Does the rise of left-leaning governments in Latin America, particularly the election of Evo Morales as president of Bolivia, presage a shift to the hard left across the continent? Does it mark a repudiation of US foreign policy in the region? Will it, for example, lead to a re-nationalization of Bolivia's vast natural gas deposits?
These are vital questions, but they miss the larger significance of the rise of someone like Morales, for he is Bolivia's first indigenous elected head of state. His victory marks a step forward in Latin America's overall democratization, with positive long-term significance for economic and social development in the region.
To understand why, it is helpful to take a broad view of Latin America's history and economic development. The societies of the Americas were forged by European conquests of indigenous populations, and by the racial and ethnic divisions that followed. Both the US and Latin America are still coming to terms with those historic divisions.
The Europeans who conquered and colonized the Americas after 1492 did not find vast empty lands, as they sometimes proclaimed, but rather lands populated by communities dating back thousands of years. A large portion of the indigenous populations quickly succumbed to diseases and hardships brought by the European colonizers, but many survived, often in dominant numbers, as in Bolivia and much of the highlands of the Andes mountain range.
Almost everywhere, these surviving indigenous populations became subservient members of European-led societies. The Europeans then brought millions of African slaves to the Americas. After emancipation in the 19th century, the African-American communities remained impoverished and largely bereft of political rights.
Thus, vast inequalities of power, social standing, and economic well-being were part and parcel of the forging of the Americas. Indigenous, African-American and mestizo (mixed) communities have been fighting for their social, political and economic rights ever since.
Democracy in Latin America has been a hard-won struggle. Even in the US, a country that fancies itself as a model of democracy, African-Americans were not truly enfranchised until the mid-1960s. In Latin America, democracy has similarly been incomplete, unstable and often inaccessible to indigenous, African-American and mixed populations.
Moreover, given the vast inequalities of power and wealth in Latin America, and with a large part of the population bereft of land and education, the region has long been vulnerable to populist politics and rebellions, with leaders promising quick gains for the dispossessed by seizing property from the elite. The elite have, in turn, fought back, often brutally, to protect their property. Politics has often been more a violent than an electoral struggle, and property rights have often been tenuous.
A dominant pattern in both the US and Latin America has been the resistance of dominant white communities to sharing the cost of investment in the "human capital" (health and education) of black and indigenous communities. While European societies have developed social welfare states with universal access to public health and education services, the elite throughout the Americas have tended to favor private-sector provision of health and education, in part reflecting white populations' unwillingness to pay for social services for other ethnic and racial groups.
Morales' election in Bolivia -- where indigenous groups are estimated to comprise around 55 percent of the population and mixed-race people account for another 30 percent -- should be viewed against this historical backdrop. Moreover, Bolivia is not alone: the shift from military rule to democratic politics in Latin America during the past 20 years is gradually but consistently broadening political empowerment beyond the traditional elite and dominant ethnic groups. In Peru, for example, Alejandro Toledo is that country's first indigenous president.
In the longer term, the spread of democracy in Latin America promises not only fairer societies, but also economically more dynamic societies, through increased public investments in health, education and job skills. The region's chronic under-investment in education, particularly in science and technology, is partly responsible for its economic stagnation during the past quarter of a century.
Unlike East Asia and India, most of Latin America did not make a breakthrough to high-technology industries, instead suffering a period of low GDP growth, debt crises and economic instability.
This can now change, at least gradually. Bolivia would do well to follow the example of its eastern neighbor, Brazil, which has experienced a surge in educational and scientific investments since its democratization in the 1980s. Rising educational attainment is helping to promote more technologically sophisticated exports as well.
Of course, Morales' election also raises many important short-term doubts and questions. Will the new government follow responsible economic policies, or will Bolivia flirt yet again with destabilizing populist measures, as it has done so often in the past? Will Morales renegotiate the laws and contracts governing Bolivia's vast natural gas reserves, as his government is rightly committed to do, in a way that does not scare away urgently needed foreign investment?
Bolivia has entered a new era of mass mobilization of its long-suffering but now victorious indigenous communities. The short-term outlook is uncertain. In the longer run, however, it's right to bet on the economic benefits of democratization.
Jeffrey Sachs is a professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with