuban revolution). This publication—the first of the Latin American Program’s three- He questions whether populism itself is part of the Left, underscoring year project on “The ‘New Left’ and Democratic Governance in Latin examples of right-wing populism in the region as well as the antagonism America”—is based on presentations at a November 2006 workshop of historical populist leaders such as Brazil’s Getúlio Vargas or Argentina’s in Washington, D.C. Participants included Felipe Agüero, University of Juan Domingo Perón to the organized Left in those countries. René Miami and FLACSO-Chile; Ariel Armony, Colby College; Leslie Bethell, Mayorga, meanwhile, emphasizes the importance of institutional develop- Oxford University, UK; Javier Corrales, Amherst College; Eric Hershberg, ment, particularly that of party systems, as the key to making meaningful Social Science Research Council and Simon Fraser University, Canada; distinctions among left regimes. Today’s “neo-populism,” he argues, is Robert Kaufman, Rutgers University; Eugenio Lahera, Chile XXI; Juan Pablo characterized by a pattern of personalistic and anti-institutionalist politics Luna, Universidad Católica, Chile; René Mayorga, Centro Boliviano de not linked to a common set of economic policies, such as the import sub- Estudios Multidisciplinarios (CEBEM); Cynthia McClintock, The George stitution industrialization of the past.3 As Felipe Agüero indicates, however, Washington University; Kenneth Roberts, Cornell University; and Roberto questions of institutional design have not typically figured prominently Russell, Universidad Torcuato di Tella, Argentina.4 By exploring politi- on the agenda of the Left, despite an urgent need to do so on questions of cal trends and policy outcomes in eight countries—Argentina, Bolivia, citizen security and the fight against crime and violence. Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Venezuela—the Project The deeper one delves, moreover, the more the differences surface. aims to understand why so many governments of the Left have come to Most analysts agree, for example, that President Hugo Chávez’s brand of power in Latin America at this particular moment in the region’s history, top-down political mobilization, outside of and antagonistic to the insti- and explore the impact of specific public policies in the areas of social tutions of liberal democracy, bears little resemblance to the kind of politi- welfare, citizen participation, human rights, and foreign relations. cal representation in Brazil, Chile, or Uruguay, where left parties have A working hypothesis is that the electoral outcomes of the past two moderated over time and participate fully in stable, competitive electoral years reflect widespread popular dissatisfaction with the failure of two de- systems. Even comparisons of supposedly similar regimes—the so-called cades of neo-liberal reform to deliver broadly-shared social benefits, as “radical populists”