International Forum on the Social Science – Policy Nexus (IFSP)

Latin America: Amidst Melancholic Discourse and the Voluntarist Construction of the Future Alain Touraine

Acknowledgments

It is a great honour and a dire responsibility to open this seminar by addressing these words to such a distinguished audience, filled with so many important personalities, among which some lead the destinies of Latin America, or are concerned with analysing and understanding it.

But I would also like to make use of this occasion to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of my first visit to this continent – to Chile, to be more precise –, and express my thankfulness for all that I’ve learned from Latin Americans ever since, for the friendship and affection that I have received from so many people in every country, in every social group. I will try to show my gratitude by sharing with you a few ideas, in the hope that they will be useful for the people and countries of this continent.

The National-Populist Model

The long period comprised between the great changes of the early XXth century – most notably the Mexican Revolution and the Cordoba Movement – and the end of the developmental period of the late 1970’s, was dominated by the conflict between social forces, political parties and ideologies in regard of the appropriation of the major social resources. Latin America’s input to world history has had a rather limited span – albeit the great influence of the Cuban Revolution –, but the specific model of social and economic transformation that came out of structural dualism, inequality and social exclusion, State interventions on the economy and the incidence of a State-linked middle-class, has been thoroughly analysed. All these elements, that I have called elsewhere the “World of Words” in opposition to a “World of Blood” – which exists in cities and rural areas as well – represent the foremost and most visible characteristic of Latin American society. A second feature, which is perhaps the most important one in terms of social analysis, is the relentless blend of the State, the political parties, the social movements and the civil society actors. This interpenetration makes it difficult to speak in terms of social class or to apply the European notion of State in Latin America.

The National-Popular or popular regimes expressed these features by handing over to an ideologically overcharged State the means to intervene in every aspect of national life, bearing the autonomous action capacity away from the social actors. This popular-national model was so widely extended that there were actually very few liberal regimes, and none of them succeeded to diminish or fully eliminate the State interventions.

It’s in the midst of this comprehensive political model that the Theory of Dependence – one of Latin America’s major contributions to contemporary thinking – was built. Many intellectuals have considered that this theory was so deeply grounded in the region’s economic and political institutions that no space was left for political or social movements, and as a result, political action could only be conducted through the guerrilla movements or the campaigns denouncing the subordination of the national States to USA’s imperialism.

Another group, less numerous but whose influence has widely increased since the 1990`s, sustains that, even if the weight of dependence is remarkable in Latin American societies, other problems drawn from class conflict and the difficulties of national integration, which resulted from the plurality of local political field having conquered a certain autonomy, are not less noteworthy. Let’s not forget that these debates took place in a continent fully immerged in an accelerated transformation process, and were held by prominent intellectual and political figures such as Raúl Previch, Celso Furtado, Aníbal Pinto or Enrique Iglesias, to name just a few, all of whom have shaped efficient development programs for the continent.

Global Capitalism

The inescapable starting point of our analysis is the loss of influence of this model in regard of the conquests and global expansion of neo-liberal theories and politics. The internal crisis that touched many countries in the region have contributed to prop-up a dramatic image of the hasty, and sometimes brutal passage from national-populism to neo-liberalism, as identified to a widely internationalised economy. In some cases, the rupture was realised through military coups that ended up settling authoritarian regimes, while in other cases the new policies and ideas were imposed with no political violence whatsoever. Overriding these internal processes, the international financial institutions imposed the kind of structural reforms articulated in texts such as the Washington Consensus.

This liberalisation program, which aims to isolate the economy from any kind of intervention or political and social regulation whatsoever, can be defined as the triumph of an extreme mode of capitalism – that is, if capitalism is understood as the system that organises an economy with no other tasks or objectives than those of economy itself. In this sense, capitalism is not only defined by the independence and autonomy of the economic actors, but by the influence and legitimacy power of which these actors benefit in almost any sector of social life.

As a consequence of this dominant stance of capitalism, the distance that separates the forces of global economy from the fragmented social and political universe has grown to such an extent that the major social institutions – notably the political system and, mainly, the city – have splintered. For example, the megalopolis is no longer a city in which the siege of political power and social conflict concentrate, but to a large extent a force that disorganises national territoriality. This means yet another and more accomplished fracture between global economy and the social and political processes and institutions.

The inequalities and the social exclusion have increased throughout this period marked by the exclusive dominion of the neo-liberal model. Nevertheless, the relative importance of Latin America in world economy has diminished, inciting the tendency to untie the economic world and the social and political aspects of life.

The three ways

What has been said above is too brief to draw an exact image of one country or another. I have just drawn a draft in order to introduce the central issue of this speech: how to increase the operative capacity and the levels of governance and decision of public and private Latin American centres. In other words, how can social integration and public access to goods, services and other instruments of social and cultural involvement be improved?

Considering the long-term processes I have just mentioned, the main question is how, after a period mainly concerned with the autonomous and almighty economic actors, can forms of social regulation and political control of the economy, compatible with active participation and the global economy be built. Certainly, some groups consider this complementarity impossible, and stand up either for a full liberalisation or a completely voluntarist vision of society. But these immoderate opinions lack of strength.

Without re-enacting the debates that Lenin made famous at the beginning of the XX century, all Latin American countries seem to have some kind of political organisation that allows them to organise elections in which different candidates compete, though many times there is a lack of the conditions that ensure free expression of ideas. It is therefore difficult to sustain a revolutionary position that supposes, as Lenin used to say, that the institutional channels in charge of social change are either blocked-up or simply inexistent. And it is equally hard to imagine a situation in which institutions would have completely lost their autonomy in front of capitalist economy. Most countries have been able to maintain some elements of State intervention or regulation of the economy.

Latin America finds itself now in a rather common situation. There is a tension, and even an alternation between periods of capitalism that seek to destroy every form of control and regulation of the economy, and periods of social and political reconstruction through salary protection, tax increases for enterprises and rich sectors of society, or the building – generally in a limited and retardative way – of social security systems inspired by the European models. The social and economic history of the Western world can be described as an alternation of periods of an increasing freedom of economic forces and periods of an enhanced intervention of the State seeking to improve the redistribution of incomes in benefit of the poorest, although these processes articulate in different ways and entail particular complexities in every country.

However, after a long period of neo-liberalism, it seems now pertinent to consider the possibilities and forms of a new system of social and political intervention in a world still sturdily capitalist. From my point of view, three major tendencies have a propensity to re-organise this capacity of public intervention in the economic field. The first is the Third Way developed by Tony Blair’s policies in the UK; the second is neo-populism, which is clearly understood all over this continent; the third what we could call micro-democracy, inspired by the notion of grassroots democracy developed in the USA during the New Deal period and lately seeming to re-appear in new modalities in several Latin American countries.

a) The first tendency is proper to the English family, and is therefore suits well the European social-democrat tradition. While it could be developed in various European countries, thanks to the dominant forces of syndicalism and the political parties that leant on them, in Latin America the Third Way hasn’t received a major support, and its reforms are therefore discreet. However, these reforms have been much more significant than what most analysts have observed. The eradication of illiteracy among young Brazilians, for instance, under Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s administration, or the eradication of indigence and strong reduction of extreme poverty in Ricardo Lagos’ Chile and the great effort made in order to ensure an equalitarian access to health care through the AUGE program, are all very important transformations, from my point of view, that show the real possibility of introducing major reforms in countries fully dominated by world capitalism. Maybe, reforms of this type are easier to take place in countries characterised by some kind fragility, in which sectorial reforms are preferred rather than a generalised political confrontation. This model’s appeal can be measured in Uruguay’s evolution from its populist- revolutionary origins towards this model of pacific transformation. b) Nevertheless, the continent has not been able to reduce its inequality levels, which are so striking that the growth and stability of the democratic process don’t seem realizable. This incapacity to transform the most important aspect of social organization, as well as the incapability to ensure the progressive integration of the population in the political system, creates the conditions for a return to the populist model. This is why we are facing again a neo-populist wave, now covering an important part of the continent. And I must also note that in many countries this neo-populism, even if it’s not the dominant tendency, is still significant.

The influence of “chavismo” is very important not only in Bolivia and Peru, but also in Argentina, a country historically and socially quite distinct to Venezuela. Even in European countries, passionate claims and speeches in favour or against Chavez are heard all over. Chavez’s image can be compared to Fidel Castro’s thirty years ago: both leaders have given and still give a high priority to the struggle against the US’s economic and political hegemony, and neither of them trusts the moderate reforms of national-popular governments.

Behind the Venezuelan leader’s figure rises the image of the alter-world movements, which have reasonably abandoned their original “anti-globalization” etiquette. In fact, when we talk about these movements we must refer to the orientation taken by their leaders, since their base is highly diversified. A very significant group of ATTAC militants, backed by Le Monde Diplomatique, gave the movement an orientation opposed to the US, in regard to this country’s intervention in Iraq. This doesn’t mean, however, that this particular nucleus has a complete or increasing control on the basis’ activities.

c) The third path that seems to guide the present and future of the region does not respond to an organised form, but to the effort of low-base social organizations. At this moment, these micro-movements and the central nucleus I have just mentioned above are still not strongly integrated. A lack of coordination between the immense diversity of the groups that compose the alter-world movements and the political discourse of the central nucleuses could be perceived at Porto Alegre and other cities having held the movement’s Social Forums. In a country like Mexico, and most notably in the university campuses, the number of activist groups formed by students is rather impressive. Notwithstanding the fact that Mexico’s political system is blocked, few other countries have its political vitality. Yet, no major transformation has been achieved since an important reform that made lots of things possible.

The participation of a political base is notable in the case of the Zapatista movement in Chiapas. Its importance resides in the fact that the movement emerged as an alternative to the logics of guerrilla movements, in which middle-class urban students made contact with peasants mainly as a means to destabilize the regime, often through military action. The Zapatista movement, on the contrary, was in the first place a direct mobilisation of the four Maya nations of the Lacandona jungle; but at the same time, sub-commander Marcos has tried to encompass the movement in relation to a wider movement in benefit of Mexico’s democratisation.

After the defeat of the engagements exposed before the Zapatistas’ rally to Mexico City, the visibility of the movement has somehow diminished, though their objectives and goals of the movement are still significant – something that can be measured, for example, in the constitution of the “caracoles” (curls), a new kind of municipal organization founded on participative democracy. To an extent, Mexico’s situation can be compared to China’s, where protest movements explode on a daily basis against political and economic authorities, but are systematically destroyed whenever they try to reach the higher levels of national organization.

In any of these two cases the possibility of a fundamental transformation of the political regime as a consequence of popular movements’ activities can be foreseen, but they clearly show that capitalism (being it market economy or the authoritarian State’s capitalism) can not fully control populations. In the Mexican case, these movements are even more isolated since the syndicates are still controlled by the State and the big political parties.

I think that the diversity of these tendencies does not menace the increasing integration of Latin America in a global economy in which all countries, including China, participate. But it is worth stating that a new political climate, more hostile towards the United States, has set up to such an extent that even the FEMA project no longer looks as feasible as it seemed just a few years ago. Some countries, with Venezuela in the first rang, have created a movement of anti-American opinion that assimilates, in ostensible but unclear ways, the critic of global economy and the rejection of US’s moral and military hegemony.

When Economists Become Sociologists

This brief analysis shows that the main process that’s taking place nowadays in Latin America consists in seeking a way out of the neo-liberal model. That is, the reconstruction of control and regulation forms compatible with globalization, but nonetheless open to political projects and struggles. This situation demands a critical analysis of the way in which the Social Sciences have developed until today. During the national-populist regimes period, several research centres devoted to Social Sciences were created – starting in Mexico’s UNAM, soon to be followed by Argentina, where Gino Germani created a very important Sociology centre; the same happened later in Santiago and Sâo Paulo, where I was given the opportunity to actively participate.

In a matter of a few years, many universities, from Lima to Asunción, started to teach Sociology, and the number of original projects that transform the traditional academic programs keeps growing. At the same time, there has been an interesting increase of North American sociologists specialised in Latin America, regrouped around LASA. Many European countries have also shown interest in Latin America, even if less actively than during the most dramatic period of the continent’s history – the military dictatorships. Of course, during this period lots of social scientists were forced to exile and research activities were repressed. However, once these dictatorships had ended, it seems to me that the new intellectual development of Social Sciences was more limited that expected, partly because the academic salaries went down to a level that doesn’t allow to live out of full time research, and partly because the previous generation’s work legacy was overcharged with ideologies that had already declined, specially after the fall of the Eastern block.

But despite these practical and political difficulties, I would like to highlight a problem that I consider of first importance for the intellectual and political life of the continent: the need to abandon the determinist approach according to which the economic situation defines personal and collective conducts. Allow me to insist in the necessity of replacing this method – which used to be dominant for several years – for a new one in which the emphasis is placed on the social actors, on their actual conditions and mobilisation forms.

Placing the attention on the social actors of economic life is something that some economists have managed to do very well. Amartya Sen has produced the most significant study in this sense. The National Reports on Human Development made by the UNDP show that the economic situation must be redefined in the first place by taking into account the access to education, justice and other public goods as part of the global income; and secondly – and most important –, by considering the way in which the inhabitants capabilities are measured.

The transformation of sociological thought resulted in the decadence of the Marxist- oriented functionalist thinking of the 1950’s. What I mean to say is that it is not only that sociological thinking has profoundly changed, but that it has also revalorized the autonomy and the importance of political action. This implies a return to the theories that, during the 1960’s and 1970’s contested the most extreme forms of the Dependence theories – those who left no space for political action.

The notion of sustainable development indicates not only the need to respect the interests of the decision makers, but also the interests of those who are too far away to be heard, or even the unborn who will probably inherit from us a dangerous and menaced world. In this sense, the notion of sustainable development, in order to effectively take account of long-term problems, demands in priority a debate and a political process capable of integrating all actors, present and future ones.

The deepest transformation is the one that goes beyond the interests of corporate enterprises, that places the interests of humanity as a whole in its centre, that considers the groups directly or indirectly affected by the consequences of the production modes. And of course, the cultural aspects must be taken into account. In other words, we need to give a voice to those who don’t have one for any reason. We need to ensure the transit from a political democracy that doesn’t affect essentially the definition of collective future, to a model of democracy that’s not only participative, but capable of proposing new developments as well. That is, a political life that can decide not to accept certain risks (i.e. the use of materials and production modes having proved hazardous).

However, it is not easy to propose the measures and channels through which public opinion can be expressed. In this sense, I think that the medias have a major responsibility in regard of public issues, and must therefore have the will and the means to express and augment the action capacities of the public opinion streams, as when they mobilise in response to scandals that escape the control of the traditional political system.

One of the most difficult problems demanding our attention has to do with the formation of public opinion in the global society. It is not global problems that incite public opinion to mobilise, and nor are strictly local ones. If I may use an ambiguous term, it is “glocal” issues (local effects derived from global processes) that ensure an efficient mobilisation capacity. The case of asbestos is a good example, as the reaction to the Chernobyl catastrophe exposed the responsibility of Ukraine’s nuclear production organization – or disorganization – system.

In Latin America, written and talk press – especially television – is often controlled by political and economic groups, and is for this reason respectful of their interests. Even in the best of the cases, representative institutions are rather weak on the subject of accessibility and democratic use of the media – in particular television and, perhaps more dramatically, Internet. These two very important medias could be regarded as the indispensable instruments for the formation of democratic streams that might sometime transform the actual economic and political systems, which hardly ever take into account the interests and opinions of large segments of the population.

Thanks to the work developed by economists and social scientists, it is worthy to observe that, after a long period dominated by the disorganisation of administered economy, and once the negative effects of re-adjustment programs are evident, there is a return to the idea that suggests that good economic results derive from social initiatives and processes, both deeply rooted in a popular basis.

This indicates, once again, the fundamental role of education, as well as the consciousness that the next generation’s destinies depend on us. No act is more suicidal than disregarding this facts.

The Europeans have discovered what it means to live in a risky society; many Africans live nowadays in dramatic conditions of insecurity and disgrace; a large part of Latin America is menaced by its incapacity to confront difficult issues, most notably the re- organization of political parties and communication systems, in order to ensure the free expression of the population and determine the fundamental goals for the future.

Half a century ago, we discussed thoroughly about the need of replacing an external dynamics model of growth for an internal dynamics model of development; now it is important to criticise the policies dictated from the higher levels and encourage the processes of development put together from below. Latin American thinking has for several years played an important role in the configuration of policies and public opinion all over the world. In this sense, it is important that each country, alone or in association with others, raises its voice in order to present its own way of understanding what sustainable development can be and should be, in regard of its own populations.

Between Shadows and Light

This is not the place for optimistic or pessimistic conclusions. I only want to insist that neo-populist today, just like national-popular regimes in former times, don’t produce neither economic growth or social justice, but a confuse mixture of social and economic measures that give more importance to distribution and communication than production and struggle against inequality. The boundaries that distinguish positive and negative processes pass, on the contrary, through the separation and complementarity of economic competence and social justice. If any of these fundamental goals is abandoned, failure is inescapable. Moreover, it is necessary to maintain a tension between them, between capitalist iniciatives and social and political efforts tending to re-create a social integration hindered by wealth accumulation on the leading groups.

The rhetoric that mixes all the objectives in a national or popular discourse can’t produce any positive effects. We need an open space for capitalist iniciatives and we need, especially nowadays, a quick comeback of socially and nationally determined policies, aimed against the inequalities that don’t allow any real development of Latin America’s economy and societies.

Thank you.

Unedited working document of the International Forum on the Social Science - Policy Nexus. Please do not circulate or cite without the author's permission.

The author is responsible for the choice and the presentation of the facts contained in this document and for the opinions expressed therein, which do not necessarily represent the views of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization. The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.