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.
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
RSS