Latin America's upheaval continues to transform the politics of the continent. In reaction to more than a decade of free-market reforms that failed spectacularly to end poverty but exacerbated extraordinary levels of inequality, left-leaning governments have been elected in one country after another -- this week in Bolivia. But Brazil's experience is a warning to these administrations that, if they are to achieve real change, they need to rely on their own social base as a counterweight to the powers-that-be.
Three years ago, as the former industrial worker Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva prepared to take over as president of Brazil, many Latin Americans hoped that he would show a radical, non-violent path out of centuries of poverty and exclusion. Da Silva's Partidos Trabalhadores (Labor Party, PT) grew out of the mass strikes in the 1980s against the military regime. In its emphasis on internal democracy, support for groups such as the Movimento Sem Terra (Movement of Landless People) and its hosting of the World Social Forum, the PT seemed an instrument of real change in a country where a small elite controls most of the land and wealth. Its local record had been impressive, developing imaginative ways in which citizens could have power over budget decisions.
But in government, "Lula" has been cautious and conservative, going even further than the IMF demanded and sacrificing social reform to repay huge external and internal debts. Worse still, since last May, a series of dramatic revelations has shown that the PT has been engaging in exactly the kind of corruption that activists joined the party to end. The leadership has been buying the votes of Congress members and operating a slush fund built from bribes paid by companies for government contracts. Lula denies involvement, but many are unconvinced.
Where did the PT government go wrong? Most commentators agree that the rot set in long before Lula's victory in Oct. 2002. The party's original base -- the industrial working class -- was weakened in the 1990s by rocketing unemployment as successive administrations enforced IMF edicts. Instead of trying to build a new base among the unorganized rural and urban poor, the PT increasingly used the same methods for winning elections as every other party -- even hiring the same spin doctors. This required money (hence the slush fund) and led to a concentration of power in a centralized leadership. The practice of involving the membership was eventually abandoned.
This growing obsession with electoral success at any price meant that the PT failed to prepare properly for government. Remarkably, when Lula walked up the ramp to the presidential palace in January 2003, he had no clear programme for tackling the serious social problems or the anti-democratic nature of the Brazilian state. Even the flagship program for ending hunger (which has benefited more than 8 million families in extreme poverty) was thought up on the hoof without a strategy for real redistribution. The government has been most successful in international affairs, where a coherent strategy had been prepared. As a result, Brazil has successfully challenged the EU and the US at the WTO over their huge agricultural subsidies.
Shortly before taking office, Lula said: "I cannot fail. The poor in Brazil have waited 500 years for someone like me." But real change demands confrontation, tough bargaining -- and risk taking. In his inaugural address in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt recognized this in his much-quoted comment: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." It is a lesson Lula appears not to have learned.
Despite rightwing crowing, the left has not been destroyed in Brazil. Some activists are staying to fight for change within the PT, but many others are taking their experience elsewhere. Most agree that the way forward is not to abandon the party's innovative experiments in participatory democracy, but to deepen them. Real change, they say, will require the incorporation of the poor within the political system so that they can provide support for a radical government as it confronts powerful vested interests.
With the Year of the Snake reaching its conclusion on Monday next week, now is an opportune moment to reflect on the past year — a year marked by institutional strain and national resilience. For Taiwan, the Year of the Snake was a composite of political friction, economic momentum, social unease and strategic consolidation. In the political sphere, it was defined less by legislative productivity and more by partisan confrontation. The mass recall movement sought to remove 31 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators following the passage of controversial bills that expanded legislative powers and imposed sweeping budget cuts. While the effort
There is a story in India about a boy called Prahlad who was an ardent worshipper of Lord Narayana, whom his father considered an enemy. His son’s devotion vexed the father to the extent that he asked his sister, Holika, who could not be burned by fire, to sit with the boy in her lap and burn him to death. Prahlad knew about this evil plan, but sat in his aunt’s lap anyway. His faith won, as he remained unscathed by the fire, while his aunt was devoured by the flames. In some small way, Prahlad reminds me of Taiwan
When Hong Kong’s High Court sentenced newspaper owner Jimmy Lai (黎智英) to 20 years in prison this week, officials declared that his “heinous crimes” had long poisoned society and that his punishment represented justice restored. In their telling, Lai is the mastermind of Hong Kong’s unrest — the architect of a vast conspiracy that manipulated an otherwise contented population into defiance. They imply that removing him would lead to the return of stability. It is a politically convenient narrative — and a profoundly false one. Lai did not radicalize Hong Kong. He belonged to the same generation that fled from the Chinese
The top Chinese official in charge of Taiwan policy this week said that Beijing must gain dominance in cross-strait relations and firmly support “patriotic pro-reunification forces” in Taiwan. All Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials must “firmly grasp the initiative and dominance in cross-strait relations” to advance the “great cause of national reunification across the Taiwan Strait,” Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧) said at the Taiwan Work Conference, China’s annual event outling policies on Taiwan. Wang also reiterated the need to adhere to the “one China principle” and the so-called “1992 consensus,” to support Taiwanese compatriots who firmly support
RSS