• About
  • Farmers

vedika

~ your forum for critical and constructive writings

vedika

Tag Archives: Latin America

అమెరికా దేశాల శిఖరాగ్ర సభ – జో బైడెన్‌కు భంగపాటు !

15 Wednesday Jun 2022

Posted by raomk in Current Affairs, History, imperialism, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, Latin America, Left politics, Opinion, Uncategorized, USA

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Alberto Fernández, Joe Biden, Latin America, Latin American left, Mexican Lopez Obrador, Organization of American States (OAS), Summit of the Americas 2022, The People’s Summit for Democracy


ఎం కోటేశ్వరరావు


తనకు ఎదురులేదని ప్రపంచం ముందు కనిపించేందుకు అమెరికా పడుతున్న తాపత్రయం అంతా ఇంతా కాదు. అనేక చోట్ల తగులుతున్న ఎదురుదెబ్బలు అంతరంగంలో అమెరికా పాలకవర్గాన్ని ఉక్కిరిబిక్కిరి ఆడకుండా చేస్తున్నాయి. 2022 జూన్‌ ఆరు నుంచి పదవ తేదీ వరకు అమెరికాలోని లాస్‌ ఏంజల్స్‌ నగరంలో అమెరికా దేశాల తొమ్మిదవ శిఖరాగ్ర సమావేశం జరిగింది. ఈ సమావేశంలో దక్షిణ(లాటిన్‌) అమెరికా తన వెనుకే ఉందని చెప్పుకునేందుకు చూసిన బైడెన్‌ యంత్రాంగానికి చివరికి భంగపాటే మిగిలింది. శిఖరాగ్ర సమావేశాన్ని బహిష్కరిస్తున్నట్లు మెక్సికో అధ్యక్షుడు ఆండ్రెజ్‌ మాన్యుయల్‌ లోపెజ్‌ ఒబ్రాడర్‌ చేసిన ప్రకటన అమెరికా ఒక చెంపను వాయిస్తే సమావేశానికి హాజరైన అర్జెంటీనా అధ్యక్షుడు మరో చెంప వాయించినట్లు మాట్లాడాడు.” కచ్చితంగా భిన్నమైన అమెరికా దేశాల శిఖరాగ్ర సమావేశం జరగాలని మనం కోరుకుంటాం.హాజరుగాని వారి మౌనం మనల్ని సవాలు చేస్తున్నది. కాబట్టి మరోసారి ఇలా జరగకూడదు. నేను ఒకటి స్పష్టంగా చెప్పాలనుకుంటున్నాను. భవిష్యత్‌లో జరిగే సమావేశాలకు ఆతిధ్యం ఇచ్చే దేశాలకు మన ఖండంలోని సభ్య దేశాల హాజరుపై ఆంక్షలు విధించేే అధికారాన్ని ఇవ్వకూడదు.” అని అర్జెంటీనా అధ్యక్షుడు ఆల్బర్టో ఫెర్నాండెజ్‌ చెప్పారు. లాటిన్‌ అమెరికా కరీబియన్‌ దేశాల సంస్థ(సిఇఎల్‌ఏసి) ప్రోటెమ్‌ అధ్యక్షుడిగా కూడా ఫెర్నాండెజ్‌ పని చేస్తున్నాడు.లోపెజ్‌ బాటలో బొలీవియా, హొండురాస్‌, గౌతమాలా, సెంట్‌ విన్సెంట్‌, గ్రెనడా దేశాధినేతలు నడిచారు.ఎల్‌ సాల్వడార్‌, ఉరుగ్వే నేతలు కూడా ఇతర కారణాలతో పాల్గొనలేదు.


ఇదంతా లాస్‌ ఏంజల్స్‌ సమావేశానికి క్యూబా, వెనెజులా, నికరాగువా నియంతృత్వదేశాలంటూ వాటిని ఆహ్వానించరాదన్న అమెరికా నిర్ణయానికి నిరసనే. ఈ సమావేశం ద్వారా అమెరికా సాధించదలచుకున్న లక్ష్యం ఏదైనప్పటికీ సమావేశ వేదిక మీద, వెలుపలా జరిగిన పరిణామాలు మరోసారి అమెరికా నలుగురి నోళ్లలో నానింది. ప్రత్యేకించి అమెరికా ఖండ దేశాలలో పెద్ద చర్చకు దోహదం చేసింది. దాని ద్వంద్వనీతిని బయట పెట్టింది. ఇంకేమాత్రం తమ మీద అమెరికా ఆధిపత్యం చెల్లదని లాటిన్‌ అమెరికా దేశాలు చెప్పకనే చెప్పటమే. అమెరికా పలుకుబడి బండారం ఇతర చోట్ల కూడా మరింతగా జనానికి తెలియచేసే పరిణామమిది. నిన్న ఆఫ్ఘనిస్తాన్‌, నేటి ఉక్రెయిన్‌ సంక్షోభం అమెరికా బలహీనతలను, దాన్ని నమ్ముకుంటే నట్టేట మునగటమే అన్న పాఠం నేర్పింది.1994లో అమెరికాలోనే జరిగిన ఈ సంస్థ సమావేశాలతో పోల్చుకుంటే తాజా పరిణామాలు ఆ ప్రాంతంలో జరిగిన పెద్ద మార్పును సూచిస్తున్నాయి.


ఇటీవలి కాలంలో అమెరికా దేశాల సంస్థ(ఓఎఎస్‌) పని తీరు తీవ్ర విమర్శలకు గురువుతోంది. అది పశ్చిమార్ధగోళంలో కేవలం అమెరికా ప్రయోజనాలను కాపాడే ఒక పని ముట్టుగా మారిందన్నది స్పష్టం. అమెరికాతో పాటు ఈ సమావేశాల్లో ఓఎఎస్‌ కూడా తీవ్ర విమర్శలకు గురైంది. బొలీవియాలో ఎన్నికైన ఇవోమొరేల్స్‌ ప్రభుత్వాన్ని కూల్చివేసి, తిరుగుబాటునేత జెనీనె ఆనెజ్‌ను అధ్యక్షురాలిగా చేశారు.(ఇప్పుడు ఆమె నేరంపై విచారణ జరుగుతున్నది) దానికి ఆమెరికా దేశాల సంస్థ (ఓఎఎస్‌) మద్దతు ప్రకటించింది. ఈ దుర్మార్గానికి అండగా నిలవటంతో పాటు బొలీవియాలోని సంకేత, సకాబా ప్రాంతాల్లో ఆనెజ్‌ ఏలుబడిలో జరిగిన మారణకాండ గురించి మౌనం దాల్చిన సంస్థ ప్రధాన కార్యదర్శి లూయిస్‌ అలమగ్రో పదవిలో కొనసాగటం ఏమిటని కొందరు ప్రతినిధులు లేవనెత్తినపుడు అతగాడికి కంటిచూపు తప్ప నోట మాట లేదు. మూడు దేశాలను ప్రజాస్వామ్యం పేరుతో మినహాయించి హైతీలో మాజీ అధ్యక్షుడు జువనెల్‌ మోషే హత్య కుట్రలో భాగస్వామిగా ఉన్న ఏరియల్‌ హెన్రీ, కొలంబియాలో ప్రతిపక్షాలను ఊచకోత కోయిస్తున్న ఇవాన్‌ డూక్‌ను మానవహక్కుల పరిరక్షకులుగా ఫోజు పెడుతున్న అమెరికా ఎలా ఆహ్వానించిందని కొందరు ప్రశ్నించారు. క్యూబా, వెనెజులా, నికరాగువా దేశాల ప్రభుత్వ నేతలను మినహాయించిన అమెరికా ఆ దేశాల ప్రభుత్వాల మీద తిరుగుబాటు చేసిన వారిని, అమెరికా ఇచ్చిన నిధులతో వివిధ సంస్థల పేరుతో అమెరికా వ్యతిరేక ప్రభుత్వాల మీద ధ్వజమెత్తే వారిని ఈ సమావేశాలకు ఆహ్వానించింది. మరొక సభ్య దేశం గురించి తీర్పులు చెప్పే అధికారం ఏ దేశానికైనా ఎవరిచ్చారని అనేక దేశాల ప్రతినిధులు ప్రశ్నించారు. మూడు దేశాలను మినహాయించటాన్ని ఖండిస్తూ ఆంక్షలను ఎత్తివేయాలని డిమాండ్‌ చేశారు. అమెరికా దేశాల సంస్థను సంస్కరించాలని కోరారు. అనేక మంది కరీబియన్‌ దేశాధినేతలతో పాటు బెల్జి, అర్జెంటీనా, చిలీ అధినేతలు కూడా ఇదే అభిప్రాయాలను ప్రతిధ్వనించారు.


మూడు దేశాలను ఆహ్వానించకపోవటానికి 2001లో లిమాలో జరిగిన అమెరికా ఖండ దేశాల సమావేశం ఆమోదించిన ఆర్టికల్‌ 19ని సాకుగా చూపారు. ప్రపంచ అర్ధగోళంలోని దేశాల్లో ఉన్న ప్రజాస్వామిక వ్యవస్థలకు ఆటంకం కలిగించటానికి లేదా రాజ్యాంగ వ్యతిరేకంగా మార్చేందుకు పూనుకున్న దేశాలకు భవిష్యత్‌లో జరిగే అమెరికా ఖండ దేశాల సమావేశాల్లో పాల్గొనేందుకు అర్హత ఉండదన్నది దాని సారం. బొలీవియాలో రాజ్యాంగబద్దంగా ఎన్నికైన ఇవోమొరేల్స్‌ ప్రభుత్వాన్ని కూల్చివేసింది అమెరికా. వెనెజులా ఎన్నికల్లో అక్రమాలు జరిగాయనే సాకుతో ప్రతిపక్ష నేత ప్రభుత్వాన్ని గుర్తించి అక్రమాలకు పాల్పడింది అమెరికా. ఇలా చెప్పుకుంటూ పోతే అసలు సమావేశాన్ని నిర్వహించేందుకే దానికి అర్హత లేదు. సరిగ్గా సమావేశానికి ఒక రోజు ముందు క్యూబా, వెనెజులా, నికరాగువాలను మినహాయించినట్లు ప్రకటించటం ఆమెరికాలో స్థిరపడిన ఆ దేశాలకు చెందిన, అమెరికా ఖండదేశాల్లోని వామపక్ష వ్యతిరేకశక్తులను సంతుష్టీకరించటం తప్ప మరొకటి కాదు.


అమెరికా ప్రస్తుతం ప్రపంచంలోని 42దేశాల్లో నివసించే మూడోవంతు జనాభాపై చట్టవిరుద్దమైన ఆంక్షలను అమలు జరుపుతున్న అపర ప్రజాస్వామిక వాది. తనకు నచ్చని ప్రభుత్వాలను ఆ దేశాల పౌరులతోనే కూల్చివేయించే ఎత్తుగడ దీని వెనుక ఉంది. కరోనా మహమ్మారి విస్తరిస్తున్న తరుణంలో వెనెజులా మీద, తాజాగా రష్యా మీద ఆంక్షలను మరింతగా పెంచటం దానిలో భాగమే. దశాబ్దాల తరబడి క్యూబాను దిగ్బంధనానికి గురిచేసినా,వెనెజులా, నికరాగువా వంటి చోట్ల ప్రతిరోజూ కుట్రలు చేసినా దాని ఎత్తుగడలు ఎక్కడా పారలేదన్నది కూడా వాస్తవం. గతంలో ఆఫ్ఘనిస్తాన్‌, వెనెజులా, ఇప్పుడు రష్యాలకు చెందిన విదేశాల్లోని ఆస్తులు, బంగారం వంటి వాటిని స్వాధీనం లేదా స్థంభింప చేసిన తరువాత అమెరికా ఆంక్షలకు గురైన దేశాలన్నీ అమెరికా డాలరుతో సంబంధం లేని లావాదేవీల కోసం చూడటం పెరుగుతోంది తప్ప అమెరికాకు లొంగటం లేదు. ఉక్రెయిన్‌పై దాడి చేస్తోందనే పేరుతో ఐరాస మానవహక్కుల సంస్థలో రష్యాకు స్థానం కల్పించకూడదనే అమెరికా తీర్మానానికి అనుకూలంగా 92 ఓట్లు వస్తే తటస్థం లేదా వ్యతిరేకంగా 13 అమెరికా దేశాలతో సహా 82 దేశాలున్నాయి. జనాభా రీత్యా చూస్తే అత్యధికులు ఈ దేశాల్లోనే ఉన్నారు.
లాస్‌ ఏంజల్స్‌ సమావేశానికి మూడు దేశాలను ఆహ్వానించకూడదన్న అమెరికా ఆలోచనలను ముందే పసిగట్టిన మెక్సికో అధినేత లోపెజ్‌ అదే జరిగితే తాను వచ్చేది లేదని ముందుగానే స్పష్టం చేశాడు. గత కొద్ది నెలలుగా బుజ్జగించేందుకు చేసిన యత్నాలు ఫలించలేదు. దీన్ని మరొక విధంగా చెప్పాలంటే లాటిన్‌ అమెరికాలో బలపడుతున్న పురోగామి శక్తుల బంధాన్ని వెల్లడించింది. లాటిన్‌ అమెరికాలో గత రెండు దశాబ్దాల్లో ఎగురుతున్న ఎర్రబావుటాల వాస్తవాన్ని గుర్తించేందుకు అమెరికా నిరాకరిస్తున్నది. గత మొరటు పద్దతులతోనే తన పెత్తనాన్ని సాగించాలని విఫలయత్నం చేస్తున్నది. వెనెజులాలో తన కుట్రలు విఫలమైన తరువాత ప్రతిపక్షనేత జువాన్‌ గుయిడో ఏర్పాటు చేసినట్లు ప్రకటించిన ప్రభుత్వాన్ని గుర్తించిన ట్రంప్‌ అవసరమైతే దాడులకు సైతం తెగబడతానన్న ప్రేలాపనలతో ఊగిపోయాడు. ప్రస్తుత బైడెన్‌ అలా నోరుపారవేసుకోకపోయినా అదేబాటలో నడుస్తున్నాడు. మదురోను తిరస్కరించినా గుర్తించిన జువాన్‌ గుయిడోను ఆహ్వానించే సాహసం చేయలేకపోయాడు.


వామపక్ష శక్తులు అనేక చోట్ల అధికారానికి వస్తుండటం, తాము బలపరిచిన మితవాద శక్తులను జనాలు తిరస్కరిస్తుండటాన్ని గమనించిన తరువాత అక్కడి పరిణామాలు అమెరికన్లకు మింగుడుపడటం లేదు,వామపక్షాలను ఎలా ఎదుర్కోవాలో దానికి తోచటం లేదు. తాజాగా కొలంబియా ఎన్నికల్లో కూడా మితవాదశక్తులకే అమెరికా మద్దతు ఇచ్చింది. అమెరికా-మెక్సికో సరిహద్దు నుంచి వలస వచ్చే వారిని అడ్డుకొనేందుకు అడ్డుగోడ నిర్మాణంతో సహా ట్రంప్‌ తీసుకున్న చర్యలన్నింటినీ బైడెన్‌ కూడా కొనసాగిస్తున్నాడు. అమెరికా ఖండదేశాల మధ్య వలసలు ఒక ప్రధాన సమస్యగా ఉంది. ఇలాంటి వాటిని చర్చించేందుకు ఏర్పాటు చేసిన శిఖరాగ్రసభకు అన్ని దేశాల నేతలు వచ్చినపుడే కొంతమేరకు పరిష్కారం దొరుకుతుంది. అమెరికాకు మెక్సికో, గౌతమాలా, ఎల్‌సాల్వడార్‌, హొండురాస్‌ నుంచి పెద్ద ఎత్తున వలసలు వస్తారు. ఈ దేశాలనేతలెవరూ లేకుండానే సమావేశాలు ముగిశాయి.


అమెరికా ఏకపక్ష, నిరంకుశ నిర్ణయాలు, వైఖరిని నిరసిస్తూ లాస్‌ ఏంజల్స్‌లో జరిగిన అమెరికా దేశాల తొమ్మిదవ శిఖరాగ్ర సమావేశానికి పోటీగా అదే తేదీల్లో అదే నగరంలో వివిధ దేశాలకు చెందిన పలు సంస్థలు, ఉద్యమాల ప్రతినిధులతో పోటీగా ” ప్రజాస్వామ్యం కోసం ప్రజాశిఖరాగ్ర సమావేశాలు ” జరిగాయి. వివిధ అంశాలను చర్చించటంతో పాటు అమెరికా వైఖరికి నిరసనగా ప్రదర్శనలు కూడా చేశారు. జూన్‌ 10 నుంచి 12వ తేదీ వరకు మెక్సికోలోని తిజువానాలో కార్మికుల శిఖరాగ్ర సమావేశాలు జరిగాయి. ఈ సమావేశంలో కూడా వివిధ దేశాలకు చెందిన వారితో పాటు అమెరికా వీసాలు నిరాకరించిన క్యూబా, వెనెజులా, నికరాగువా తదితర దేశాల ప్రతినిధులు ఇక్కడ పాల్గన్నారు. రెండు సమావేశాల్లో అమెరికా నిరంకుశ పోకడలతో పాటు వాటికి వ్యతిరేకంగా ప్రజలను ఎలా సమీకరించాలో కూడా చర్చించారు. అమెరికా ఖండాల ప్రజలందరూ ఐక్యం కావాలని పిలుపునిచ్చారు. లాస్‌ ఏంజల్స్‌ సమావేశాల్లో భౌతికంగా, ఆన్‌లైన్‌లో 250 సంస్థలకు చెందిన వారు భాగస్వాములైనారు. ఈ సమావేశాలకు పోలీసులు అనుమతి ఇవ్వలేదు. అధికారిక సమావేశం జరిగే ప్రాంతం చుట్టూ కంచెవేసి నిరసనకారులను అడ్డుకున్నారు. నగరంలోని ఒక కాలేజీలో వేదికను ఏర్పాటు చేసుకొని వివిధ అంశాలపై ప్రజాసంస్థలు చర్చలు జరిపాయి. అమెరికా పెత్తందారీ పోకడలకు గురవుతున్న దేశాలకు బాసటగా నిలుస్తామని దీక్ష పూనాయి.

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More

Like this:

Like Loading...

బ్రెజిల్‌ రాజకీయ వేదికపై తిరిగి వామపక్ష నేత లూలా !

16 Tuesday Mar 2021

Posted by raomk in Current Affairs, History, imperialism, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, Latin America, Left politics, Opinion, Uncategorized, USA

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

#Lula is back, Brazilian politics, Jair Bolsonaro, Latin America, Latin American left, lula da silva


ఎం కోటేశ్వరరావు


లూయిస్‌ ఇనాసియో లూలా డ సిల్వా ! ప్రపంచానికి సుపరిచితమైన పేరు లూలా !! వామపక్ష బ్రెజిల్‌ మాజీ అధ్యక్షుడు !!! న్యాయవ్యవస్ద,మీడియా, కార్పొరేట్‌శక్తులు కుమ్మక్కై ”ఆపరేషన్‌ కార్‌వాష్‌ ” పేరుతో చేసిన కుట్రలో జైలు పాలయ్యాడు. వేళ్లేటపుడు లక్షలాది ప్రజల మధ్య జైలుకు వెళ్లాడు. ఆయనకు శిక్ష విధించిన కోర్టుకు మోపిన ఆరోపణలను విచారించే అధికారమే లేదని, రాజధానిలోని మరో కోర్టుకు కేసులను బదలాయిస్తున్నామని, అక్కడ కేసులు తేలేంతవరకు లూలా దోషి కాదని తాజాగా సుప్రీం కోర్టు న్యాయమూర్తి తీర్పు ఇచ్చారు. దీంతో విధించిన 26 సంవత్సరాల శిక్ష రద్దు, కోల్పోయిన రాజకీయ హక్కులు తిరిగి వచ్చాయి. ఈ తీర్పు పచ్చిమితవాది, నియంతగా ఉన్న అధ్యక్షుడు జైర్‌ బోల్సనారోను కుదిపివేసిందనే చెప్పాలి. తిరిగి ప్రభుత్వం కేసును తిరగదోడుతుందా, అది తేలేవరకు ఎన్ని సంవత్సరాలు పడుతుంది అనేవి శేష ప్రశ్నలు. వచ్చే ఏడాది మధ్యనాటికి శిక్ష పడితే తప్ప ఏడాది చివరిలో జరిగే ఎన్నికల్లో తిరిగి లూలా పోటీ చేయవచ్చు. తప్పుడు కేసులు మోపి జైలు పాలు చేసినపుడు ఒక వీరుడి మాదిరి వీడ్కోలు ఇచ్చిన జనం ఇప్పుడు కేసుల నుంచి బయటపడటంతో తమ ప్రియతమ నేత తిరిగి వచ్చాడంటూ నీరాజనం పట్టారు. లూలా తిరిగి వచ్చాడు అంటూ బ్రెజిల్‌ పాలకవర్గాలకు దడపుట్టించారు.


అవినీతి, అక్రమాలకు పాల్పడినట్లుగా తప్పుడు కేసులు పెట్టారు. ఇరవైఆరు సంవత్సరాల జైలు శిక్ష, రాజకీయ హక్కులను తొలగిస్తూ 2018లో కోర్టు తీర్పు చెప్పింది. దాని మీద పునర్విచారణ కోరగా అప్పీళ్లు తేలకుండా జైలులో ఉంచటం చట్టవిరుద్దం అని కోర్టు తీర్పు ఇవ్వటంతో 580 రోజుల తరువాత 2019 నవంబరులో లూలా విడుదల అయ్యాడు.శిక్ష విధించిన న్యాయమూర్తి మోరో పక్షపాత రహితంగా వ్యవహరించారో లేదో చెప్పాలని లూలా న్యాయవాదులు కోర్టును కోరారు. దాంతో ఐదుగురు న్యాయమూర్తులలో ఇద్దరు అవునని ఇద్దరు కాదని పేర్కొన్నారు. తాను కొత్తగా నియమితుడైనందున, కేసు గురించి తగినంత అవగాహన లేనందున తన అభిప్రాయాన్ని చెప్పజాలనని ఐదవ న్యాయమూర్తి పేర్కొన్నారు. అయితే న్యాయమూర్తులలో ఒకరైన ఎడ్సన్‌ ఫాచిన్‌ మార్చి ఎనిమిదవ తేదీన తీర్పు చెబుతూ లూలాకు వ్యతిరేకంగా నమోదు చేసిన నేరాలు వాటిని విచారించిన కోర్టు పరిధిలోనివి జరిగినవి కానందున విచారించే హక్కే లేదని కేసులను రాజధాని కోర్టుకు బదిలీచేస్తున్నట్లు పేర్కొన్నారు. విచారణలో ఉన్నట్లుగా పరిగణించి అర్హతలేని కోర్టు విధించిన శిక్షలు, రాజకీయ హక్కుల ఉపసంహరణ చెల్లదని తీర్పునిచ్చారు. లూలా నిర్దోషి అనిగానీ లేదా దోషి అని న్యాయమూర్తి నిర్దారించలేదు.అయినప్పటికీ రాజధాని కోర్టులో కేసు తేలేంతవరకు లూలా నిర్దోషిగానే ఉంటారు. అక్కడి నియమ నిబంధనల ప్రకారం 2022వ సంవత్సరం జూన్‌కు ముందుగా కేసుల్లో శిక్షపడితేనే పోటీ చేసేందుకు వీలు కాదని, అయితే అలా జరిగే అవకాశం లేదని తిరిగి కేసులు నమోదు చేసి విచారించేందుకు సంవత్సరాలు పడుతుంది కనుక ఎన్నికల్లో పోటీ చేసేందుకు అవకాశం ఉంటుందని భావిస్తున్నారు. ఈ తీర్పుతో 75 సంవత్సరాల లూలా తిరిగి రాజకీయ రంగంలోకి వస్తారని, వచ్చే ఏడాది జరిగే ఎన్నికల్లో పోటీ చేస్తారని వార్తలు వచ్చాయి. అయితే లూలా పోటీ చేస్తారా లేక పార్టీ తరఫున మరొకరిని నిలుపుతారా అన్నది వచ్చే రోజుల్లో మాత్రమే స్పష్టం అవుతుంది.


పులిట్జర్‌ బహుమతి పొందిన జర్నలిస్టు గ్లీన్‌ గ్రీన్‌వాల్డ్‌ నిర్వహిస్తున్న ఇంటర్‌సెప్ట్‌ బ్రెజిల్‌ అనే ఆన్‌లైన్‌ పత్రికలో న్యాయమూర్తి మోరో ఆపరేషన్‌ కార్‌వాష్‌ కుట్రదారులతో జరిపిన సంప్రదింపులు, సూచనలు, సలహాలు తదితర అంశాలన్నీ ప్రచురితమయ్యాయి.దాంతో మోరో 2020ఏప్రిల్లో రాజీనామా చేసి వెంటనే న్యాయశాఖ మంత్రి అవతారమెత్తాడు.తీర్పునకు ప్రతిఫలంగా ఈ బహుమతి పొందారు. నిజానికి పత్రికలో ఈ విషయాలు వెల్లడిగాక ముందే చార్జిషీటులోని పరస్పర విరుద్ద అంశాలు వెల్లడయ్యాయి. లూలాను విడుదల చేయాలనే ఉద్యమం ప్రారంభమైంది. ఆన్‌లైన్‌ పత్రికలో అనేక పత్రాలు వెల్లడి కావటంతో లూలా మీద కేసులు నిలిచేవి కాదని, విడుదల తధ్యమని అభిమానులు, ఇతరులు కూడా భావించారు.


సైన్సును నమ్మని బోల్సనారో మూర్ఖంగా వ్యవహరించి జనాన్ని కరోనా పాలు చేశాడు. దేశాన్ని అభివృద్ధిబాటలో నడుపుతాననే ఆకర్షణీయ వాగ్దానంతో అధికారంలోకి వచ్చిన ఆ పెద్దమనిషి ఏలుబడిలో కరోనా సమయంలో 4.1శాతం తిరోగమనంలో ఉంది.1996 తరువాత ఇలాంటి పరిస్దితి ఎప్పుడూ లేదు. అమెజాన్‌ అడవులను నాశనం చేసే విధంగా పర్యావరణ విధానాలు ఉన్నాయి. పెద్ద ఎత్తున అడవులు అంతరిస్తున్నాయి. చివరికి జోబైడెన్‌, ఐరోపా ధనిక దేశాలు కూడా బ్రెజిల్‌ ఉత్పత్తులను బహిష్కరిస్తామని, ఆంక్షలు విధిస్తామని హెచ్చరించాల్సి వచ్చింది.2019లో అధికారానికి వచ్చిన పచ్చి మితవాది బోల్సనారో ప్రస్తుతం అన్ని రంగాల్లోనూ ఘోరంగా విఫలమయ్యాడు. కరోనాను అరికట్టటంలో వైఫల్యం ఎంత దారుణంగా ఉందో ఏడాది కాలంలో నలుగురు ఆరోగ్యశాఖ మంత్రులను మార్చటమే పెద్ద నిదర్శనం. అమెరికా తరువాత కోటీ పదిహేనులక్షల కేసులు 2.8లక్షల మంది మరణాలతో రెండవ స్ధానంలో బ్రెజిల్‌ ఉంది ఉంది. ఆర్ధికంగా దిగజారటమే కాకుండా ఉద్యమాలను అణచివేయటంలో బోల్సనారో పేరుమోశాడు. గతేడాది అక్టోబరులో 41.2శాతం మంది మద్దతు ఇవ్వగా ఫిబ్రవరి 22న వెల్లడైన సిఎన్‌టి సర్వే ప్రకారం అది 32.9శాతానికి పడిపోయింది. మరింతగా దిగజారుతున్న ధోరణే తప్ప మరొకటి కాదు.


లాటిన్‌ అమెరికాలో రెండు దశాబ్దాల వామపక్ష పురోగమనంలో ఎదురు దెబ్బలు తగిలిన వాటిలో బ్రెజిల్‌ కూడా ఒకటి. వామపక్ష ప్రభుత్వంలో భాగస్వామిగా ఉన్న బ్రెజిల్‌ ప్రజాస్వామ్య ఉద్యమం(ఎండిబి) పార్టీ 2016లో ఆ ప్రభుత్వానికి ద్రోహం చేసింది. పాలకవర్గంతో చేతులు కలిపి అధ్యక్షురాలిగా ఉన్న దిల్మా రౌసెఫ్‌ మీద తప్పుడు ఆరోపణలు మోపి అభిశంసన ద్వారా ప్రభుత్వాన్ని కూల్చివేసింది. ఆ సమయంలో ఉపాధ్యక్షుడిగా ఉన్న ఎండిబి నేత మిచెల్‌ టెమర్‌ అధ్యక్ష పీఠమెక్కి 2019 జనవరి ఒకటవ తేదీ వరకు పదవిలో కొనసాగాడు. అంతకు ముందు సంవత్సరం జరిగిన ఎన్నికలలో పోటీ చేయలేదు.2017లో జరిగిన ఒక సర్వే వెల్లడించిన వివరాల ప్రకారం కేవలం ఏడు శాతం మంది మాత్రమే టెమర్‌కు మద్దతు ఇవ్వగా 76శాతం మంది రాజీనామా చేయాలన్నారు. 2018 ఎన్నికలలో అతగాడు పోటీ చేయలేదు. వర్కర్స్‌ పార్టీ ప్రతినిధిగా రంగంలోకి దిగిన లూలాను తప్పుడు కేసులతో శిక్షించటంతో పోటీకి అనర్హుడయ్యారు. చివరి నిమిషంలో సావో పాలో మాజీ మేయర్‌ అయిన ఫెర్నాండో హదాద్‌ను పోటీకి నిలిపారు, ఓటర్లకు పెద్దగా పరిచయం లేకపోవటం, అంతకు ముందు దిగజారిన పరిస్ధితులను చక్కదిద్ది మంచి రోజులను తెస్తానన్న బోల్సనారో ప్రజాకర్షక వాగ్దానాల వరదలో వర్కర్స్‌ పార్టీ ఓడిపోయింది. బోల్సరారో గద్దెనెక్కాడు.


వామపక్షాలు ఎన్నికల్లో ఓడిపోయి లేదా కుట్రతో మితవాద శక్తులు అధికారానికి వచ్చిన చోట అవి ఎన్నికల్లో పరాజయం పాలుకావటం తిరిగి వామపక్ష శక్తులు గద్దెనెక్కటం చూస్తున్నాము. అర్జెంటీనా, బొలీవియాలో అదే జరిగింది. ఈక్వెడోర్‌లో తొలి దఫా జరిగిన ఎన్నికల్లో వామపక్ష అభ్యర్ది మొదటి స్దానంలో ఉన్నాడు. ఏప్రిల్‌ 11న జరిగే మలిదఫా ఎన్నికల్లో ఎలాంటి కుట్రలూ చోటు చేసుకోకపోతే విజయం సాధిస్తారనే వాతావరణం ఉంది.వచ్చే ఏడాది జరిగే ఎన్నికల్లో ప్రస్తుత అధ్యక్షుడు తిరిగి పోటీ చేస్తాడని, అతగాడికి తగిన ప్రత్యర్ధి లూలా అవుతాడని విశ్లేషకులు భావిస్తున్నారు.బోల్సనారోను సమర్ధించేందుకు అవకాశం లేని వారు లూలాను కూడా అతగాడితో జమకట్టి ఆ ప్రమాదం పోతే ఈ ప్రమాదం వస్తుందనే పేరుతో ఇప్పటికే కధనాలను అల్లుతున్నారు. ఒక న్యాయమూర్తి ఇచ్చిన ఈ తీర్పు మీద పునర్విచారణ జరపాలని అటార్నీ జనరల్‌ కార్యాలయం ప్రకటించింది. గత పాలకులు చార్జిషీట్లను సరిగా రూపొందించని కారణంగా బోల్సనారో సర్కార్‌ తిరిగి లూలాపై కేసులు నమోదు చేసే అవకాశం కూడా ఉందని చెబుతున్నారు. నిజంగా జరిగితే అదేమీ ఆశ్చర్యం కలిగించదు. అలాంటి పరిస్ధితి లాలూను తిరిగి జైలుకు పంపితే మరొకరు అభ్యర్ధి అవుతారు.


తప్పుడు కేసులో తనను శిక్షించిన జడ్జి సెర్జియో మోరో ప్రభుత్వంతో కుమ్మక్కయ్యాడని తరువాత బోల్సనారో సర్కార్‌లో మంత్రి అయ్యాడని లూలా చెప్పారు.ఐదు వందల సంవత్సరాల చరిత్రలో న్యాయవ్యవస్దకు బలైన అతి పెద్ద బాధితుడనని చెప్పారు. మార్చి పదవ తేదీన వేలాది మంది తన మద్దతుదార్లతో ఎక్కడైతే ఒక లోహకార్మికుడిగా తన ప్రస్తానాన్ని ప్రారంభించాడో అదే లోహకార్మిక సంఘకార్యాలయం వద్ద జరిగిన సభలో లూలా ప్రసంగించారు. కరోనా మహమ్మారితోపాటు దేశం ఆర్ధిక సంక్షోభాన్ని ఎదుర్కొంటున్నదని అన్నారు. గతంలో లూలాకు వ్యతిరేకంగా జరిగిన కుట్రలో భాగస్వామి అయిన అతిపెద్ద మీడియా సంస్ద గ్లోబో గ్రూప్‌తో పాటు కొందరు రాజకీయనేతలు కూడా తమ వైఖరిని మార్చుకోవటం అనేక మంది ఆశ్చర్యం కలిగిస్తున్నది. దానికి కారణం వామపక్షాల స్దానంలో అధికారానికి వచ్చిన మితవాద పక్షాలు ఎన్నికల్లో పరాజయం పాలై తిరిగి వామపక్షాలు అధికారానికి వస్తున్న ధోరణి ఒకటని చెప్పవచ్చు. గ్లోబో గ్రూపు మీడియా సంస్దలు లూలాకు శిక్ష వేసిన మోరోను హీరోగా చిత్రిస్తూ గతంలో ఆకాశానికి ఎత్తాయి. అలాంటిది ఇటీవల దేశ ప్రజాస్వామిక వ్యవస్దలో లూలా నిర్మాణాత్మక పాత్ర పోషించారంటూ సానుకూలంగా స్పందించాయి. దీని అర్ధం ఈ సంస్ధలతో సహా మొత్తంగా మీడియా మారు మనసు పుచ్చుకొని మారిపోయింది అని కాదు, విశ్వసనీయత మరింతగా దిగజారకుండా చూసుకొనే యత్నంలో భాగమే అని గుర్తించాలి. చివరకు పార్లమెంట్‌ స్పీకర్‌ ఆర్ధర్‌ లీరా కూడా న్యాయమూర్తి ఫాచీ ఇచ్చిన తీర్పును రాజకీయ వ్యవస్ద ఆమోదించాలని పేర్కొన్నారు. అంతే కాదు కార్‌వాష్‌ పేరుతో మోపిన కేసుకు దోహదం చేసిన వారిని శిక్షించకుండా వదల కూడదని కూడా చెప్పటం విశేషం. ఈ కేసును కుట్రపూరితంగా నమోదు చేశారనేందుకు అనేక ప్రభుత్వ అంతర్గత పత్రాలు బహిర్గతం కావటంతో లూలాపై మోపిన నేరారోపణలను ఎవరూ బహిరంగంగా సమర్దించలేని స్ధితి ఏర్పడింది.


లూలాపై కేసులు కొట్టివేసిన తీర్పు వెలువడిన తరువాత స్టాక్‌మార్కెట్‌ పతనమైంది. డాలరుతో స్ధానిక కరెన్సీ రియల్‌ మారకపు విలువ పడిపోయింది. లూలా తిరిగి దేశ రాజకీయాల్లో ముందుకు రావటం కార్పొరేట్లకు ఇష్టం లేదనేందుకు ఇదొక సూచిక. గతంలో ఎనిమిదేండ్లు అధికారంలో ఉన్న వర్కర్స్‌ పార్టీ అధినేత లూలా, తరువాత నాలుగు సంవత్సరాల ఎనిమిది నెలలు అధికారంలో ఉన్న అదే పార్టీకి చెందిన దిల్మా రౌసెఫ్‌ హయాంలో సంక్షేమ పధకాలు అమలు జరిగాయి. తరువాత 2016లో అభిశంసన పేరుతో జరిపిన పార్లమెంటరీ కుట్రతో అధికారానికి వచ్చిన మిచెల్‌ టెమర్‌, నయా ఫాసిస్టు బోల్సనారో కార్మిక హక్కుల మీద దాడి చేశారు. ఆరోగ్యం, విద్య వంటి అనేక సంక్షేమ పధకాలకు కోతపెట్టారు. అనేక అక్రమాలకు తెరలేపారు, చట్టవిరుద్దమైన చర్యలను అనుమతించారు.అన్నింటికీ మించి కరోనా వైరస్‌ను అదుపుచేసే విషయంలో వ్యవహరించిన తీరును నేరపూరితమైనదిగా జనం భావిస్తున్నారు.అమెరికాలో ట్రంపు మాదిరే బోల్సనారో కూడా జనాన్ని పట్టించుకోలేదు.


లూలా సామాజిక, ప్రజా ఉద్యమాల నుంచి, ప్రజాస్వామిక సూత్రాల ప్రాతిపదికగా ఆవిర్భవించిన నిజమైన నేత. అదే బోల్సనారో దానికి భిన్నమైన వ్యక్తి.పచ్చిమితవాది, ప్రభుత్వ పదవుల్లో గతంలో నియంతలను బలపరిచిన మాజీ సైన్యాధికారులను అనేక మందికి స్ధానం కల్పించాడు.దేశ ప్రజాస్వామిక వ్యవస్ధలను దిగజార్చిన ఆచరణ ఉన్న వ్యక్తి.అమెరికా సామ్రాజ్యవాదుల నమ్మిన బంటుగా ఉన్నాడు.లాటిన్‌ అమెరికాలో మరోసారి వామపక్ష తరంగం వస్తున్నదనే అభిప్రాయాలు వెలువడుతున్న తరుణంలో లూలా రాజకీయ హక్కుల పునరుద్దరణ బ్రెజిల్‌ వామపక్ష శక్తులకు పెద్ద ఊరట,మరోసారి అక్కడ జయకేతనం ఎగరవేయవచ్చనే అభిప్రాయం సర్వత్రా వెల్లడవుతోంది.

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More

Like this:

Like Loading...

లాటిన్‌ అమెరికాలో నయా ఉదారవాద విధానాలు-పర్యవసానాలు !

30 Wednesday Oct 2019

Posted by raomk in Current Affairs, Economics, History, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, Latin America, Opinion, USA

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Argentina elections, Bolivarian Revolution, Latin America, Lenín Moreno, neoliberalism, Neoliberalism in Latin America

Image result for chilean protests

ఎం కోటేశ్వరరావు
లాటిన్‌ అమెరికాలో ఒక వైపున ఉవ్వెత్తున ఎగిసిన ప్రజా ఉద్యమాలు, మరోవైపున కొన్ని దేశాల్లో ఎన్నికలతో అక్కడి పరిణామాలు ప్రపంచ దృష్టిని ఆకర్షించాయి. చిలీ, ఉరుగ్వే,హైతీ, బొలీవియాలో ఆందోళనలు జరిగాయి. అర్జెంటీనా, బొలీవియా, ఈక్వెడోర్‌లో సాధారణ, కొలంబియాలో స్ధానిక సంస్దల ఎన్నికలు ముగిశాయి. చిలీ పాలకులు ఒక అడుగు దిగినా అక్కడి ఉద్యమం ఆగలేదు. ఉరుగ్వేలో ప్రభుత్వం రద్దు చేసిన సబ్సిడీలను, పెంచిన భారాలను వెనక్కు తీసుకుంటూ ఉద్యమకారులతో ఒక ఒప్పందం చేసుకోవటంతో తాత్కాలికంగా ఆందోళనలు ఆగాయి. స్థలాభావం రీత్యా ఉద్యమాలకు సంబంధించి మరో సందర్భంలో చర్చించుదాం. నాలుగు దేశాల్లో జరిగిన ఎన్నికల ప్రాధాన్యతను చూద్దాం.
నాలుగు సంవత్సరాల క్రితం మితవాద శక్తులు విజయం సాధించిన అర్జెంటీనాలో అంతకు ముందు అధికారంలో ఉన్న ప్రజాతంత్ర లేదా వామపక్ష శక్తులు తిరిగి ఈ గద్దెనెక్కాయి. బొలీవియాలో వామపక్ష ఇవో మోరెల్స్‌ మరోసారి అధికారానికి వచ్చారు. ఉరుగ్వేలో అధికారంలో ఉన్న వామపక్ష బ్రాడ్‌ ఫ్రంట్‌ మెజారిటీకి అవసరమైన 50శాతం ఓట్లను సాధించలేదు, పెద్ద పార్టీగా అవతరించి వచ్చే నెలలో జరిగే అంతిమ పోటీకి సిద్దం అవుతోంది. కొలంబియాలో కొలంబియా విప్లవ సాయుధ శక్తులు(ఎఫ్‌వామపక్ష సాయుధ సంస్ధ (ఎఫ్‌ఏఆర్‌సి)తో ప్రభుత్వం ఒప్పందం కుదుర్చుకున్న తరువాత జరిగిన తొలి స్ధానిక సంస్ధల ఎన్నికలలో రాజధాని బగోటాతో సహా అనేక ప్రధాన పట్టణాలు, ప్రాంతాలలో వామపక్ష శక్తులు విజయం సాధించాయి. కొన్ని దేశాలలో తలెత్తిన ఉద్యమాలు, కొన్ని దేశాలలో జరిగిన ఎన్నికలలో వామపక్ష, ప్రజాతంత్ర శక్తుల విజయాల వెనుక ఉన్న అంశాలేమిటి, వాటిని ఎలా చూడాలన్నది ఒక ప్రశ్న.
అర్జెంటీనా ఎన్నికల ఫలితం వామపక్ష జనాకర్షకం వైపు మొగ్గుదలకు సూచిక అని ఒక విశ్లేషణ శీర్షిక. రెండవ ప్రపంచ యుద్దం తరువాత అర్జెంటీనాలో సామాజిక న్యాయం కోరే న్యాయ పార్టీ పేరుతో ముందుకు వచ్చిన శక్తులు పెట్టుబడిదారీ విధానం, కమ్యూనిజాలకు భిన్నంగా తృతీయ మార్గం అనుసరిస్తామని చెప్పుకున్నాయి. ఇప్పటి వరకు వరుసగా మూడు సార్లు ఆ పార్టీకి చెందిన జువాన్‌ డోమింగో పెరోన్‌ అధ్యక్షుడిగా ఎన్నికై ఒక వరవడికి నాంది పలకటంతో ఆ పార్టీని పెరోనిస్టు పార్టీ అని కూడా అంటారు. సంక్షేమ చర్యలకు ప్రాధాన్యత ఇచ్చారు. అయితే ప్రత్యర్ధి పార్టీలు పెరోనిస్టులను నిరంకుశులని కూడా విమర్శిస్తారు. పెరోనిస్టు పార్టీ విధానాలతో విబేధించిన వారు కమ్యూనిస్టు పార్టీలో చేరారు. కమ్యూనిస్టు పార్టీ నుంచి విడివడి వేరే పార్టీని ఏర్పాటు చేసిన మావోయిస్టులు ఈ ఎన్నికలలో విజయం సాధించిన పెరోనిస్టు పార్టీ అభ్యర్ధికి మద్దతు ప్రకటించారు. మొత్తంగా చూస్తే అర్జెంటీనాలో కమ్యూనిస్టుల బలం పరిమితం.

Image result for argentina new president
తాజా ఎన్నికల విషయానికి వస్తే 2015లో అధికారం కోల్పోయిన పెరోనిస్టు పార్టీ తిరిగి విజయం సాధించింది. గతంలో ఆ పార్టీలో తెరవెనుక ప్రముఖ పాత్ర వహించిన ఆల్బర్టో ఫెర్నాండెజ్‌ ప్రస్తుత అధ్యక్షుడు మార్సియో మక్రీని తొలి దశ ఎన్నికల్లోనే ఓడించారు. అక్కడి రాజ్యాంగం ప్రకారం నలభైశాతం ఓట్లు తెచ్చుకొని ప్రధమ స్ధానంలో ఉన్న అభ్యర్ధికి రెండో స్ధానంలో వున్న వారికి పదిశాతం ఓట్ల తేడా ఉండాలి లేదా పోలైన ఓట్లలో 45శాతం తెచ్చుకొని ప్రధమ స్ధానంలో ఉంటే ఎన్నికైనట్లు పరిగణిస్తారు. ప్రస్తుతం ఫెర్నాండెజ్‌ 48శాతం ఓట్లు సాధించి తొలి దశలోనే ఎన్నికయ్యారు. పెరోనిస్టు పార్టీకి చెందిన మాజీ దేశాధ్యక్షురాలు క్రిస్టినా కిర్చెనర్‌ వైఖరితో విబేధించి పార్టీకి దూరంగా ఉన్న ఫెర్నాండెజ్‌తో సర్దుబాటు చేసుకొని అధ్యక్ష అభ్యర్ధిగా, ఆమె ఉపాధ్యక్షురాలిగా పోటీ చేసి విజయం సాధించారు. అయితే ఫెర్నాండెజ్‌ అధ్యక్షుడే అయినా అసలు సారధి క్రిస్టినా అనే అభిప్రాయం కొంత మందిలో ఉంది. గత అనుభవాల రీత్యా ఫెర్నాండెజ్‌ తనదైన ముద్ర వేయటానికి ప్రయత్నిస్తారని కూడా మరో అభిప్రాయం వెల్లడైంది.
లాటిన్‌ అమెరికా రాజకీయాల్లో నేడున్న పరిస్ధితుల్లో ఫెర్నాండెజ్‌ ఎన్నిక ప్రజాతంత్ర, పురోగామి శక్తులకు ఊపునిస్తుందనటంలో ఎలాంటి సందేహం లేదు. వెనెజులాలో వామపక్ష నికోలస్‌ మదురో ప్రభుత్వానికి వ్యతిరేకంగా అమెరికా జరుపుతున్న కుట్రలకు ఓడిపోయిన మార్సియో మక్రీ మద్దతు ఇచ్చాడు. తిరుగుబాటుదారు జువాన్‌ గురుడోను అధ్యక్షుడిగా గుర్తించిన వారిలో ఒకడు. ఇప్పుడు మదురో కాస్త ఊపిరి పీల్చుకోవచ్చు. ఆర్ధికంగా ఉన్న ఇబ్బందులు, ఐఎంఎఫ్‌తో సంబంధాల కారణంగా అమెరికా వత్తిడికి తలొగ్గితే అనే సందేహం ఉండనే వుంటుంది. గతంలో అధికారంలో ఉన్న పెరోనిస్టు పార్టీ, మక్రీ సర్కారు కూడా సంక్షేమ చర్యల విషయంలో తప్పితే మొత్తంగా నయావుదారవాద విధానాలనే అనుసరించారు. అందువల్లనే గతంలో పెరోనిస్టు క్రిస్టినా సర్కార్‌ మీద జనంలో అసంతృప్తి తలెత్తింది. మక్రీ అనుసరించిన విధానాల కారణంగా జనజీవనం మరింత దిగజారింది. ద్రవ్యోల్బణం 50శాతం, అభివృద్ధి సూచనలు కనుచూపు మేరలో కనపడటం లేదు, ఉపాధి తగ్గింది, దారిద్య్రం పెరిగింది. ఈ నేపధ్యంలో ఐఎంఎఫ్‌, ఇతర సంస్ధలతో వందబిలియన్‌ డాలర్లకోసం గత ప్రభుత్వం సంప్రదింపులు జరుపుతోంది. దాన్ని తీసుకుంటే చిలీ, ఉరుగ్వే మాదిరి సంక్షేమ చర్యలు, సబ్సిడీలకు తిలోదకాలివ్వాల్సి ఉంటుంది. ఎలా ఈ సమస్యను పరిష్కరిస్తారో చూడాల్సి ఉంది.
బొలీవియాలో అక్టోబరు 20న జరిగిన ఎన్నికల్లో ‘సోషలిజం దిశగా ఉద్యమం’ (మువ్‌మెంట్‌ టువార్డ్స్‌ సోషలిజం-మాస్‌) పార్టీ నేత ఇవో మొరేల్స్‌ మరోసారి ఘన విజయం సాధించారు. అయితే ఎన్నికల్లో అక్రమాలు జరిగాయంటూ అనేక దేశాలు ఆ ఎన్నికను ఇంకా గుర్తించలేదు. అక్రమాలపై విచారణ జరపాలని ప్రతిపక్షం డిమాండ్‌ చేసింది. అమెరికా దేశాల సంస్ధ అలాంటి విచారణ జరిపి అక్రమాలు జరిగినట్లు నిరూపిస్తే మరోసారి ఎన్నికలు జరపటానికి తాను సిద్ధమే అని మొరేల్స్‌ ప్రకటించారు. ఆదివాసీలు మెజారిటీగా ఉన్న బొలీవియాలో ఐదు వందల సంవత్సరాల తరువాత తొలిసారిగా ఆ సామాజిక తరగతులకు చెందిన మొరేల్స్‌ దేశాధ్యక్షుడయ్యారు.ఒక ఉద్యమకారుడిగా ఉన్న సమయంలో పాలకపార్టీ, మాదక ద్రవ్యాల మాఫియా గూండాలు ఆయనమీద దాడి చేసి మరణించాడనుకొని వదలి వెళ్లారు. బతికి బయటపడి అనేక ఉద్యమాల తరువాత 2006లో అధికారానికి వచ్చారు. రాజ్యాంగంలో అనేక మార్పులు చేసి సామాన్య జనానికి సాధికారత కలిగించటంతో పాటు దారిద్య్ర నిర్మూలనకు ఎన్నో చర్యలు తీసుకున్నారు. తొలి నుంచి ఆయనను అధికారం నుంచి తొలగించేందుకు అమెరికాతో చేతులు కలిపిన శక్తులను ఎదుర్కొని నిలిచారు. మొరేల్స్‌ గెలిస్తే తాము ఆ ఎన్నికను గుర్తించబోమని ప్రతిపక్షాలు ముందే ప్రకటించాయి. దానికి అనుగుణ్యంగానే విచారణ డిమాండ్‌ను ముందుకు తెచ్చాయి.

Image result for claudia lopez
కొలంబియా స్ధానిక సంస్ధల ఎన్నికల విషయానికి వస్తే దేశాధ్యక్ష పదవి తరువాత ప్రాధాన్యత కలిగిన రాజధాని బగోటా మేయర్‌గా వామపక్ష వాది క్లాడియా లోపెజ్‌ను ఎన్నుకున్నారు. ఆ నగర తొలి మహిళా మేయర్‌గా కూడా ఆమె చరిత్రకెక్కారు. మాజీ అధ్యక్షుడు, పచ్చి మితవాది అయిన అల్వారో యురిబి ఒక ట్వీట్‌లో స్ధానిక సంస్ధల ఎన్నికలలో తమ ఓటమిని అంగీకరిస్తూ మధ్యే, వామపక్ష వాదుల వైపు ఓటర్లు మొగ్గు చూపారని వ్యాఖ్యానించాడు. అవినీతి వ్యతిరేక ఆందోళనకారిణిగా పేరున్న లోపెజ్‌ ఒక జర్నలిస్టు. పారామిలిటరీ దళాల రాజకీయ జోక్యం గురించి పరిశోధనాత్మక కధనాలు వెల్లడించినందుకు ఆమెను చంపివేస్తామనే బెదిరింపులు రావటంతో 2013లో కొలంబియా వదలి విదేశాల్లో తలదాచుకున్నారు.2016లో ఎఫ్‌ఏఆర్‌సితో ఒప్పందం కుదిరిన తరువాత స్వదేశం వచ్చి రాజకీయ కార్యాకలాపాల్లో పాల్గొని 2018లో ఉపాధ్యక్ష ఎన్నికల్లో పోటీ చేసి ఓడిపోయారు.
ఉరుగ్వేలో 2005 నుంచి అధికారంలో ఉన్న వామపక్ష బ్రాడ్‌ ఫ్రంట్‌ పెద్ద పార్టీగా అధ్యక్ష ఎన్నికలలో ముందుకు వచ్చినప్పటికీ అవసరమైన సంఖ్యలో ఓట్లను తెచ్చుకోలేకపోయింది. సగానికి పైగా ఓట్లు తెచ్చుకోవాల్సి ఉండగా పార్టీ అభ్యర్ధి డేనియల్‌ మార్టినెజ్‌కు 40.7శాతం వచ్చాయి. దీంతో నవంబరు 24న ప్రధమ, ద్వితీయ స్ధానాల్లో వున్న అభ్యర్ధుల మధ్య తుది పోటీ జరగనుంది. మితవాద నేషనల్‌ పార్టీకి చెందిన లాకలే పౌ 29.7శాతం తెచ్చుకున్నాడు, మూడు, నాలుగు స్ధానాల్లో 12.8, 11.3శాతం చొప్పున ఓట్లు తెచ్చుకున్న మితవాద పార్టీలు లాకలేకు మద్దతు ఇస్తామని ప్రకటించాయి. ఆ ఓటింగ్‌లో ఎలాంటి మార్పు లేనట్లయితే బ్రాడ్‌ఫ్రంట్‌ గెలిచే అవకాశం వుండదని విశ్లేషణలు వెలువడ్డాయి.2014 ఎన్నికల్లో బ్రాడ్‌ ఫ్రంట్‌కు తొలి దశలో 49.45శాతం వచ్చాయి. తుది ఎన్నికల్లో 56శాతం తెచ్చుకుంది. ఈ సారి తొలి దశలో ఓట్లు గణనీయంగా తగ్గినందున అంతిమ ఫలితం గురించి ఉత్కంఠనెలకొన్నది.
నేషనల్‌, కొలరాడో మితవాద పార్టీల కూటమి 1830 నుంచి తిరుగులేని అధికారాన్ని చలాయించింది. 2005లో బ్రాడ్‌ఫ్రంట్‌ దానికి తెరదించింది. అయితే ఈ ఎన్నికల్లో శాంతి భద్రతలు, పౌరులకు భద్రత అంశాలతో పాటు ఎదుగూ బొదుగూ లేని ఆర్ధిక స్ధితి, ఏడున్నరశాతం ద్రవ్యోల్బణం, తొమ్మిదిశాతం నిరుద్యోగం కారణంగా బ్రాడ్‌ ఫ్రంట్‌ మద్దతు కొంత మేరకు దెబ్బతిన్నట్లు ఓట్ల వివరాలు వెల్లడించాయి. అయితే ఓటర్లు తిరిగి మితవాద శక్తులకు అధికారాన్ని అప్పగిస్తారా అన్నది చూడాల్సి వుంది.

Image result for neoliberalism and its consequences in latin america
లాటిన్‌ అమెరికాలోని కొన్ని దేశాలలో ప్రజా ఉద్యమాలు తలెత్తటానికి, కొన్ని చోట్ల వామపక్ష శక్తులకు ఎదురు దెబ్బలు తగలటానికి, తిరిగి ఓటర్ల మద్దతు పొందటానికి ఆయా దేశాలలో అనుసరిస్తున్న నయా ఆర్ధిక విధానాలే కారణంగా కనిపిస్తున్నాయి. ప్రపంచ బ్యాంకు, ఐఎంఎఫ్‌ విధానాల ప్రయోగశాలగా మారిన లాటిన్‌ అమెరికాలో దాదాపు అన్ని దేశాలలో వాటిని అమలు జరిపేందుకు గతంలో నియంతలను పాలకవర్గాలు ఆశ్రయించాయి. చిలీ వంటి చోట్ల వాటిని వ్యతిరేకించినందుకు కమ్యూనిస్టు అయిన సాల్వెడార్‌ అలెండీ వంటి వారిని హతమార్చేందుకు కూడా వెనుదీయలేదు. ప్రజాస్వామ్య ఖూనీ, సంక్షేమ చర్యలకు కోత, ప్రజల మీద భారాలు మోపటం, ఆర్ధిక వ్యవస్ధలను దివాలా తీయించిన పూర్వరంగంలో అక్కడ వామపక్ష, ప్రజాతంత్ర శక్తులు నిర్వహించిన నిరంతర పోరాటాల కారణంగా జనం మద్దతు పొంది ఈ శతాబ్ది ప్రారంభంలో అనేక దేశాలలో అధికారానికి వచ్చాయి. అయితే నయా వుదారవాద విధానాల పునాదులను పెకలించకుండా ఉన్నంతలో జనానికి మేలు చేకూర్చేందుకు ఆ ప్రభుత్వాలు పని చేసి వరుస విజయాలు సాధించాయి. అయితే పెట్టుబడిదారీ వ్యవస్ధలో వాటికి వున్న పరిమితుల కారణంగా జనంలో కొంతకాలానికి అసంతృప్తి తలెత్తటం, కొన్ని చోట్ల అవినీతి కారణంగా బ్రెజిల్‌, అర్జెంటీనా వంటి చోట్ల ఎదురు దెబ్బలు తగిలాయి. అయితే అర్జెంటీనాలో ప్రత్యామ్నాయంగా వచ్చిన పాలకుల తీరు మరింతగా దిగజారటంతో తిరిగి వామపక్ష, ప్రజాతంత్ర శక్తులకు పట్టం కట్టారు. ఈక్వెడోర్‌లో అధికారానికి వచ్చిన రాఫెల్‌ కొరెయా 2007-17 అధ్యక్షుడిగా అనేక సంక్షేమ చర్యలు చేపట్టారు. అంతకుముందు పాలకులు చేసిన అప్పులతో తమకు సంబంధం లేదని ప్రకటించటమే కాదు, అంతర్జాతీయ కోర్టులలో వాదించి 60శాతం మేరకు అప్పును రద్దు చేయించారు.దారిద్రాన్ని గణనీయంగా తగ్గించారు. అయితే 2017ఎన్నికలో వామపక్ష అభ్యర్ధిగా విజయం సాధించి లెనిన్‌ మొరెనో వామపక్ష విధానాలకు స్వస్ధి చెప్పి దేశీయంగా, అంతర్జాతీయంగా నయావుదారవాద విధానాలు, రాజకీయ వైఖరులను అనుసరించి ప్రజాగ్రహానికి గురయ్యాడు. ఈ క్రమంలోనే తప్పుడు కేసులతో రాఫెల్‌ కొరియాను అరెస్టు చేయించేందుకు ప్రయత్నించాడు. ప్రజల మీద భారాలు మోపేందుకు పూనుకోవటంతో తాజాగా అక్కడ ప్రజాందోళనలు తలెత్తాయి. విధిలేని స్ధితిలో తలగ్గాల్సి వచ్చింది. అందువలన లాటిన్‌ అమెరికాలో వామపక్ష శక్తులు వర్గపోరాటాన్ని మరింతగా ముందుకు తీసుకుపోయి, రాజీలేని విధానాలతో పాటు నయా వుదారవాద విధానాల బాటను వీడాల్సిన అవసరాన్ని అక్కడి పరిణామాలు స్పష్టం చేస్తున్నాయి. ఈ క్రమంలో అమెరికా నాయకత్వంలో సామ్రాజ్యవాదంతో మరింత ప్రతికూలతను ఎదుర్కోవాల్సి వుంటుంది. దాన్ని ఎదుర్కొవటం తప్ప మరొక దగ్గరి దారి లేదు.

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More

Like this:

Like Loading...

“Dilma’s Mistake Was to Promote Class Conciliation”

06 Friday May 2016

Posted by raomk in Current Affairs, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, Latin America, Left politics, Opinion

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Brazil, Dilma, Dilma Rousseff, Latin America, Latin American left, mst, neoliberalism, Parliamentary coup, Popular Brazil Front

Interview With João Pedro Stédile

The economist and leader of the Landless Workers’ Movement (MST) of Brazil, Joao Pedro Stédile, affirmed that left-wing forces won’t allow the Parliamentarian right to fulfill their wish to force Dilma Rousseff out of the presidency to reinstall neoliberalism in the country.Stédile was interviewed byLibreRed
, where this article was first published, and the English translation onThe Dawn
website.

LibreRed (LR): What will be the reaction of the Brazilian people and the MST in particular if Dilma Rousseff is destituted?

Thousands rallied in major cities across Brazil on May Day.

Thousands rallied in major cities across Brazil on May Day to support the embattled President Dilma Rousseff.

João Pedro Stédile (JPS): First of all, we’re confident that it’s possible to stop the coup in process now that it has reached the Senate. We believe that the government has a greater representation in the Senate than in the Chamber of Deputies [where the vote was in favor of the impeachment], the Senators themselves are older, more experienced in politics and know that a Parliamentary coup like the ones that took place in Honduras or Paraguay would lead Brazil to a deeper crisis.

But if this coup is consolidated in the Senate, we, as part of the movements that are organized in the Popular Brazil Front won’t hesitate in denying any kind of legitimacy to a Michel Temer–Eduardo Cunha government. It would be an illegitimate government completely stained by corruption. It’s now public that they gave out a lot of money to get the votes of the deputies. Besides denying their legitimacy, and not participating in any process, we will keep taking to the streets to exert pressure and lead people to become conscious of what will happen.

As for now, on April 29 – next Friday – there will be mobilizations in several cities and on May 1 we want there to be a massive protest action. For that, we almost certainly will coordinate with several union organizations – there are eight of them, and only one supports the coup. We are in discussions with the seven unions (that are with the people), the possibility of doing a general strike before the vote in the Senate. We want to point out to the businessmen that despite their money and their plan to impose the comeback of neoliberalism and the subordination of our economy to the interests of yankee companies, we the working-class are the ones that produce riches. And if we make a general stoppage, it will be a signal to them that says “you may want to increase your profits and your exploitation again, but those who produce the riches in this country in the industry and agriculture are we, and we won’t allow a coup that destroys democracy in our country.”

LR: Now the right is saying, in Brazil and in the rest of the continent and the world, that this is not a coup but the mere application of Constitutional laws.

JPS: Sure, that’s what they said in Honduras, as well as in Paraguay, and it’s a trap. In Brazilian law, there is a provision that says that if a President commits a crime of responsibility or corruption against the country, the Parliament can punish and expel him or her. But in fact President Dilma didn’t commit any crime at all, the accusation they used against her in the process they started in the Parliament has to do with a mechanism of public accounting that the Government uses to meet its social obligations in health, education, and seeked other funds that were in public banks or in the provision for other areas. But this is not a crime, it’s an artifice of any government, even Michel Temer did it himself when he was in the Presidency of the Republic, replacing the President, and in the states of Brazil there are 24 governors, several of them from the right, but also from the center, left and any other ideological convictions, that use that form of accounting.

Therefore, there is no crime, and if there were, then Temer would have to be ousted too, and that’s why we denounce that a single innocent person can’t be judged for an action that was made by two partners: President and Vice President. But the bottom of the issue is not removing the President or not, apart from being a true blow to democracy, the problem is that we are going through a serious economic crisis and the capitalists’ way to deal with that crisis and restore their profit rate is to return to the neoliberal model, that is, to take away workers’ rights, hand out our resources, such as oil, mining, water, and biodiversity to transnational companies and keep interest rates high – President Dilma was an obstacle to that.

Temer has already announced his government plan, which is completely neoliberal. That’s why the Brazilian people’s organizations say that Temer is to Brazil what Mauricio Macri is to Argentina, but the difference resides in that Macri earned the votes to become President and he didn’t. Not only that, but he’s so unpopular that in recent polls 80 per cent of the people said that they don’t want him, and that if he ran for President, he’d get only one per cent of the vote in Brazil. That’s the state of affairs: it’s a coup against democracy.

LR: How come President Dilma chose him as Vice President?

JPS: That’s the sort of moves that we in the MST always criticized. In reality, Lula (in both of his terms) and Dilma always proposed a formula for class conciliation, like in Chile, so there were always seats reserved for sectors of the Brazilian bourgeoisie.

When Lula was President, that strategy worked well because his Vice President was a nationalist, serious and even honest businessman from the textile industry, whose business depended also on the internal market and therefore he was interested in having wealth distribution because that way he could sell more, but Mr. Temer is a lumpen bourgeoise. His only role is to defend the bourgeoisie, but he’s not actually a bourgeoise per se, and because of that, because he’s a lumpen, he betrayed the President. When the President publicly spoke to denounce that betrayal, the right started a process in the Supreme Federal Court to prevent her speech from being broadcast on the national network, to silence her speech against this man and the whole coup that was being schemed by more than a hundred corrupt Parliamentarians, who are themselves being investigated by the Supreme Federal Court. There’s no explanation as for why, to this day, the judicial power hasn’t had the courage to accelerate those processes, because most of the Parliamentarians that voted against Dilma could even go to jail for the millions they stole from public coffers, and in the form of kickbacks from companies.

LR: As an economist, could you explain how much the current economic crisis weighed in the current political crisis of Brazil?

JPS: The economic crisis is the reason why the class conciliation ceased to be possible, because when Lula was President, he designed a conciliation that was based on three pillars: firstly, to make the economy grow through industry (which he accomplished), secondly, to recover the role of the state of making productive investments such as education and health, to better the living conditions of the population and thirdly, to distribute income through an increase in the minimum wage. What happened? With the international crisis of capitalism the economy of Brazil, as a country on the periphery of capitalism, suffered greatly, and for three years the economy hasn’t grown.

Twenty years ago industry accounted for 50 per cent of our GDP and now, due to deindustrialization and competition from Chinese and U.S. companies, national industry accounts for only 9 per cent of the GDP, and there’s a deep economic crisis that can only be solved by recovering, again, the role of the state, controlling financial capital so that instead of accumulating wealth through speculation, the state can use that money to make productive investments in the industry and agriculture sectors, oriented toward the internal market. With that, the economy would grow again, and we’d have a new role for the workforce (because nowadays we have an unemployment rate of 10 per cent) and we could have social programs again.

The political crisis we’re going through is a consequence of the elites trying to get back the state and restore neoliberalism, but the working class isn’t going to accept that. It’s going to take years to get out of this, because the only way out of a crisis of this magnitude is through an agreement between social classes – not just parties – over a new model of the country, that can be hegemonic in most of society.

And now, at this moment, there’s no project being discussed in the country, not even within any of the classes – neither the bourgeoisie nor the petite bourgeoisie, nor the working class, have a clear project for the country. This is why we’re in this confusion and why the bourgeoisie is stupid enough – because they’re subordinated to the interests of imperialism – to think it’s enough to change the President of the Republic to magically solve the problems of the economy, but that’s not true. On the contrary, that would deepen the contradictions of inequality, deepen the institutional crisis and, hopefully, send the masses back to the streets so that they, with their political force, debate a new project for the country.

LR: Have some sectors of the working class, that have benefited by the social policies of Dilma and Lula, been co-opted by the right in Brazil?

JPS: It wouldn’t be fair to say they’ve been co-opted, because in that process of mobilization there was a sector of the petite bourgeoisie that went out on the streets to defend the coup. But they are the eight per cent of the population, and we, the left, went out on the streets and even in greater numbers, but we were all militants, organized sectors, the mediation between the masses and the leaders. The masses are still silent, still afraid. They haven’t mobilized yet but they were also not co-opted by the right.

But why is it so? At that point we have to be self-critical, because during the eight years that Lula governed, there was almost no work to elevate the level of political and cultural consciousness of those masses, who got better policies and better salaries but without a change in their views, and the government did nothing to change that. Unlike Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, there was no effort to break with the monopolies in communications, therefore the TV station O Globo puts garbage in people’s heads every day and they remain perplexed while they watch the political game as if it was just another soap opera.

LR: Let’s conclude with a message from you to the people of Latin America. What would you like to say to them?

JPS: Times are hard but we mustn’t be discouraged or pessimistic, as the great thinkers of Latin America told us. We have to be pessimistic in our analysis but optimistic toward the future. It’s true that our continent, as everything else, is in crisis, but that’s not the fault of a leader, a government or a party.

Capitalism is to blame – the capitalist way of organizing production and life in society is in crisis around the world and because we in Latin America are in the periphery of world capitalism, capitalists see our continent as a bigger opportunity to dominate natural resources, markets and the workforce. These are hard times because we have to confront the empire, but this brings contradictions.

It’s time to put more energy into bringing awareness and organizing people, because in the coming years we’ll see a new, rising, mass movement on our continent and in this movement there will be new liberation projects and new leaders, and we’ll surely see the dream of Chavez, Martí, and Che come to life again. A project that unifies the dreams of Latin America. We must have hope because we have to fight every day. Those who fight, always win. •

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More

Like this:

Like Loading...

The intolerable

14 Thursday Apr 2016

Posted by raomk in Current Affairs, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, Latin America, Opinion

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Brazil, Dilma, Latin America, Latin American left, Lula

LaymertMG_2318

The intolerable

Faced with repeated attacks on democracy promoted by sectors that should watch over it – the judiciary and the MPF installments – in concert with conservative politicians and the media, Professor Laymert Garcia dos Santos asks: “We know that in Brazil there are not terrorists and we know who wins with the criminalization of the left. We know, therefore, who want destabilization. Therefore, in addition to the defense of an elected President and a former President hunted unjustly, is concerned the defense of democracy and sovereignty. Means: the construction of the future. Hence, the question: Let’s continue tolerating the intolerable? “.

The question was put on the text (below) written for theBrazilianObservatory and presented in the speech of the author (video at the end of the text) in the launching ceremony of the “Open Letter to the International Academic Community” (yesterday at the University of São Paulo), which also had the presence of Marilena Chaui, Marcio Sotelo Felippe, Alfredo Bosi, Ruy Fausto, Reginaldo Nasser and Heloisa Buarque de Almeida. Video with the intervention of these teachers will be published on this page. It will soon be available English version of the article below.

 

The Intolerable

Laymert Garcia dos Santos

Now that the government Temer died before he was born;

Now, we know that Lula process should not go back to Curitiba;

Now, the attorney Carlos Fernando dos Santos Lima, spokesman Lava Jato, admitted that “[…] governments that are being investigated, the PT governments, […]” are the ones who come to the case;

Now that patents were all irregularities and illegalities committed by the Task Force of Curitiba since 2006, so from the earliest beginnings of Lava Jet officially triggered in 2014.

Now, workers, social movements, students, intellectuals and artists gave body and voice to the cry of “There will not be hit”, adding ever more intensely complement “Go fight”;

Now, that was already clear to God and the world, both here and out there, that democracy is in danger and that the state of exception is setting and revoking the rule of law, such great are the recurring violations of the Constitution of 88;

Now, the growing consensus “Outside Cunha”;

Now that even major media outlets seem to land the blow, although having it promoted and defended tooth and nail – not for the sake of legality, of course, but constatarem their theoretical and practical impossibility;

Now, that was cracked the sacrosanct image of vigilante Sergio Moro, revealing the figure of the despotic will;

Maybe it’s time to ask, do not have peace and we can return to our affairs, but that setup will take the strategy of destabilization of Brazil, from the point we arrived.

You have to bury once and for all the idea that the process was initiated one day or has the effective goal to end corruption. For an ultra-selective fight against corruption, which leaves out a multitude of thieves to cry freely and with impunity “Stop thief!” Pointing to Lula, Dilma and the PT can not be minimally taken seriously.

And if the judiciary – particularly the dome of the Federal Public Ministry – as well as sectors of the Federal Police, are only apparently fighting corruption, what they are doing?

Several indications, actions, statements strongly suggest that it is destabilizing the country at any price. Price, by the way, at this point, it is very high if we take into account 1) the commitment of key branches of the productive sector, particularly energy, infrastructure and defense, with reverberations throughout the economy; 2) the creation of an immense social crisis, with its procession of unemployed and the threat of regression in the most vulnerable part of the population to subhuman levels we thought definitely overcome; 3) last, but not least, the demoralization of the institutions, starting with a bandit Parliament, political parties venal and grotesques, judges and prosecutors enxovalham laws in the name of spurious values.

Who cares such destabilization planned and rigorously enforced? Surely, Sergio Moro and his attorneys are only operators of a crime against homeland; nor the federal police are more than performers. Of course, the coup media, opposition parties, fascist movements continuously stimulated, FIESP, the OAB, useful innocent and the opportunists, including the government hosts are actors involved in disaster production, each segment operating at their way. And it can be considered that, because of their immobility and lack of initiative, the government itself Dilma and PT contributed involuntarily, until recently, with destabilization.

The silence of the military is remarkable, even when important interests of defense, that affect them directly, are injured. But what does your non-leadership? If it is true that Lula was not kidnapped and taken by force to Curitiba because of discreet interference Aeronautical Police in Congonhas, there would be an indication that its role as guarantor of the established order follows intact?

It remains, then, the Judiciary dome. Excluding the known positions of Gilmar Mendes, who provide comments, it is disturbing to note that it is not known for sure which way the Supreme Court is going to move, with a view to issuing contradictory signals and the doubts raised as to predominant role of the court, if the Constitutional Court or Court of Appeal.

More serious still is the action and the words of Attorney General Rodrigo Janot.Tracking and mapping out the game unfold in different chess boards of the crisis, the journalist Luis Nassif realized clearly that the Federal Public Ministry was the “High Command” of the coup. The designation is extremely strong, but there are reasons for the use of the term. Among them, the unexplained visit Janot to the Department of Justice in Washington to lead the American authorities documents on Petrobras; his appetite to investigate Aécio Neves; his uncompromising defense of Moro and the Task Force Lava jet, despite the illegalities committed; his delay to report Cunha by the Supreme Court, giving this all the time for stirring up the House of Representatives against the Dilma government; and finally their permission for Live disclose illegal clips of President of talks with Lula, Minister Jacques Wagner with Rui Falcão and lawyers of the former president.

The mapping Nassif gives intelligibility to the destabilization and, above all, the role of the High Command. But over time, and the publication of posts, is the impression that the journalist was startled by his own discovery and went on to explain the conduct of Janot and prosecutors under the exclusive viewpoint of ” corporatism “. Thus, the Federal Public Ministry does not share the logic that moves the other scammers protagonists, as they would be more interested in the power struggle than in fighting corruption, obsession that the MPF supposedly wants to fulfill, “matter who gets hurt.”

We came back, so the crusade against corruption. But if it is selective and the entire Brazilian society is already paying a steep price for Lava jet makes sense to believe Janot? If we know who loses destabilization, would not ask who wins it? It is as if the logic of Lava Jato obey the strategy of absolute disqualification from Brazil on the global stage, under the BRICS, in the Mercosur and in the eyes of Brazilians; that is to say: to the country’s reduction strategy to a neocolonial condition. Destabilization seeks to impracticability of Brazil as a country. Moreover, the strategy does not seem to have been drawn here, in that it repeats and recovery methods, procedures and legal technologies, law enforcement and policies of the US state terrorism in their war against the countries “enemies”, especially those who hold sovereignty in terms of energy and, therefore, need to be “neutralized.” The strategy seeks to criminalize the government Dilma, Lula, the PT and all those who resist the implementation of neoliberal and neocolonial agenda equating them to “terrorists” that need to be eliminated from the political scene. The strategy follows the logic of land razed, preferably carried out by the indigenous themselves, without direct foreign intervention and without military interference. An undeclared war in the “gray area” where local vigilantes do the dirty work, handling the exception of state weapons and in line with the coup media, triggering informational pumps calculated impact on public opinion and on institutions.

Live and prosecutors Curitiba are the soldiers of destabilization. Janot and prosecutors in Brasilia are the High Command. They form the backbone of a political destruction device as a form of collective understanding. Trained in workshops and seminars by experts in “cooperation”, learned the new legal technologies, policies and police of “counter-terrorism”, imported and implemented the strategy of chaos. And we can not even claim that we were not warned: Snowden in 2013, had revealed the staples of the NSA against Dilma and against Petrobras; but we do not know if that espionage was found in the oil provided material for Lava jet. On the other hand Wikileaks informs that Live and prosecutors enthusiastically participated in, since in October 2009, a conference in Rio de Janeiro, which called for training to American Counter-Terrorism Coordination – multijuridicional training, practical, including demonstrations on how to preparing a witness to testify. In the words of the leaked document: “Future Training should focus on areas such as task force on financial crimes, which may prove the best way to fight terrorism in Brazil.”

We know that in Brazil there are not terrorists and we know who wins the criminalization of left. We know, therefore, who want destabilization. Therefore, in addition to the defense of an elected President and a former President hunted unjustly, is concerned the defense of democracy and sovereignty. Means: the construction of the future. Hence, the question: Let’s continue tolerating the intolerable?

(*) Laymert Garcia dos Santos is Titular Professor of the Department of Sociology at the University of Campinas – Unicamp

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More

Like this:

Like Loading...

Is South America’s ‘Progressive Cycle’ At an End?

04 Friday Mar 2016

Posted by raomk in Current Affairs, Economics, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, Latin America, Left politics, Opinion

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Argentina, ‘Progressive Cycle’, Bolivarian process, Bolivia, Brazil, Chavista, Ecuador, Latin America, Latin American left, neoliberal, right-wing governments, South America’s, U.S. interventionism, Venezuela

Neo-Developmentalist Attempts and Socialist Projects

Claudio Katz

Summary

The progressive cycle emerged from popular rebellions that altered power relations in South America. There were social improvements and democratic conquests, and imperialist aggression was curbed. But export-oriented extractivism increased and trade became more balkanized. The agreements with China made by each country reveal fractures in continental integration that have facilitated the reappearance of free trade treaties. Progressivism has suffered from unsuccessful neo-developmentalist attempts that failed to channel agro-export rents into productive activities. Social spending helped to ease protest but discontent has expanded under the centre-left governments. The Right has won the Presidency in Argentina because of the inconsistencies of Kirchnerism, has been strengthened in Brazil by the conservative mutation of the Workers’ Party (PT), and is gaining new life in Ecuador owing to the deceitfulness of the official discourse. The conservatives conceal the corruption, drug trafficking and inequality that continue to be associated with their governments.

Venezuela is battling the U.S. attempt to regain control of its oil. A Chavista counter-attack requires communal power if it is to eradicate the foreign exchange fraud that enriches the bureaucracy. The Bolivarian process will be radicalized or it will regress. Characterizations of the progressive cycle as a post-liberal period omit the continuities with the previous phase and ignore the conflicts with the popular movement. But the pre-eminence of extractivism does not make all governments the same or convert the centre-left administrations into repressive regimes. Socialist projects offer the best outcome in the current stage.


The year 2015 ended with significant advances of the Right in South America. Mauricio Macri was elected President in Argentina, the opposition gained a majority in the Venezuelan parliament, and Dilma Rousseff is being hounded relentlessly in Brazil. Then there are the conservatives’ campaigns in Ecuador, and it remains to be seen whether Evo Morales will obtain a new mandate in Bolivia.[1]

What is the nature of the period in the region? Has the period of governments taking their distance from neoliberalism come to an end? The answer requires that we describe the particular features of the last decade.

Causes and Effects

The progressive cycle arose in popular rebellions that brought down neoliberal governments (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina) or eroded their continuity (Brazil, Uruguay). These uprisings modified the power relations but did not alter South America’s economic insertion in the international division of labour. On the contrary, in a decade of rising prices for raw materials all countries reinforced their status as exporters of primary products.

The right-wing governments (Sebastián Piñera in Chile, Álvaro Uribe-Juan Manuel Santos in Colombia, Vicente Fox-Enrique Peña Nieto in Mexico) used the foreign exchange bonanza to consolidate the model based on openness to free trade and privatizations. The centre-left administrations (Néstor and Cristina Kirchner in Argentina, Inácio Lula da Silva-Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, Tabaré Vázquez-José “Pepe” Mujica in Uruguay, Rafael Correa in Ecuador) promoted increased internal consumption, subsidies to local business owners and social welfare programs. The radical presidents (Hugo Chávez-Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia) applied models of improved redistribution of income and contended with sharp conflicts with the ruling classes.

The affluence of dollars, the fear of new uprisings and the impact of expansive policies in the region avoided the severe neoliberal adjustments that prevailed in other regions. The classic abuses suffered in the New World were transferred to the Old Continent, Europe. Greece’s surgery has had no parallel in Latin America nor have we suffered the financial agonies visited on Portugal, Iceland or Ireland.

This relief was also an effect of the defeat of the FTAA. The project to create a continental free trade area was suspended and this paved the way for a productive respite and social improvements.[2]

During the decade there was a serious limitation of U.S. interventionism. The Marines and the Fourth Fleet continued to operate but did not carry out the invasions typical of Washington. This restraint was confirmed in the decline of the OAS. That Ministry of Colonies lost influence while new organizations (UNASUR, CELAC) intervened in the major conflicts (as in Colombia).

U.S. recognition of Cuba reflected this new scenario. For 53 years the United States had been unable to vanquish the island. It now opted for negotiations and diplomacy, hoping to restore its image and regain hegemony in the region.

This cautious approach of the State Department contrasts with its virulence in other parts of the world. To note the difference, it is enough to observe the sequence of massacres suffered by the Arab world, where the Pentagon ensures U.S. control of oil, destroying states and upholding governments that crush the democratic springs. This demolition (or the wars of plunder in Africa) were absent in South America.

The progressive cycle allowed democratic conquests and constitutional reforms (Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador) introducing rights that had been denied for decades by the ruling elites. And greater tolerance was displayed toward social protest. In this respect, the contrast with the more repressive regimes (Colombia, Peru) or with governments that have used the war on drugs to terrorize people (Mexico) is quite striking.

The progressive period also included the recovery of anti-imperialist ideological traditions. This reappropriation was visible in the commemorations of the independence bicentennials, now updated as the agenda of a Second Independence. In a number of countries this atmosphere contributed to the reappearance of the socialist horizon.

The progressive cycle involved transformations that drew international appreciation from the social movements. South America became a reference for popular agendas. But now the limits of the changes occurring during this stage have surfaced.

Frustrations with Integration

During 2015 Latin American exports declined for the third consecutive year. China’s slower growth, the lesser demand for agrofuels, and the return of speculation in financial assets tend to downgrade the market value of raw materials.

The fall in prices will be reinforced if shale co-exists with traditional oil and other substitute sources are developed for basic resources. This is not the first time that capitalism has developed new techniques to counteract the rise in prices of raw materials. These tendencies tend to seriously undermine all of the Latin American economies tied to agro-mineral exports.

The difficulties in the new situation are confirmed in the reduced growth. Since the public debt is lower than in the past the traditional collapses are not yet cause for concern. But fiscal resources are now declining and the margin for developing policies to reactivate the economy is narrowing.

The progressive cycle has not managed to alter regional vulnerability. This fragility persists in the expansion of raw materials deals to the detriment of integration and productive diversification. The South American association projects have been overcome again through national export activities that promote commercial balkanization and the deterioration of manufacturing processes.

After the defeat of the FTAA many initiatives were taken to forge common structures throughout the area. These included shared industrialization goals, energy loops and communications networks. But those programs have languished year after year.

The regional bank, reserve fund and coordinated currency exchange system have never materialized. Norms to minimize the use of the dollar in commercial transactions as well as priority regional infrastructure projects have remained on the drawing boards.

No concerted protection against the fall in export prices has been set in motion. Each government has opted to negotiate with its own customers, shelving plans to create a regional bloc.

This impotence is synthesized by the freezing of the Bank of the South. It was obstructed in particular by Brazil, which promotes instead its BNDES[3] and even a BRICS bank. The absence of any common financial institution has undermined the programs for exchange convergence and a common currency.

The negotiations with China reveal the same regional fracture. Each government unilaterally signs agreements with the new Asian power which monopolizes purchases of raw materials, sales of manufactured goods, and the granting of credit.

China prioritizes dealings in commodities and is grudging in transferring technology. The asymmetry that it has established with the region is surpassed only by the subordination it imposes in Africa.

The consequences of this inequality began to be noted last year, when China reduced its growth and its acquisitions in Latin America. Furthermore, it began to devalue the yuan in order to increase its exports and adapt its exchange parity to the exigencies of a global currency. Those measures accentuated its position as the source of cheap merchandise in South America.

Up to now China has been expanding without exhibiting geopolitical or military ambitions. Some analysts identify this conduct with friendly policies toward the region. Others see in it a neocolonial strategy of appropriation of natural resources. In any case the result has been a geometric increase in South American dependency on raw materials exports.

Instead of establishing intelligent links with the Asian giant as a counter to U.S. domination, the progressive governments have opted for indebtedness and trade restriction. In UNASUR or CELAC there has never been any discussion on how to negotiate with China as a bloc in order to sign more equitable agreements.

The failures in integration explain the new impetus that has been given to the Trans-Pacific Treaty. The FTAs reappear with an intensity rivalled only by the decline in South American cohesiveness. The United States has objectives that are clearer than they were at the time of the FTAA. It promotes an agreement with Asia (TPP) and another with Europe (TTIP)[4] in order to secure its pre-eminence in strategic activities (research labs, computing, medicine, the military). In the wake of the 2008 collapse it has been promoting free trade with renewed intensity.

South America is a market that is coveted by all transnational enterprises. These companies want treaties with greater labour flexibility and explicit advantages in litigating lawsuits over environmental pollution. The United States and China rival each other in their use of those tools to ease trade restrictions.

Chile, Peru and Colombia have already signed on to the free-trade requirements of the TPP in matters of intellectual property, patents and public procurement. They simply want to obtain better markets for their agro-mineral exports. But the big novelty is the readiness of the new Argentine government to participate in this type of negotiations.

Macri claims he will loosen up the agreement with the European Union and induce Brazil to participate in some way in the Pacific Alliance. He has noted that Dilma’s cabinet includes agribusiness representatives more responsive to trade liberalization than they are to the industrialism of MERCOSUR.

The FTAs will be put to the test in the bargaining over another deal being negotiated in secret by 50 countries, which contains far-reaching provisions for liberalization of services (the TISA, or Trade in Services Agreement). This initiative has already been rejected in Uruguay, but there are continuing attempts. The progressive cycle is directly threatened by the avalanche of free trade sponsored by the Empire.

Failures in Neo-Developmentalism

The limits of progressivism have been most visible in the national attempts to implement neo-developmentalist policies. Those efforts were aimed at turning again to industrialization using strategies based on greater state intervention, imitating the development of South-East Asia. Unlike the classic developmentalism they have promoted alliances with agribusiness and look to a long period in which to reverse the deterioration in the terms of trade.

After a decade, they have not managed to achieve any of the industrialization goals. The expectation of equalling the Asian advance has dissolved in the face of the higher profits generated by exploitation of workers in the Far East. The hope of entrepreneurship by local business people has faded as they continue to require state assistance. The promotion of an efficient civil service has been neutralized by the re-creation of inept bureaucracies.

The major neo-developmentalist attempt was carried out in Argentina during the decade that followed the social explosion of 2001. That experiment was eroded by many imbalances. Attempts to administer the agrarian surplus in a productive way through state management of foreign trade were abandoned. Instead, trust was placed in business owners who used the subsidies for capital flight rather than meaningful investment. Furthermore, they hoped for a virtuous circle of demand based on contributions of the capitalists, but the latter preferred to mark up prices.

The model preserved all of the structural imbalances of the Argentine economy. It heightened dependency on raw materials, fostered stagnation in energy supply, perpetuated a concentrated industrial structure and sustained a financial system that was hostile to investment. The maintenance of a regressive tax system stood in the way of modifying the pillars of social inequality.

The accumulated tensions led to a regressive turn that the Kirchnerist candidate (Daniel Scioli) eluded by losing the election. He proposed a gradual adjustment program through taking on new debt, devaluating the currency, reaching a settlement with the vulture funds claimants, and imposing higher fees and cutbacks in social spending.

In Brazil the debate has been over whether the PT government is managing a conservative variant of neo-developmentalism or a regulated version of neoliberalism. As it did not have to contend with the crisis and popular rebellion that convulsed Argentina, the changes in economic policy were more limited.

But at the end of a decade the results are similar in both countries. The Brazilian economy has stagnated and the expansion in consumption has not reduced social inequality or increased the size of the middle class. There is greater dependency on commodity exports and a major downturn in industry. Finance capital retains its privileges and agribusiness stifles any hope of agrarian reform.

Dilma introduced the conservative turn that progressivism avoided in Argentina. She won the election disputing the adjustment advocated by her rival (Aecio Neves) and then disowned those promises under pressure of the markets. She appointed an ultra-liberal Finance minister (Joaquim Levy[5]), a replay of the first Lula presidency that began with personalities of the same type (Antonio Palocci[6]).

During 2015 this orthodox management generated increased rates and fees. Dilma justified the cutback in social policies and maintained the advantages enjoyed by financiers as they build their fortunes. But as the new year opened she replaced the bankers’ man with a more heterodox economist (Nelson Barbosa) who promises a slower fiscal adjustment to cushion the recession. This turn does not portend an exit from the mess created by the conservative policies.

Ecuador has experienced the same regression from neo-developmentalism. Correa began with a reorganization of the state that strengthened the internal market. He increased tax revenues, provided improved social programs, and channelled part of the rent into public investment.

But later he faced all the limits of analogous experiments and opted for increased debt and export promotion. He signed a FTA with Europe, facilitated privatization of highways, and awarded fully developed oil reserves to the major companies.

The failings of neo-developmentalism have blocked the progressive cycle. That model attempted to channel export surpluses into productive activities. But it encountered resistance from the economic power and gave in to those pressures.

A New Type of Protests

During the last decade explosions of popular discontent have become more infrequent. All of the governments count on using increased fiscal revenues as a significant buffer in the face of social demands. The Right resorted to welfarism, the Centre-Left improved existing programs without affecting powerful interests, and the radical processes facilitated conquests of greater importance.

Throughout the region there was a relaxation in social tensions and the major conflicts were expressed in the political sphere, as in the big resistance mounted against rightist attempts to remove Left governments and the huge mobilizations backing candidates in election battles. But there were no uprisings equivalent to those in the preceding period. Only the heroic response to the coup in Honduras came close.

The fighting spirit of the masses was expressed in other fields, as in the mass demonstrations of Chilean students for free education, the outstanding general strike in Paraguay, or the energetic demands of the peasants, indigenous and environmentalists in Colombia and Peru.

But the principal novelty in this period was the social protests in the countries governed by the Centre-Left. In a context of strong political pressures from the Right, this outburst from below highlighted popular dissatisfaction.

The defiance was quite striking in Argentina. First there was the extended wave of strikes by teachers and public sector workers, followed by the refusal to pay a tax imposed on higher-income wage-earners. This discontent set off four general strikes in 2014-2015. The size of these actions surprised the leaders of the official trade unions, who opposed the protest.

In Brazil, the discontent emerged in the July days of 2013. The huge demonstrations demanding improvements in public transportation and education convulsed the major cities. These were not just “second generation” claims over and above what was already achieved; they expressed a frustration with the conditions of life. This discontent was manifested in the questioning of the superfluous expenditures associated with the financing of the World Cup that could have gone instead toward investment in education.

Finally, in Ecuador the social and indigenous mobilizations became more frequent in the streets and in the past year reached a peak in terms of numbers involved. Correa responded in a harsh and authoritarian manner, widening the rift separating the government from broad sectors of the masses.

Why is the Right Advancing?

Macri’s arrival in the presidency represents the first electoral overturn of a Centre-Left administration by its conservative opponents. This turn is not comparable to what occurred in Chile with Piñera’s victory over Michelle Bachelet. That was a substitution of government within the limits of the same neoliberal rules.

Macri is a crude exponent of the Right. He resorted to demagogy, depoliticization and illusions of concord. With vacuous promises he transformed the powerful cacerolazos [pot-banging street protests by predominantly middle-class sectors] into a surge of votes.

The new President has appointed a cabinet of managers to administer the state as if it was a business. He has initiated a drastic and regressive transfer of incomes through devaluation and increased prices. He is issuing decrees criminalizing social protest and is preparing to repeal recently won democratic rights.

Macri’s triumph was no accident. It was preceded by the Kirchner government’s refusal to accept many demands from below that the Right took up in a distorted and demagogic way. The Kirchner followers fail to acknowledge their responsibility.

Some progressives see the victory of the PRO, Macri’s party, as a transient misfortune and hope to retake the government in a few years. They do not understand the modifications in the political map that are probable in the interval. Others argue that the election was lost through bad luck or because of an erosion in support over 12 years, as if that weariness adhered to some fixed chronology.

Those who attribute the election outcome to the harangue – effective, no doubt – of the hegemonic news media do not accept that the alternative mounted by the official propaganda failed as well. This applies as well to those who banter about Macri’s “post-politics” discourse without noting the declining credibility of the Kirchner discourse. Macri’s victory is ascribable to the frustration with corruption, clientelism, and the Peronist culture of top-down control and loyalty.

The reactionary offensive in pursuit of Dilma has not achieved the results it did in Argentina, but it did disrupt the Brazilian government throughout 2015. The Rightists began with big demonstrations in March that they were unable to sustain in August, and even less in December. The social mobilizations against the institutional coup followed instead an opposite course and grew as time went by.

The Supreme Court has blocked the political trial for now, and the government has gained a respite that it is using to reorganize alliances in exchange for a certain fiscal relief. But Dilma has only achieved a truce with her opponents in the Congress and the media.

As in Argentina, the progressive forces evade any explanation of this retreat. They simply manoeuvre to secure the government’s survival through new agreements with the business lobby, the provincial elites and the partidocracia, the bureaucratic party structures.

They don’t bother to investigate the regression of the PT, which has eroded its social base by agreeing to the adjustments. In the last election Dilma won by a slim margin, compensating her losses in the south with votes in the northeast. Support from the old working-class base of the PT has declined and been supplanted by traditional clientelism.

Furthermore, the government is tarnished by serious corruption scandals. Shady deals with the industrial elite have come to light that portray the consequences of governing in alliances with the affluent. Instead of analyzing this tragic mutation, the theorists of progressivism repeat their timeless messages in opposition to conservative restoration.

A similar regression is observed in Ecuador. Correa’s management is marked by a big divorce between his belligerent rhetoric and hisstatus quo administration. The President polemicizes against Rightists and is implacable in his denunciations of imperialist interference. But day by day he crosses a new barrier in his acceptance of free trade and his confrontation with the social movements.

Here too the analyses of progressivism are limited to redoubled warnings against the Right. They overlook the disillusionment created by a president who is compromised with the establishment agenda. This turn explains Correa’s recent decision not to seek a new mandate.

The Centrality of Venezuela

The outcome of the progressive cycle is at stake in Venezuela. What is happening there is not equivalent to what is going on in other countries. These differences are not appreciated by those who compare the recent triumphs of the Right in Venezuela and Argentina. The two situations are not comparable.

In Venezuela the election unfolded amidst an economic war, with shortages, hyperinflation, and smuggling of subsidized commodities. It was a campaign full of bullets, paramilitaries, conspiratorial NGOs, and criminal provocations.

The Right prepared its usual denunciations of fraud in order to discredit an adverse election result. But it won, and was then unable to explain how it could achieve this victory under a “dictatorship.” For the first time in 16 years it obtained a majority in the parliament and will now try to call a vote to revoke Maduro’s mandate.

Since they are unwilling to wait until 2018, when his term expires, a huge conflict looms with the Executive power. In the National Assembly they will promote unacceptable demands – free the convicted coup plotters, expose speculation, overturn the social conquests – explicitly aimed at harassing the President.

None of these features is present in Argentina. Not only does Capriles have priorities that are quite distinct from Macri’s, but Chavismo differs significantly from Kirchnerism. The first arose out of a popular rebellion and declared its intention to achieve socialist objectives. The latter limited itself to capturing the effects of an uprising and consistently glorified capitalism.

In Venezuela there was a redistribution of the rent, undermining the privileges of the dominant classes. In Argentina this surplus was distributed without significantly altering the advantages enjoyed by the bourgeoisie. The popular empowerment that Chavismo unleashed bears no comparison with the expansion of consumerism promoted by Kirchnerism. And the anti-imperialist project of the ALBA is quite unlike the conservatism of the MERCOSUR (Cieza, 2015; Mazzeo, 2015; Stedile, 2015).

But the principal singularity of Venezuela is derived from the place it occupies in the system of imperialist domination. The United States has targeted this country, hoping to regain control of the largest oil reserves in the continent. It maintains a strategy of permanent aggression.

The war the Pentagon waged in the Middle East – demolishing Iraq and Libya – is sufficient to show the importance it assigns to control of crude oil. The State Department may recognize Cuba and discuss with opposing presidents, but Venezuela is a non-negotiable prey.

That is why the hegemonic news media hammer away day and night against this country, portraying a disaster that must be rescued from afar. The coup plotters are presented as innocent victims of persecution, omitting the fact that Leopoldo López was convicted for the murders that were committed during the guarimbas [violent street protests]. Any U.S. court would have handed down much harsher sentences for such outrages. The media demonization is designed to isolate Chavismo and encourage further condemnation of it by the Social Democracy.

This campaign had been unsuccessful until the recent election victory of the Right. Now they are resolved to dust off the plans to overthrow Maduro, combining the erosion in support promoted by Capriles with the violent removal favoured by López. They are trying to push the government into a chaotic situation in order to stage a repetition of the institutional coup perpetrated against Fernando Lugo in Paraguay.

Macri is the international coordinator of this conspiracy. He heads up all the challenges to Venezuela, while he criminalizes protest in Argentina. He governs his own country by decree but demands respect for parliamentarians in another nation.

Macri has already called for sanctions against Venezuela, a new partner in MERCOSUR, but he does not talk about Guantánamo or mention the ordeals of the political prisoners in U.S. penitentiaries. He has postponed his call for sanctions in Venezuela as he waits for Dilma to take a firmer stance. But he will revert to a hard line if he thinks it fits well with the provocations of López.

Unpostponable Decisions

Chavismo has faced major assaults because of the radicalism of its process, the rage of the bourgeoisie, and the U.S. determination to control oil production. The contrast with Bolivia is striking. There too a radical anti-imperialist government prevails. But the Altiplano lacks the strategic relevance of Venezuela and drags with it a much higher level of underdevelopment.

Evo Morales retains political hegemony and has achieved significant economic growth. He has forged a plurinational state, displacing the old racist elites, and asserted for the first time the real authority of this organism throughout the territory.

Up to this point the Right has been unable to mount a successful challenge for government, but a battle has now opened over the issue of Morales’ re-election. In any case, Bolivia does not confront the unpostponable decisions that Chavismo must now make.

Since the fall in the oil price, Venezuela has suffered a drastic cutback in revenues that threatens its access to the imports required for the day-to-day functioning of the economy. Added to this are the huge surge in the fiscal deficit and the failure to control the foreign exchange rate, inflation and the money supply.

It’s not enough to simply note the existence of an economic war. It must also be said that the government has failed to confront these abuses. Maduro has lacked the firmness that Fidel displayed during Cuba’s “special period.” The economic sabotage is effective because the state bureaucracy continues to uphold with PDVSA dollars a foreign exchange system that facilitates the organized embezzlement of public resources (Gómez Freire, 2015; Aharonian, 2016; Colussi, 2015).

This lack of control accentuates the stagnation of the distributionist model that initially channelled the oil rent into social welfare programs but failed subsequently to jumpstart the creation of a productive economy.

The current situation offers a new (and perhaps final) opportunity to reorganize the economy. This unavoidably entails cutting off the use of U.S. dollars for the smuggling of merchandise and entry of overpriced imports. This fraud enriches the bourgeoisified civil service and infuriates the people. It is not enough to reorganize PDVSA, control the borders or jail a few offenders. Unless the corrupt officials are removed altogether, the Bolivarian process will condemn itself to decline.

Chavismo needs to counterattack if it is to regain popular support. Various economists have developed detailed programs to implement an alternative management of the exchange rate, based on nationalization of the banks and foreign trade. Since there are no longer enough dollars to pay for imports and pay the debt, there is a need as well to look into auditing those liabilities.

Maduro has declared he will not surrender. But in the present delicate situation measures from above are not enough. The survival of the Bolivarian process requires building popular power from below. Legislation already exists defining the attributes of communal power. Those institutions [the communal councils and communes] alone can sustain the battle against capitalists who frustrate exchange controls and recapture surplus oil profits.

The exercise of communal power has been impeded for some years by a bureaucracy that is impoverishing the state. That sector would be the first to be adversely affected by a democracy from below. Maduro has now installed a national assembly of communal power. But the verticalist functioning of the PSUV[7] and the hostility toward more radical currents [within Chavismo] impede this initiative (Guerrero, 2015; Iturriza, 2015; Szalkowicz, 2015; Teruggi, 2015).

Any boost given to communal organization will bring redoubled denunciations in the international media about the “violation of democracy” in Venezuela. That kind of propaganda will be spread by the likes of those who were behind the U.S. coup in Honduras or the institutional farce that overthrew Lugo in Paraguay.

These same personalities say nothing about the state terrorism that is rampant in Mexico or Colombia. They had to put up with Cuba’s membership in the OAS and CELAC, but they are not prepared to tolerate Venezuela’s challenge. Confronting that media establishment is a priority in the continent as a whole.

What the Rightists Conceal

The new situation in South America has emboldened the Right. It thinks its time has come and it promises to end the “populist” cycle and replace “interventionism” with “the market” and “authoritarianism” with “freedom.”

What these messages conceal is the Right’s direct responsibility in the devastation suffered during the 1980s and ‘90s. The progressive governments the Right is challenging came into being because of the economic collapse and the social blood-letting produced by the neoliberals. The Right not only portrays that past as a process unrelated to their regimes, it covers up what actually happened in the countries it governs.

It would seem that the only problems in Latin America are located outside of that radius. This deception has been constructed by the hegemonic news media, which overlook any information considered adverse to right-wing administrations.

The cover-up is shameless and most people are kept in ignorance of any news related to those countries targeted by the dominant press. The media describe the inflation and the currency tensions existing under these governments, but do not mention the unemployment and lack of job security prevalent in the neoliberal economies.

They also highlight the “loss of opportunities” caused by capital controls while remaining silent about the upheavals produced by deregulation. They rant against “mindless consumerism” but hide the damage caused by inequality.

But the grossest omission concerns the functioning of the state. The Right objects to the “discretionary paternalism” practiced by the progressive regimes but ignores the social collapse in the narco-states that has occurred in conjunction with free trade and financial deregulation. Three economies known for their openness and attractiveness to capital – Mexico, Colombia and Peru – are now suffering this corrosion of the state.

Mexico has the highest level of violence in the region. No high-ranking official has been jailed and many territories are controlled by criminal gangs. In Colombia the drug cartels finance presidents, parties and sections of the army. In Peru official complicity with drug trafficking has gone to the point that sentences have been commuted for 3,200 people convicted of that offence.

None of this information is reported with the persistence given to the reports of Venezuela’s misadventures. This duality in reporting extends to matters of corruption. The Right presents it as a gangrene typical of progressivism, overlooking the protagonistic participation of the capitalists in the major incidents of embezzlement in all countries.

The major media expose the dark details of the official handling of public money in Venezuela, Brazil or Bolivia. But they do not mention the more scandalous cases involving their protégés. The collective outrage that precipitated the recent resignation of Guatemala’s president did not make the headlines.

The Right resorts to the same media one-sidedness in embellishing Chile’s economic model, which is praised for its privatizations, with no mention of the stifling household debt, job insecurity, and miserable private retirement pensions, or the slowing growth and rising corruption that are jeopardizing the education reforms and social security promised by Bachelet.

The contrast between the neoliberal paradise and the progressive hell also entails silence about the only case of default in 2015. Puerto Rico ran out of money to finance the plunder of its human resources (emigration), natural resources (replacement of local agriculture by imported food), and economic resources (relocation of industry and tourism).

There is no space for the consequences of neoliberalism in the newspapers or news bulletins. The Right discusses the end of the progressive cycle while failing to mention what is happening outside of that universe.

A Post-Liberal Period?

The Right’s misleading view of the progressive cycle contrasts with the important debate now unfolding among Left theorists as to whether this cycle is continuing or is exhausted.

Those who support the continuity thesis point to the solidity of the transformations of the last decade. They emphasize the socio-economic accomplishments, the advances in continental integration, the geopolitical successes and the election victories (Arkonada, 2015a; Sader, 2015a).

The consistency that they see in the changes carried out is established through the use of the adjective “post-liberal” to describe this cycle. They hold that a “post” stage has left the preceding phase behind through the thoroughgoing nature of the changes registered. This is their focus in polemics against those who emphasize the decline in that process (Itzamná, 2015; Sader, 2016b; Rauber, 2015).

The triumph of Macri, the advance of Capriles-López, and the paralysis of Dilma or Correa have moderated these assessments and induced certain criticisms. Some cite the harmful effects of bureaucracy or shortcomings in the cultural battle (Arana, 2015; Arkonada, 2015b).

But in general they maintain their characterization of the period and emphasize the limitations of the conservative offensive. They highlight the weakness of that project, the transitory nature of its successes or the proximity of major social resistance (Puga Álvarez, 2015; Arkonada, 2015b).

This view fails to register the degree to which the deepening of the extractivist pattern has undermined the progressive cycle. The link between this economic pattern and right-wing governments is not extended to include its peers on the Centre-Left. These governments are adversely affected by the consequences of a model that reduces employment and inhibits productive development. This contradiction is much more serious in the radical processes.

The assumption of a post-liberal period omits those tensions. Not only does it forget that overcoming neoliberalism means beginning to reverse the region’s dependency on raw materials exports, it entails a serious lack of clarity in the characterization of the period. It is never explained whether post-liberalism is referring to the governments or to the patterns of accumulation.

It is sometimes suggested that what is involved is a period counterposed to the Washington Consensus. But in that case it is the political turn to autonomy that is emphasized, while ignoring the persistence of the pattern of raw materials exports.

Or it is argued that a more substantial change in the economic model would go beyond what it is possible to do in Latin America. Such a turn would involve more significant changes in the direction of a multipolar capitalist world that is said to be developing. However, no one explains how those transformations would alter the traditional physiognomy of the region. What occurred in the last decade illustrates a course of raw materials development counterposed to the steps that would have to be taken in the region to forge an industrialized, diversified and integrated economy.

Those sympathetic to progressivism defend the neo-developmentalist economic base of the last decade, noting its contrast with neoliberalism. But they do not register the many areas of complementarity between the two models. Nor do they note that no attempt at greater state regulation has reversed the privatizations, eradicated job insecurity or modified the payments on the debt.[8]

These insufficiencies do not constitute the “price to pay” for the development of a post-liberal scenario. They perpetuate dependency and primary export specialization.

In the last decade, of course, there have been social improvements, greater consumption and some growth. But that kind of recovery has occurred in other cycles of business recovery and higher export prices. What has not changed is the profile of regional capitalism and its adaptation to the current requirements of globalization.

When this fact is ignored there is a tendency to see advances where there is stagnation and enduring achievements where mistakes are prevalent. The backdrop to the problem is the sanctification of capitalism as the only feasible system. The theorists of progressivism rule out the implementation of socialist programs or at best concede their possibility in a distant future.

With that premise, they imagine the viability of heterodox, inclusive or productive schemas of a Latin American capitalism. Each proof of failure of this model is replaced by another hope of the same type, which ends in similar disappointments.

Unthinking Oficialismo

The real problems afflicting progressivism are frequently eluded, and criticism is focused exclusively on the bureaucracy, corruption, or inefficiency. It is forgotten that those problems can occur at any time in all economic models and do not constitute a peculiar feature of the last decade.

And since it is supposed that the sole alternative to those governments is a conservative return, conduct is justified that ends up facilitating the right-wing restoration.

This conduct has been exposed during the protests that have erupted under the centre-left governments. Their supporters respond with the allegation that the right wing is behind the protests. They question the “ungrateful ones” who have taken to the streets but ignore the mistakes made by the progressive governments.

During the Argentine strikes in 2014 and 2015, progressivism repeated the traditional establishment arguments. It decried the “political” nature of the strikes, as if that reduced their legitimacy. It attacked the “extortion by the picketers,” overlooking the fact that it is the bosses, not the activists, who engage in blackmail, and that gestures like these roadblocks are tactics used by workers in the informal sector, lacking the right to protest, in order to protect themselves.

Other progressives try to discredit the strikes, saying that “tomorrow everything will remain the same,” as if an act of force by the workers will not improve their bargaining power. And they present the strike as an act of “egotism” by the better-off workers, even though that advantage has helped to generate some of the biggest social acts of resistence in Argentine history.

In Brazil, the reaction of the PT was similar. It did not participate when the protests began in 2013. It expressed a lack of trust toward the demonstrators and only conceded the validity of the marches when they became a mass movement. The government limited itself to accusing the Right of encouraging discontent instead of noting the popular disillusionment with an administration that appoints neoliberal ministers.

This hostility toward the actions in the streets was a result of the PT’s regression. The party has lost its sensitivity to popular demands as a result of its close links with the business interests and bankers. Its leadership manages the economy in the interests of the capitalists and is surprised when its social base asks for what it has always demanded.

The same tensions emerged in Ecuador in the face of numerous petitions by the social movements in defense of the land and water. Since their marches coincided with the Right’s rejection of the government’s moves to tax the highest incomes, government officials pointed to the convergence of both actions as the same process of conservative restoration. Instead of favouring an approach to the social protesters in order to forge a common front in opposition to the reactionaries, progressivism blindly lined up with Correa.

What is happening in the face of the protests in these three countries governed by the Centre-Left illustrates how the progressive administrations distance themselves from the popular movement. That is how they pave the way for a return of the Right.

Enduring distinctions

Objecting to the post-liberal thesis are other authors who identify an exhaustion of the progressive cycle as a consequence of extractivism. In their view, mega-mining undertakings (Tipnis, Famaitina, Yasuni, Aratiri)[9] and the primacy of soy or hydrocarbons development have blocked reduction in social inequality. And they argue that all the governments in Latin America converge in a “commodities consensus” that accentuates dependency on raw materials production and export (Svampa, 2014; Zibechi, 2016, Zibechi, 2015a).

This is a correct description of the consequences of a model that privileges raw materials exports. But it is wrong in postulating the pre-eminence of a uniform physiognomy in the region. It fails to note the significant differences that separate the right-wing, centre-left and radical governments in all respects other than extractivism.

Venezuela has not eradicated its dependence on oil, Bolivia has not liberated itself from the centrality of gas production, and Cuba maintains its reliance on nickel production or tourism. But this dependency does not convert Maduro, Evo or Raúl Castro into leaders similar to Peña Nieto, Santos or Piñera. Raw materials exports prevail throughout the Latin American economy without defining the profile of the governments.

By highlighting the damaging effects of extractivism, the critics avoid the naive post-liberal perspective. But the limitations of progressivism cannot be reduced to the reinforcement of the agro-mining pattern, nor can neo-developmentalism be defined by this feature. If extractivism were to constitute the principal feature of that model, it would have no significant differences with neoliberalism.

The new developmentalists have tried to channel the agro-mining rents toward the internal market and industrial recomposition. They have failed in that objective, but they had a goal that is absent in their free-trade adversaries.

It is important to explain these distinctions if we are to develop alternatives. The answers do not emerge from a contrast with extractivism alone. Against the post-liberal capitalism promoted by the theorists of the continuity of the progressive cycle, these critics do not advance the socialist option. Instead, they issue generic calls for projects centred on increasing the number of self-managed communities.

This localist horizon tends to obviate the need for a state administered by the popular majorities, and which harmonizes protection of the environment with industrial development. Latin America needs to nationalize the mainsprings of its economy if it is to finance productive undertakings using the rent from agricultural production and mining.

The beneficiaries would then be the labouring majorities and not the capitalist minorities. There lies the main difference between socialism and neo-developmentalism.

The theoreticians of the decline of progressivism question the authoritarianism of the neo-developmentalist governments. They point to restrictions on public freedoms, assaults on the indigenous movement and the trend toward centralizing powers in the hands of presidents. And they denounce the substitution of dynamics of hegemony by coercive logics and the silencing of voices independent of the official discourse (Svampa, 2015; Gudynas, 2015; Zibechi, 2015b).

But none of these tendencies has converted a centre-left administration into a government of reaction. The only such case might be the President of Peru, Ollanta Humala, who posed as a Chavista but has operated as president with a heavy hand and neocolonial subordination.

It is important to recognize these differences if we are to take our distance from the messages spread by the Right against “authoritarianism” and “populism.” While the conservative politicians seek to amalgate criticism of progressivism in a deceitful common discourse, the Left needs to take its distance. Explicitly repudiating the arguments and posturing of the reactionaries is the best way to avoid that trap.

It is worth remembering that radicalizing the processes that are bogged down by the hesitations of progressivism is a task that is counterposed to the neoliberal regression. Areas of convergence with the Centre-Left can exist, but never with the Right. Confronting the reactionaries is a requisite of mass-based political action.

These distinctions apply in all respects and have particular validity in the exercise of democracy. Progressivism can adopt coercive approaches but repressive patterns are not part of its basic structure. That is why a passage from hegemonic forms of rule (by consensus) to dominant forces (coercion) in the administration of the state is usually accompanied by changes in the type of government. The differences between the Centre-Left and the Right that appeared at the outset of the progressive cycle persist today.

Concrete Controversies

All of these current debates now take on an urgent content in Venezuela. In that country the discussion is not about generic diagnoses of continuity or exhaustion of a stage but of specific proposals over radicalization or regression of the Bolivarian process.

The revolutionists advocate radicalization. They reject agreements with the bourgeoisie, promote effective actions against speculators and favour consolidation of the communal power. These initiatives reflect the audacity that characterized the successful revolutions of the 20th century. They call for going on the offensive before the Right comes out on top. (Conde, 2015; Valderrama, Aponte, 2015; Aznárez, 2015; Carcione, 2015).

The second approach is advocated by the Social Democrats and officials who are feathering their nests with the status quo. Their theorists do not advance a clear program. Nor do they openly dispute the radical theses. They simply emphasize the objectives, suggesting that the government will know how to find the correct road.

They tend to lay the blame on imperialism for all the difficulties Venezuela is experiencing, but they contribute no ideas on how to defeat those attacks. They call for renewed efforts to fight “inefficiency” or “lack of control” but do not mention nationalization of the banks, the expropriation of those engaged in capital flight, or an audit of the debt.

Merely defending the Bolivarian process (and the following it maintains) will not solve any problems in the present dilemma. Without an open discussion of why Chavismo lost votes among its supporters, there is no way to overcome the bigger predicament posed by the Right. Nor is there any point in elliptically noting that the government “did not or could not” adopt the appropriate policies.

It is even more unwise to blame the people for “forgetting” what Chavismo brought to them. This line of reasoning assumes that improvements paternally granted by a government should be applauded without hesitation. It is the polar opposite of communal power and the protagonism of workers who are building their own future.

The projects of post-liberal capitalism collide with the reality of Venezuela. This proves the fanciful nature of that model and the need to open anticapitalist routes in order to head off the conservative restoration. Rejecting that approach with a recipe book of impossibilities simply amounts to crossing one’s arms in futility.

Some thinkers agree with this characterization, but they think “the time has passed” to advance in that direction. But how is this timing determined? What is the barometer that can establish the end of a transformative process?

The loss of enthusiasm, the retreat to private life, and proclamations of “good-bye to Chavismo” are current today. But the people often react to situations of extreme adversity. It would not be the first time that divisions and errors of the Right precipitated a Bolivarian counter-attack.

Socialist Identity

The persistence, renewal or extinction of the progressive cycle in the region depends on the popular resistance. Without this dimension it is impossible to ascertain whether it is the continuation or the close of that period. It is a huge error to assess changes in governments without reference to the levels of struggle, organization or consciousness of the oppressed.

The Right has the initiative for now, but the nature of the period as a whole will be defined in the social battles that the conservatives themselves will surely precipitate. And the outcome of those conflicts does not depend solely on the preparedness to struggle. A key factor will be the influence of socialist, anti-imperialist and revolutionary currents.

In the last decade the traditions of these currents have been brought up to date through social movements and radical political processes. In particular, a new generation of militants has renewed with the legacy of the Cuban revolution and Latin American Marxism.

Chávez played a key role in this recovery, and his death severely affected the renaissance of socialist ideology. The impact was so great that it inspired a search for substitute references. An example is the centrality assigned to Pope Francis, which tends to confuse roles of mediation with roles of leadership.

Some personalities are of course useful for negotiating with enemies. The first Latin American to accede to the Papacy has a strong record as an intermediary with imperialism. His presence can serve to break the economic blockade of Cuba, oppose the sabotage of the peace negotiations in Colombia, or intercede against the criminal gangs operating in the region. It would be foolish to squander Francis’s usefulness as a bridge in any of those negotiations.

However, that function does not mean the Pope is a protagonist in the battles against neoliberal capitalism. Many people assume that Francis leads that confrontation thanks to his messages in opposition to inequality, financial speculation or environmental devastation.

They fail to note that these proclamations stand in contradiction to the ongoing lavishness of the Vatican and its financing through obscure banking operations. The divorce between sermon and reality has been a classic feature of ecclesiastical history.

The Pope also adopts various precepts of the social doctrine of the Church that promote models of capitalism with greater state intervention. Those schemes are designed to regulate markets, raise compassion among the wealthy and guarantee the submission of the dispossessed. They expand on an ideology forged during the 20th century in polemics with Marxism and its influential ideas of emancipation.

The Church’s conceptions have not changed. Francis is attempting to resurrect them in order to overcome the loss of members that Catholicism has experienced at the hands of rival creeds. The latter have modernized, are more accessible to the popular classes and are less identified with the interests of the ruling elites.

The Vatican’s campaign counts on the approval of the news media, which exalt the image of Francis, overlooking his questionable past under the Argentine dictatorship. Bergoglio maintains his old hostility to Liberation Theology, rejects sexual diversity, denies the rights of women and avoids the penalization of pedophiles. And he covers for bishops challenged by their communities (Chile), canonizes missionaries who enslaved indigenous peoples (California), and facilitates assaults on secularism.

It is an error to assume that the Latin American Left will be built in an environment shared with Francis. Not only is there a lasting and huge counterposition of ideas and objectives. While the Vatican continues to recruit believers in order to deter the struggle, the Left is organizing protagonists of the resistance.

It is as important to reinforce this combative attitude as it is to strengthen the political identity of the socialists. The Left of the 21st century is defined by its anticapitalist profile. Fighting for the communist ideals of equality, democracy and justice is the best way to contribute to a positive outcome of the progressive cycle. •

This article was first published on Life on the Left

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More

Like this:

Like Loading...

Former Guerrilla Movement to Form New Party in Chile

19 Friday Feb 2016

Posted by raomk in Current Affairs, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, Latin America, Left politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Allende, Chile, guerrilla fighters, Latin America, MIR, Pinochet

Leaders from the MIR said they intend to distinguish themselves from the two political coalitions that dominate Chilean politics.
A faction within Chile's Movement of the Revolutionary Left, which resisted the brutal Pinochet dictatorship, announced that it has begun the process to become a formal political party. 

The decision of the Movement of the Revolutionary Left, known as the MIR, to become a party represents a significant shift for an organization that holds very strong criticisms of other leftist organizations that participate in Chilean party politics. 

“We taken the decision to start our process of legalization, convinced that this instrument can be a contribution to the democratization process that is so necessary for Chilean society,” read a statement by the MIR's central committee in January. 

Secretary-General Demetrio Hernandez said that a group of representatives met with the Electoral Service of Chile to begin the legalization process.

"We want to turn to those honest men and women who really want change, who really want democracy in Chile. And we are going to ask them for their support, and we're going to ask that, in turn, they persuade others," said Hernandez.

The group has until August to collect a minimum of 8,000 signatures to qualify for legal status.


Hernandez said the new party would seek to set itself apart from the two political coalitions that currently dominate Chilean politics. He added that the MIR would pursue forming a new coalition with other leftist parties. 

The MIR was a significant political force in Chile before and after the 1973 coup that ousted the Popular Unity government of Salvador Allende.

Led by the charismatic Miguel Enriquez, the MIR supported the Allende government. After the 1973 coup, many of the MIR's membership refused to go into exile and engaged in armed struggle to topple the dictatorship.

Enriquez himself was killed in a gun battle with Pinochet's secret police Oct. 5, 1974.

Several former guerrilla fighters throughout Latin America have gone on to become heads of state in their respective countries, including Salvador Sanchez Ceren in El Salvador, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, and Jose Mujica in Uruguay.

This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address: 
 "http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Former-Guerrilla-Movement-to-Form-New-Party-in-Chile-20160216-0003.html".

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More

Like this:

Like Loading...

Social Movements and Progressive Governments: Building a New Relationship in Latin America

23 Saturday Jan 2016

Posted by raomk in Current Affairs, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, Left politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Latin America, Marta Harnecker, Progressive Governments, Social Movements

 

by Marta Harnecker

Introduction

In the following article Marta Harnecker, a Chilean sociologist, further explores a topic she has addressed in many books and pamphlets over a lifetime of active involvement in Latin American radical politics. First published on the Spanish website Rebelión in September 2015, it appears in the January 2016 issue of Monthly Review, in a translation I made at Marta’s request.

As it happens, Marta’s article is particularly à propos in light of the recent electoral victory of the right-wing opposition in Venezuela’s parliamentary election. As she notes, a major challenge facing the new social movements in the Latin American countries that have elected “progressive” anti-neoliberal governments is “to advance toward socialism when they have conquered only the government,” a “part of the state” that often “comes without control of the parliament or judiciary” and when “other capitalist-dominated institutions — finance, mass media, the military — remain intact.”

Experience has demonstrated, she argues, “that if revolutionary cadres take over the existing state, they can use their power to begin building the foundations of the new institutions and political systems needed to replace the old state. Above all they can begin creating spaces for popular protagonism, preparing people to exercise power in all aspects of their lives.”

Among other matters discussed in this article, Marta explains at some length what she means by her insistence on a “pedagogy of limitations,” a controversial concept. She calls for “constructive national dialogue laying out arguments from all sides” in which revolutionary socialists should “actively encourage” the pressure exerted by the popular movements. This, it seems to me, means transparent and democratic dialogue in which differing strategies, tactics and policies can be debated and decided openly by the protagonists, those who must implement the adopted decisions.

The degree to which existing state institutions can be used, or the kinds of new institutions that must be created, in the process of post-capitalist social transformation are questions that can only be addressed successfully in reference to the specific conditions in each country. For example, the late Hugo Chávez in Venezuela pointed increasingly to the need to build new forms of power that would progressively expand from communal councils to communes and eventually a communal parliament to replace the institutions of the bourgeois state. In Bolivia, President Evo Morales and other government leaders argue that the organized social movements are already in government, “leading the country…over and above the parties.” (Vice-President García Linera, January 17, 2016)

In this contribution, Marta Harnecker also discusses related issues of debate in the Latin American left today, such as the dependency on resource “extractivism” and the need to balance legitimate indigenous community and worker concerns with the interests of the “society as a whole” in the prevailing circumstances “in order to advance, little by little, toward a model of economic development that will re-establish that healthy metabolism between human beings and nature.”

– Richard Fidler

* * *

Social Movements and Progressive Governments: Building a New Relationship in Latin America

In recent years a major debate has emerged over the role that new social movements should adopt in relation to the progressive governments that have inspired hope in many Latin American nations. Before addressing this subject directly, though, I want to develop a few ideas.

The situation in the 1980s and ’90s in Latin America was comparable in some respects to the experience of pre-revolutionary Russia in the early twentieth century. The destructive impact on Russia of the imperialist First World War and its horrors was paralleled in Latin America by neoliberalism and its horrors: greater hunger and poverty, an increasingly unequal distribution of wealth, unemployment, the destruction of nature, and the erosion of sovereignty.

In such circumstances, many of the region’s peoples said “enough” and started mobilizing, first in defensive resistance, then passing to the offensive. As a result, presidential candidates of the left or center-left began to triumph, only to face the following alternative: either embrace the neoliberal model, or advance an alternative project motivated by a logic of solidarity and human development.

Social Movements against Neoliberalism

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the defeat of Soviet socialism left the parties and social organizations of the left inspired by that model seriously weakened. At the same time, trade unions were hit hard by the weakening of the working class, part of the larger social fragmentation produced by neoliberalism. In that context, it was new social movements, and not the traditional parties and social organizations of the left, that rose to the forefront of the struggle against neoliberalism, in forms that varied widely from one country to another.[1]

In several cases, those new movements began by resisting neoliberal measures in their local communities, while others developed around gender, human rights, or environmental issues. Many then shifted their focus from isolated local issues to national matters, which not only enriched their struggles and demands but also gained them support from highly diverse social sectors, all suffering under the same system.

An early expression of this development was the campaign marking the 500th anniversary of indigenous, black, and popular resistance. The campaign signaled an important convergence of many different groups, united through new organizing principles, including horizontalism, autonomy, gender awareness, and “unity in diversity.” It gave rise to new social coordinating organizations, such as the CLOC-Via Campesina, and helped clarify national and international agendas.[2]

One such agenda was the campaign against the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which was particularly successful in Brazil and Ecuador, and which later led to the first historic defeat of U.S. policy in the region, at the Organization of American States Summit at Mar del Plata in 2005. Since then the problems of regional integration are no longer considered matters for governments alone, but have also become concerns of the masses.

The major element missing from Latin American politics in recent decades has been, with rare exceptions, the traditional workers’ movement, beaten down by flexibilization, subcontracting, and other neoliberal measures. While in some cases the labor movement has participated in wider popular struggles, it has not been on the front lines of combat.

The new social movements often start by rejecting politics and politicians, but as their struggle progresses, many gradually grow from an attitude of mere resistance focused on single issues, to an increasingly political approach that questions the established authorities. In the process they begin to understand the need to build their own political instruments, as in Ecuador with Pachakutik and in Bolivia with the MAS-IPSP.[3]

There are many lessons to learn from these mass struggles, but one of the most important is that they show the central importance of a strategy of solidarity that endeavors to unite the widest possible number around concrete objectives, building understanding even among groups with very different traditions and politics. Even when progressive governments are not elected amid such social mobilization, these struggles still exert an important influence, because the political maturity and broadened perspectives achieved in the course of those struggles endure in the consciousness of those involved.

The Road to Socialism—Difficult but Not Impossible

As we have said, faced with the forces of neoliberalism, some Latin American governments decided to take the road toward an alternative society, a turn which has been given different names: Twenty-First Century Socialism, communitarian socialism, the Buen Vivir (Good Life), the Society of a Life of Fullness (Sumak Kawsay in Kichwa, an indigenous language of the Andes). All envision a society that is not decreed from above but built by the people.

The big challenge for these movements is to advance toward socialism when they have conquered only the government—a strategy that conflicts with the classic Marxist vision, which has traditionally insisted on the need to destroy the bourgeois state, as in the revolutions of the twentieth century. Those revolutions, born from civil wars or imperialist wars, not only mastered but destroyed the inherited state apparatus. So it is understandable that some sectors of the left feel disoriented when they find themselves in such a different situation today.

Furthermore, electoral success captures only a part of the state. Control of executive power often initially comes without control of the parliament or judiciary. In addition, other capitalist-dominated institutions—finance, mass media, the military—remain intact. The issue, then, is how to work toward conquering these other areas of power, winning more people to the transformative project and ensuring that at every step they participate in building their own destiny.

Beginning the advance toward socialism under these conditions poses a number of challenges. Progressive governments must be able to confront the backwardness of their countries, knowing that economic conditions will oblige them to coexist for some time with capitalist forms of production. And they must do this starting from an inherited state apparatus that is designed for capitalism and hostile to any activity oriented toward socialism.

However, practice has demonstrated—contrary to the insistence of some sectors of the left—that if revolutionary cadres take over the existing state, they can use their power to begin building the foundations of the new institutions and political systems needed to replace the old state. Above all they can begin creating spaces for popular protagonism, preparing people to exercise power in all aspects of their lives.

But history has shown that the heavens cannot be taken by storm, that a protracted period is needed to travel from capitalism to the new society that we want to build. Some people speak of decades (Chávez), others of centuries (Samir Amin, Álvaro García Linera), and still others, like me, think socialism will be a goal toward which we must strive but that we may never fully achieve. This view is not as pessimistic as it sounds. On the contrary, a utopian goal, if carefully defined, helps to light the path and strengthen our determination to fight, and each step that we take toward it, no matter how limited, brings us closer to that horizon.

We in Latin America are living in a historical period that I call the “transition toward socialism.” However, while the goal can be shared, the form and methods used in the process of that transition must be adapted to the specific conditions of each country, depending not only on each nation’s economic characteristics but also on the existing configuration of class and political forces. This strategy of pursuing socialism through existing institutions is not only a long process but also one full of challenges and difficulties. Nothing promises uninterrupted progress; retreats and failures will occur as well.

We must be clear that by winning a presidential election we have won a major battle but not the war. Winning the war through institutions requires the creation of a significant national majority. Only with such a majority will it be possible to advance democratically toward a new society. Accordingly, not only is unity among revolutionaries fundamental, but it is also necessary to embrace and enlist all those who share an agenda dedicated to solidarity and social justice. This means we should summon not only the political and social left, but also the center and even some business sectors that may be willing to collaborate with the popular project.

At the same time, we must remember that the elites who were previously dominant respect the rules of the game only when it suits them. They are perfectly capable of tolerating and even favoring a left government if it implements their politics and limits itself to managing the crisis. What elites will always try to prevent—by legal or illegal means—is any program of profound democratic and popular transformations that challenge their own economic interests. Consequently, we must prepare to confront and defeat elite maneuvers meant to block the way toward socialism. One of those tactics may be to infiltrate progressive governments to undermine them from within. Another may be to win over union leaders in certain sectors, exploiting government weaknesses and errors, as occurred in Chile under Allende with workers in the copper-mining and transportation industries.

Unfortunately, progressive governments are often compelled to defend themselves, not only from elite obstructionism, but also from parts of the left who—failing to understand the complexity of the process and opposed to any tactical flexibility—attack them for not achieving profound social changes fast enough, treating them as if they, and not the elite, were the main enemy.

Unions and social movements also tend to take the same intransigent stance toward the state, regardless of its political-social orientation. We must find formulas to overcome this inherited attitude of reflexive opposition to any and all governments, even progressive ones. No less important a threat is the electoral agenda to which governments must often submit in order to legitimate themselves in the face of the ongoing attacks of the opposition. This agenda often collides with the agenda of participatory democratic construction, paralyzing or weakening popular power to make room for election campaigns.

Yet it is not easy to resolve the contradiction between political tempos and democratic processes. Prolonged discussions of law and procedure can unnecessarily endanger the future of the transformative process, as in Venezuela and Ecuador.

Thus, just as revolutionary leaders must use the state apparatus to alter forces they inherit and to build new institutions, they must also sponsor popular education on the limits or obstacles in their path—what I call a “pedagogy of limitations.” It is often thought that talking frankly to the people about such difficulties will discourage and demotivate them, but in fact it helps them to understand better the process underway and to moderate their demands, without, however, renouncing their socialist goals.

To ensure that these messages are communicated, the pedagogy of limitations must be accompanied by the promotion of popular mobilization and creativity. It must be acknowledged that there has been a tendency on the left to think of popular organizations as manipulable, mere conveyer belts for the party or government line. The orthodox Marxist-Leninist left attributes this idea to a reading of Lenin’s thesis on the role of trade unions at the start of the Russian Revolution, when there seemed to be a very close relationship between the working class, the vanguard party, and the state.

However, this ahistorical and incomplete reading of Lenin neglects the fact that the Russian leader himself abandoned this conception in the final years of his life when, during the New Economic Policy (NEP), he foresaw the development of potential contradictions between the workers and the directors of the state-owned enterprises, with dire consequences for the labor movement. Lenin argued that even in a proletarian state, unions had to defend workers’ class interests against the employers, if necessary using the strike as a weapon to combat bureaucratic distortions.[4]

This change, which has profound political implications, went largely unnoticed by Marxist-Leninist parties, which until very recently treated the concept of the conveyer belt as the definitive Leninist thesis on the relationship between parties and social organizations. First with the trade-union movement and later with the social movements, the leadership, responsibilities, and the platform of struggle—in short, everything—were seen by Leninists as matters to be determined by the party leadership. These were then handed down as a line for social movements to follow, without the latter being allowed to participate in the design or development of any of the things that most concerned it.

In stark contrast to this destructive approach, we must avoid any manipulation of popular movements and tolerate—what’s more, actively encourage—the pressure they exert, since it can help progressive government officials fight the deviations and errors that can arise along the way. It was in this spirit that President Chávez told a group of civil servants who had taken over the Ministry of Labor in Caracas, “Good, guys, there’s a lot of bureaucracy there.”

Only the combined influences of an organized, watchful people and a government that understands the need for mobilization and popular criticism can prevent the distortions that may develop from blocking the way. But while officials must welcome criticism, it must always be constructive criticism that helps address problems by offering concrete alternatives. For example, the FMLN government in El Salvador has been faulted for its use of army soldiers to provide security against criminal gangs. But what alternative do these critics propose in order to protect the population if the police alone are incapable of doing the job? If the security issue is not successfully addressed, there is a real danger that the former ARENA government will be returned to office.

As another example, progressive governments in Latin America have come under fire from left critics for their continued reliance on extractivism. It must be acknowledged that there are major problems related to extraction, but what alternative is posed as a means of freeing people from poverty without the extraction of at least some portion of our natural resources?

Both of these topics—problems of neighborhood security and problems related to extraction—demand a constructive national dialogue laying out arguments from all sides. One who feels secure in the validity of an argument does not fear debate; rather, that individual should see it as an opportunity to enlist popular support. Popular proposals will be welcome because progressive governments are deeply concerned about neighborhood violence. Furthermore, they are so determined to address problems of poverty that they believe it is necessary to engage in extraction as part of a comprehensive anti-poverty strategy, even though they share popular concerns about the risks of relying on extraction.

When it comes to dialogue, I would like to quote the words of Pope Francis who, when referring to this matter during his visit to Paraguay, said that this kind of dialogue cannot be

a “theatrical dialogue” [in which we]…play out the conversation [but we only listen to ourselves]…. [D]ialogue presupposes and demands that we seek a culture of encounter…which acknowledges that diversity is not only good, it is necessary. Uniformity nullifies us, it makes us robots. The richness of life is in diversity. For this reason, the point of departure cannot be, “I’m going to dialogue but he’s wrong.”…If I presume that the other person is wrong, it’s better to go home and not dialogue, would you not agree?…Dialogue is not about negotiating. Negotiating is trying to get your own slice of the cake. To see if I can get my own way. If you go with this intention, don’t dialogue, don’t waste your time. Dialogue is about seeking the common good. Discuss, think, and discover together a better solution for everybody…. By trying to understand the thinking of others, their experiences, their hopes, we can see more clearly our shared aspirations.[5]

And since extractivism is one of the topics most debated today, I would like to join that debate by making two points. The first is that we should recognize that human beings have always had to extract from nature, and will likely have to continue to do so. The problem is not whether to extract but how to extract in a way that maintains what Marx termed the healthy “metabolism” between humanity and nature. The first human inhabitants of the planet extracted fruit from trees and fish from the seas, but they took from nature in a manner which maintained that healthy metabolism. However, with the advent of capitalism, the profit motive prioritized the exploitation of nature to the maximum, regardless of the effects, thereby destroying that healthy metabolism. In this context, more and more is extracted, and natural resources are depleted, with all the additional consequences that this behavior has on climate change. In southern Chile, for example, Japanese transnational corporations are cutting down our ancient trees and replanting, but not with indigenous species that grow slowly and are appropriate to that environment but rather with foreign, fast-growing species that consume a disproportionate quantity of water and deplete the soil, all so that they can be cut down again in a few years. And what can one say about the pollution caused by Chevron’s oil operations in Ecuador?

Second, it is essential to understand that the resources located in a particular territory—minerals, oil, gas, aquifer springs, forest reserves—should not be considered resources belonging only to the inhabitants of those places. We must be staunch defenders of the rights of indigenous people as well as those of workers. But the oil in Venezuela and Ecuador, the gas in Bolivia, and copper in Chile are a gift from heaven. They are resources that belong to society as a whole, and it is society as a whole that should decide whether to extract them or not. Of course it is necessary to engage in serious dialogue with those who live in the area and work in the industry to ensure that their concerns are addressed and their needs met. But we need to understand that interests are at stake in such situations that transcend the interests of particular communities and portions of the working class.

If we can reach agreement on the two previous points, what we then need to address is concrete proposals on how to use our natural resources at this time and under prevailing circumstances in order to advance, little by little, toward a model of economic development that will re-establish that healthy metabolism between human beings and nature.

But, to return to the question of criticism, it is important to establish channels by which people do not passively suffer their discontent, but can express it openly, thereby avoiding an accumulation of unease that explodes unexpectedly. If those channels are established, the problems that are identified can be corrected. (Interestingly, the Bolivian Constitution provides that organized people can and should react against any violation of or threat to their rights, including environmental rights, in what the Constitution terms “popular action.”[6] Furthermore, it creates a specialized tribunal of agro-environmental jurisdiction—agriculture, forestry, ecological issues—whose magistrates are to be elected by universal suffrage.)[7]

Lastly, we have to ask ourselves why, if our proposed social agenda is so beautiful, profound, and transformative, and reflects the interests of a great majority, those who have proposed to implement it do not enjoy all the popular support they deserve. I think the explanation lies largely in the fact that a significant part of the Latin American population is not sufficiently acquainted with the true nature of the socialist project. The opposition wilfully misrepresent it, creating false alarms and fear about the future. But we socialists also contribute to this state of affairs. We tend to be deficient in communicating our project. We fail to devote sufficient time, resources, or creativity. And most seriously, our own ways of living often contradict some of the fundamental aspects of that project: we propose a democratic, transparent society free of corruption, yet we adopt authoritarian, clientelistic, selfish, and opaque practices. There is often a huge gulf between what we preach and how we live, and as a consequence our message loses credibility. It should come as no surprise to us, then, that important sectors of Latin American society still do not identify with the socialist project, and that it is necessary for us to make every effort to win them over.

And how can ever more people be won over? The first thing to understand is that it is not a question of imposing our views, but instead of winning the hearts and minds of the people. But we must also place special emphasis on winning the allegiance of the natural leaders of the various social sectors, which will in turn help win the people they influence.

A Constructive Collaboration

A new relationship between progressive governments and social movements must be established. The governments must not forget that behind their electoral triumphs is a long history of social struggles, without which their electoral success would have been impossible. The movements must understand that those governments are no longer the enemies of the past, but can be effective allies in the fight for their rights and the achievement of their aspirations. Provided that both parties are pursuing a profound transformation of the present society, their relationship should be one of mutual collaboration. However, for this relationship to be productive, a number of things must be considered:

1. Social leaders must not forget that they have won only partial political power, and that the processes of change can be very slow, and popular demands cannot be successfully addressed overnight.

2. Our governments must try to explain to citizens, and in particular to leaders of social movements, the limitations within which they are obliged to act, and people must learn to be patient, confident in the knowledge that everyone involved is pursuing the same progressive goals.

3. The collaboration between both sides cannot mean a loss of movements’ autonomy to the government. They must not be transformed into appendices of the government, but instead must be capable—while supporting the process of change as their joint responsibility—of criticizing government errors, so long as such criticism helps correct those errors by proposing appropriate alternatives. Only if the possibilities for dialogue are exhausted, or go unheard, should we consider other courses of action through which to express our defense of socialist progress.

4. Social movement leaders must overcome the impulse to oppose everything that comes from the government, or to refer to leaders who support the government as “government agents” or “apologists.” If they cannot overcome this destructive practice, those leaders will risk alienating their own social bases, who, seeing the positive effects of government policies in their day-to-day lives, will not understand such destructive opposition.

5. Our governments should take into account the culture they have inherited and be very flexible and patient in working with social movement leaders, clearly distinguishing between those who consciously use their mass influence to block social transformation and those who take mistaken positions because they lack sufficient information or because of the weight of old habits.

Are We Advancing or Retreating?

I want to end this article with some questions that will help provide a more objective vision of what our governments are doing to engage popular power:

  • Do they strengthen the working class, eliminate subcontracting, create a universal social security system, bolster the unions, and facilitate workers’ education and professional development?
  • Do they respect the autonomy of social organizations and trade unions?
  • Do they understand the need for an organized, politicized people, able to exercise the pressure needed to weaken the inherited state apparatus, and thus drive forward the proposed process of transformation?
  • Do they listen to the people and let them speak? Do they understand that they can rely on the people to fight the errors and overcome barriers that are encountered along the way?
  • Do they give the people resources and call on them to exercise social control over the transformation?

To sum up, is the government contributing to the creation of a popular subject who is increasingly the protagonist and increasingly the real builder of its own destiny?

The author would like to thank Fred Fuentes and Sid Shniad for their contributions.

Further reading:

Marta Harnecker on the challenges of advancing toward socialism via the institutional road

Marta Harnecker on New Paths Toward 21st Century Socialism


[1] For further discussion of the experiences of social movements in various countries of Latin America, see Marta Harnecker, A World to Build: New Paths toward Twenty-First Century Socialism(New York: Monthly Review Press, 2015), chapter 2.

[2] Coordinadora Latinoamericana de Organizaciones del Campo (CLOC).

[3] See Marta Harnecker, Ecuador: Una nueva izquierda en busca de la vida en plenitud (2011), chapters 4 and 6. Available in Spanish at http://rebelion.org. See also Marta Harnecker with Federico Fuentes, “MAS-IPSP de Bolivia. Instrumento político que surge de los movimientos sociales” (2008). Available at http://rebelion.org.

[4] Vladimir Lenin, “Draft Theses on the Role and Functions of the Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy,” Collected Works, vol. 42 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1971), 374–86.

[5] Spoken at a meeting with civil society representatives in Paraguay, at León Condou Stadium, Colegio San José Asunción, July 11, 2015. I excerpt only the essence; the Pope addressed the topic more fully.

[6] Article 135: “The Popular Action shall proceed against any act or omission by the authorities or individuals or collectives that violates or threatens to violate rights and collective interests related to public patrimony, space, security and health, the environment and other rights of a similar nature that are recognized by this Constitution.”

[7] Part II, Title III, Chapter III, Agro-Environmental Jurisdiction, Articles 186–89. Available at http://constituteproject.org.

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More

Like this:

Like Loading...

వెనెజులాలో మొదలైన వర్గ పోరు

07 Thursday Jan 2016

Posted by raomk in Current Affairs, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, Left politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Caracas, Chavez, Latin America, Latin American left, Maduro, Venezuela

ఎంకెఆర్‌

పదిహేడు సంవత్సరాల తరువాత వెనెజులా మితవాద పార్టీల కూటమి పార్లమెంట్‌లో తాను సాధించిన మెజారిటీని అడ్డం పెట్టుకొని పార్లమెంట్‌ తొలి సమావేశం తొలిరోజే రౌడీయిజానికి పాల్పడింది. గత నెలలో వెనెజులా పార్లమెంట్‌కు జరిగిన ఎన్నికలలో పాలక వామపక్ష సోషలిస్టు పార్టీ కూటమి ఓడిపోయింది. అధ్యక్ష పదవిలో ఛావెజ్‌ వారసుడిగా వున్న నికోలస్‌ మదురో పదవీ కాలం మరో మూడు సంవత్సరాలు వుంది. అధికారంలో సోషలిస్టులు, పార్లమెంటులో మెజారిటీగా మితవాదులు వున్న ఒక అసాధారణ స్థితిలో బుధవారం నాడు తొలిసారిగా కొత్త పార్లమెంట్‌ సమావేశం ప్రారంభమైంది. ఆరునెలల్లో మదురో ప్రభుత్వాన్ని కూలదోస్తామని శపధాలు చేసిన మితవాదులు ప్రజాస్వామ్యాన్ని ఖూనీ చేసేందుకు పూనుకుంటే వెనెజులా శ్రామికవర్గం చేతులు ముడుకు కూర్చుంటుందా ? వుక్కు పిడికిలితో తాము ప్రతిఘటిస్తామని మదురో హెచ్చరించారు. పార్లమెంట్‌ తొలిరోజే పార్లమెంట్‌ వెలుపల అటు మితవాదుల, ఇటు వామపక్షవాదుల మద్దతుదారులు వేలాది మంది గుమికూడి ప్రదర్శనలు చేశారు. వీధులలో కొట్లాటలు మినహా వాతావరణం ఘర్షణ పూరితంగా తయారైంది. పార్లమెంటులో బొలివేరియన్‌ విప్లవ నేత హ్యూగో ఛావెజ్‌ ఫొటోలను తొలగించి మితవాదులు రెచ్చగొట్టే చర్యలకు పూనుకున్నారు.

వెనెజులా సోషలిస్టు పార్టీ నాయకత్వం చేసిన కొన్ని తప్పిదాలు, అవినీతి అక్రమాలను అరికట్టటంలో చేసిన జాగు వంటి అనేక కారణాలతో కొన్ని తరగతుల ప్రజానీకం దూరమయ్యారు. అందువలననే 2013లో జరిగిన ఎన్నికలలో బొటాబొటీ మెజారిటీతో మదురో ఎన్నికయ్యారు. గత నెలలో జరిగిన పార్లమెంట్‌ ఎన్నికలలో మితవాదులు, వామపక్ష కూటమికి ఓట్ల తేడా పదిశాతం వరకు పెరిగింది. దీని అర్ధం ఓటర్లు మితవాద విధానాలకు మద్దతు పలుకుతారని కాదు. కార్పొరేట్‌ శక్తులు ప్రారంభించిన ఆర్ధిక యుద్ధాన్ని ఎదుర్కోవటంలో మదురో సర్కార్‌ విఫలమైంది. దానికి తోడు చమురు ధరలు పడిపోయి ఆదాయం గణనీయంగా తగ్గిపోయింది.ఈ పూర్వరంగంలో ఆర్ధిక పరిస్ధితిని తాము చక్కదిద్దుతామని మితవాదులు ఓటర్ల ముందుకు వచ్చారు. వారిపై భ్రమలు వున్న ఒక తరగతి అటువైపు మొగ్గటంతో ఫలితాలు సోషలిస్టులకు ప్రతికూలంగా వచ్చాయి.

మదురో పాలనలో పెరిగిపోయిన అవినీతిని రూపుమాపుతామంటూ ప్రకటించిన నూతన పార్లమెంట్‌ అధ్యక్షుడు హెన్రీ రామోస్‌ అలప్‌ ప్రవర్తనతో మొదటి రోజే ప్రతిపక్ష సభ్యులు వాకౌట్‌ చేశారు.తమలో ఒక్కరికే అవకాశం ఇచ్చి అడ్డుకున్నారని వారు విమర్శించారు. తొలి ఎవరు మాట్లాడినా అవకాశం ఇవ్వాలని నిబంధనలు వున్నాయని చెప్పారు.తొలి రోజే ప్రజావ్యతిరేకమైన నయా వుదారవాద బిల్లు ప్రతిపాదనలను మితవాదులు పార్లమెంట్‌ ముందుకు తెచ్చారు. అనేక నేరాలకు శిక్షలు పడి జైళ్లలో వున్న తమ వారిని రాజకీయ ఖైదీలనే ముద్రతో విడిపించుకొనేందుకు క్షమా భిక్ష చట్ట సవరణను మితవాదులు ప్రతిపాదించారు. దీనికి అమెరికా మద్దతు ఇచ్చింది. ఇలాంటి బిల్లులను అధ్యక్షుడు మదురో అడ్డుకుంటారని వేరే చెప్పనవసరం లేదు. ఇళ్ల కార్యక్రమంలో లబ్దిదారులకు వాటిపై యాజమాన్య హక్కు కల్పించాలనే మరొక ప్రతిపాదన తెచ్చారు. ఒక సామాజిక కార్యక్రమాన్ని ప్రయివేటీకరించటం తప్ప మరొకటి కాదని వామపక్షాలు విమర్శించాయి. సామాజిక భద్రతా పధకం కింద 30లక్షల మందికి పైగా లబ్దిదారులైన వుద్యోగ విరమణ చేసిన వారికి అందచేసే ఔషధాలు, ఆహార సరఫరాను క్రమబద్దీకరించే పేరుతో మరొక ప్రతిపాదనను మితవాదులు తెచ్చారు.

మరోవైపు గతేడాది ఆమోదించిన బిల్లులకు చట్ట రూపం కల్పిస్తూ అధ్యక్షుడు మదురో నోటిఫికేషన్‌ జారీ చేశారు. ప్రజల హక్కులకు మద్దతు ఇస్తున్న చట్టాలను పరిరక్షించుకొనేందుకు మద్దతు ఇవ్వాలని పిలుపునిచ్చారు. పార్లమెంట్‌ ఎన్నికలు ముగిసిన తరువాత గత నెల రెండవ వారంలో సామాజిక కమిటీల పార్లమెంటు సమావేశం జరిగింది. వెనెజులాలో సామాజిక కమిటీల వున్నత సంస్ధ అది. గత పదిహేడు సంవత్సరాల బొలివేరియన్‌ విప్లవపాలనా కాలంలో ప్రజానుకూలంగా తీసుకువచ్చిన మార్పులు, చట్టాలను పరిరక్షించుకోవాలని అది పిలుపునిచ్చింది. ప్రజల సాధికారతను పార్లమెంట్‌ హరిస్తే తాము పోరాటాలు చేసేందుకు సిద్ధంగా వున్నామని వక్తలు పేర్కొన్నారు. ఇదంతా కూడా పార్లమెంట్‌లో మెజారిటీగా వున్న మితివాదుల బెదిరింపుల పూర్వరంగంలో జరిగింది. సామాన్య ప్రజలు ఇప్పటి వరకు అనుభవిస్తున్న సామాజిక భద్రత, సంక్షేమ పధకాలకు ఏ మాత్రం కోత పెట్టినా అది పోరాటాలకు దారి తీయటం అనివార్యంగా కనిపిస్తోంది. అదే ఖండంలోని అర్జెంటీనాలో అధికారానికి వచ్చిన మితవాదులు పెద్ద సంఖ్యంలో ప్రభుత్వ రంగ సంస్ధలు, ప్రభుత్వ వుద్యోగులను తొలగించటానికి చేస్తున్న ప్రయత్నాలు కొనసాగితే ఆందోళన తప్పదని అక్కడి కార్మిక సంఘాలు ఇప్పటికే హెచ్చరించాయి.

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More

Like this:

Like Loading...

A Chavista victory in Venezuela will be “fraud” to the opposition

06 Sunday Dec 2015

Posted by raomk in Current Affairs, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, Left politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

democracy, elections, Latin America, Venezuela

  • assets/Uploads/_resampled/CroppedImage6060-EricGordonCROPPED.jpg
by: ERIC A. GORDON
Maduro

CARACAS, Venezuela – By the time you read this – presumably on Monday, Dec. 7 – the results of Venezuela’s nationwide elections for its National Assembly will likely be known to the world.

But as I write, two days before this decisive vote, let me share some thoughts about the process – and about the prognosis.

I have made this trip to Caracas – and later in the week to other sites in Venezuela – with a group of North American activists and writers concerned about learning the truth of what is happening in this country. These elections, two years after Nicolas Maduro very narrowly won the presidency as successor to the late Hugo Chavez, will determine if the Bolivarian process that Chavez initiated in 1998 will be given the chance to advance. If the right-wing opposition – widely reported to be favored and financed by the U.S. and other capitalist powers – wins on Sunday, Dec. 6, progress could be stopped in its tracks with dire consequences for the vast majority of the Venezuelan people.

In the weeks before leaving the U.S. to come here, everything I read in the U.S. corporate media pointed to a loss for the Chavista movement. Venezuelans, these reports assured, had become tired of the shortages of basic goods and staples in the stores, frustrated with everyday violence, outraged by sky-high inflation that makes nonsense of any efforts at price stabilization, and confused by the privately-owned media that pours out a constant blast of criticism of the government’s supposed incompetence.

Frankly, I arrived expecting in a few days to witness “the beginning of the end,” that moment on Dec. 6 when a majority of Venezuelans would decide to put a halt to the whole Bolivarian experiment, make a lame duck of President Maduro, and perhaps prepare the ground for his impeachment, and throw their fates to the waiting opposition.

Now, after a few days here, I am not at all convinced this will happen. If indeed the Chavistas win, which many people we have met so far are sure will be the case, count on the opposition to immediately start yelling “Fraud!” to whoever will listen. The mass media and politicians in the imperialist countries will readily come to the opposition’s defense, for they already “know” all about the origins of the crisis in Chavez’ utopian scheme to tilt his country away from dependency on the U.S., and to lead the rest of Latin America toward a self-sufficiency that is free – what a crazy concept! – from U.S.-dominated Western Hemispheric trade alliances and investment loans.

The justification for “humanitarian” intervention – to save Venezuela from its “corrupt elections” and bring the country back into the capitalist fold – has already been carefully established. After all, did not our own President Barack Obama, just a few months ago, declare Venezuela to be an immediate and extraordinary threat to the vital security of the United States and place certain Venezuelan officials on persona non grata status? Although other Latin American nations forced him to retract this statement, the anti-Chavista fever can easily be stoked up again.

The problem is that Venezuela’s electoral process has been analyzed and studied by numerous world bodies and private NGOs, such as the Carter Center, and found to be among the fairest, most democratic, and most fastidiously enforced on the planet. Hugo Chavez was no dictator: He was voted in by enthusiastic majorities time after time. That is what’s so galling to the banksters and loan sharks who have dictated U.S. policy in the hemisphere for so many decades and who now fear the jig may be up.

Our little group of nine met for three hours, on our first full day in the country, with officials of the CNE – Consejo Nacional Electoral, or National Elections Commission – in their busy offices just days before the momentous vote. CNE staff, including the rectora principal, the director Tania D’amelio Cardiet, patiently answered every question we posed. They appeared eager to have their work reliably reported in our media.

In the first place, the CNE directors are appointed to overlapping seven-year terms by the National Assembly. It is autonomous from the government, and only accountable to the specific, detailed electoral law of the land. Venezuela has a plethora of political parties, some running together as a Chavista unity slate with the same candidates (think “fusion parties” in the U.S.), others going it alone. The Chavista slate includes the large socialist PSUV (Maduro’s party) as well as the PCV, the Communist Party of Venezuela. Each of the 23 states in the country, plus the Distrito Capital (Caracas), has its own concatenation of parties, each state entitled to the number of National Assembly members according to its population.

The total number of National Assembly members is 167, of whom 113 are voted in on the strength of their own names, 51 elected from party lists according to the popularity of those parties in the overall voting, and 3 seats designated for Indigenous peoples.

At the time Hugo Chavez was first elected in 1998, some 28 percent of eligible voters were not registered. Now only 3 percent are unregistered. In presidential elections 80 percent of the approximately 19.5 million voters in the country vote; for National Assembly elections the turnout is over 70 percent. Even in elections for much lower offices the turnout is around 60 percent.

Demographically, 51 percent of voters are women, and almost 4 million are young voters 18-30). Women enter their “senior” years in Venezuela at age 55, with the right to start receiving a pension, and men at age 60. Some of us “seniors” in our study group qualify to ride the modern, efficient Metro system in Caracas for free.

Once voters arrive at one of the 14,515 polling sites around the country, where qualified officials run 40,601 separate precinct tables, they identify themselves with their national ID card, place their thumb into a machine which reads their fingerprint, thus confirming who they are, and enter the voting booth where they have up to 6 minutes to cast their electronic ballot (most people take under a minute). When they finish, they receive a printout of their vote to confirm their choices, and they deposit this slip into the ballot box. At the end of the day the electronic vote and the paper ballots should match exactly. Witnesses from the participating parties are entitled to observe this entire process to certify its veracity.

Not entirely as a parenthetical note, readers should know that presumably voters going to the polls are completely sober: There is no liquor legally sold throughout the country for three days, from 6 p.m. Friday through Sunday – not even to us innocent visiting non-nationals!

Immediately after the votes are recorded and reported, an automatic audit takes place of 53.3 percent of all the precincts, randomly chosen from around the country, to spot any conceivable irregularities. Within a few weeks a 100 percent audit takes place. All parties in the elections have signed on to these carefully thought-out and elegantly devised mechanisms, regarded – to repeat myself – as among the most democratic in the world.

Later in the day, we attended the huge public rally officially closing the electoral campaign, where Maduro spoke and revved up his thousands of supporters in the capital, a flock of colorful flags and banners proudly whipping in the breeze, the red-shirted crowds gaily chanting, singing and cheering. Their infectious joy helped to persuade me that this election is very much up for grabs. A Chavista win is hardly out of the question!

Whatever the result on Dec. 6, whether a victory for the Bolivarian Revolution or for its opposition, you can be assured that there was no question of fraud. If you hear that claim, don’t believe it, and start asking serious questions of anyone making it. It ain’t so.

From Peoples World

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • More

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts

Recent Posts

  • రష్యా – జర్మనీలను శాశ్వత శత్రు దేశాలుగా మార్చే అమెరికా కుటిల పన్నాగం !
  • అక్రమం జరిగిందా లేదా విచారణకు ఆదేశిస్తారా లేదా : అదానీ కంపెనీలపై నోరు విప్పని ప్రధాని నరేంద్రమోడీ !
  • బికినీతో చేతులు కాల్చుకున్న కాషాయ దళం : రు.600 కోట్ల క్లబ్బులో బ్లాక్‌బస్టర్‌ ” పఠాన్‌ ” సినిమా, కంగన , అసోం సిఎం పైసా ఖర్చులేని ప్రచారం !
  • దేశమంతటా మోడీ డాక్యుమెంటరీ ప్రదర్శనలకు పిలుపు, ఏక్షణమైనా నిషేధం విధించే అవకాశం ?
  • జిన్‌, జియాన్‌, ఆజాదీ – నాడు షా, నేడు అలీ ఖమేనీ పట్ల వ్యతిరేకత, ఇరాన్‌లో చరిత్ర పునరావృతం కానుందా !

Recent Comments

raghuveer on తైవాన్‌కు మరిన్ని అమెరికా అస్త…
Raghuveer on గుజరాత్‌ ఘనత మోడీదైతే హిమచల్‌…
Raghuveer on అమెరికా సబ్సిడీలు – ఐరోప…
Raghuveer on అదానీ కోసం కేరళలో బిజెపితో సిప…
Hanumantha Reddy San… on ప్రపంచాధిపత్యం కోసం అమెరికా త‌…

Archives

  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015

Categories

  • AP
  • AP NEWS
  • BJP
  • CHINA
  • Communalism
  • Congress
  • COUNTRIES
  • CPI(M)
  • Current Affairs
  • Economics
  • Education
  • employees
  • Environment
  • Farmers
  • Filims
  • Germany
  • Greek
  • Gujarat
  • Health
  • History
  • imperialism
  • INDIA
  • International
  • INTERNATIONAL NEWS
  • Japan
  • Latin America
  • Left politics
  • Literature.
  • Loksabha Elections
  • NATIONAL NEWS
  • Opinion
  • Others
  • Pensioners
  • Political Parties
  • Politics
  • Prices
  • Readers News Service
  • RELIGION
  • Religious Intolarence
  • RUSSIA
  • Science
  • Social Inclusion
  • Sports
  • STATES NEWS
  • Telangana
  • Telugu
  • UK
  • Uncategorized
  • USA
  • WAR
  • Women
  • Women

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Recent Posts

  • రష్యా – జర్మనీలను శాశ్వత శత్రు దేశాలుగా మార్చే అమెరికా కుటిల పన్నాగం !
  • అక్రమం జరిగిందా లేదా విచారణకు ఆదేశిస్తారా లేదా : అదానీ కంపెనీలపై నోరు విప్పని ప్రధాని నరేంద్రమోడీ !
  • బికినీతో చేతులు కాల్చుకున్న కాషాయ దళం : రు.600 కోట్ల క్లబ్బులో బ్లాక్‌బస్టర్‌ ” పఠాన్‌ ” సినిమా, కంగన , అసోం సిఎం పైసా ఖర్చులేని ప్రచారం !
  • దేశమంతటా మోడీ డాక్యుమెంటరీ ప్రదర్శనలకు పిలుపు, ఏక్షణమైనా నిషేధం విధించే అవకాశం ?
  • జిన్‌, జియాన్‌, ఆజాదీ – నాడు షా, నేడు అలీ ఖమేనీ పట్ల వ్యతిరేకత, ఇరాన్‌లో చరిత్ర పునరావృతం కానుందా !

Recent Comments

raghuveer on తైవాన్‌కు మరిన్ని అమెరికా అస్త…
Raghuveer on గుజరాత్‌ ఘనత మోడీదైతే హిమచల్‌…
Raghuveer on అమెరికా సబ్సిడీలు – ఐరోప…
Raghuveer on అదానీ కోసం కేరళలో బిజెపితో సిప…
Hanumantha Reddy San… on ప్రపంచాధిపత్యం కోసం అమెరికా త‌…

Archives

  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015

Categories

  • AP
  • AP NEWS
  • BJP
  • CHINA
  • Communalism
  • Congress
  • COUNTRIES
  • CPI(M)
  • Current Affairs
  • Economics
  • Education
  • employees
  • Environment
  • Farmers
  • Filims
  • Germany
  • Greek
  • Gujarat
  • Health
  • History
  • imperialism
  • INDIA
  • International
  • INTERNATIONAL NEWS
  • Japan
  • Latin America
  • Left politics
  • Literature.
  • Loksabha Elections
  • NATIONAL NEWS
  • Opinion
  • Others
  • Pensioners
  • Political Parties
  • Politics
  • Prices
  • Readers News Service
  • RELIGION
  • Religious Intolarence
  • RUSSIA
  • Science
  • Social Inclusion
  • Sports
  • STATES NEWS
  • Telangana
  • Telugu
  • UK
  • Uncategorized
  • USA
  • WAR
  • Women
  • Women

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Social

  • View mannem.koteswararao’s profile on Facebook
  • View mannemkoteswara’s profile on Twitter

Recent Posts

  • రష్యా – జర్మనీలను శాశ్వత శత్రు దేశాలుగా మార్చే అమెరికా కుటిల పన్నాగం !
  • అక్రమం జరిగిందా లేదా విచారణకు ఆదేశిస్తారా లేదా : అదానీ కంపెనీలపై నోరు విప్పని ప్రధాని నరేంద్రమోడీ !
  • బికినీతో చేతులు కాల్చుకున్న కాషాయ దళం : రు.600 కోట్ల క్లబ్బులో బ్లాక్‌బస్టర్‌ ” పఠాన్‌ ” సినిమా, కంగన , అసోం సిఎం పైసా ఖర్చులేని ప్రచారం !
  • దేశమంతటా మోడీ డాక్యుమెంటరీ ప్రదర్శనలకు పిలుపు, ఏక్షణమైనా నిషేధం విధించే అవకాశం ?
  • జిన్‌, జియాన్‌, ఆజాదీ – నాడు షా, నేడు అలీ ఖమేనీ పట్ల వ్యతిరేకత, ఇరాన్‌లో చరిత్ర పునరావృతం కానుందా !

Recent Comments

raghuveer on తైవాన్‌కు మరిన్ని అమెరికా అస్త…
Raghuveer on గుజరాత్‌ ఘనత మోడీదైతే హిమచల్‌…
Raghuveer on అమెరికా సబ్సిడీలు – ఐరోప…
Raghuveer on అదానీ కోసం కేరళలో బిజెపితో సిప…
Hanumantha Reddy San… on ప్రపంచాధిపత్యం కోసం అమెరికా త‌…

Archives

  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015

Categories

  • AP
  • AP NEWS
  • BJP
  • CHINA
  • Communalism
  • Congress
  • COUNTRIES
  • CPI(M)
  • Current Affairs
  • Economics
  • Education
  • employees
  • Environment
  • Farmers
  • Filims
  • Germany
  • Greek
  • Gujarat
  • Health
  • History
  • imperialism
  • INDIA
  • International
  • INTERNATIONAL NEWS
  • Japan
  • Latin America
  • Left politics
  • Literature.
  • Loksabha Elections
  • NATIONAL NEWS
  • Opinion
  • Others
  • Pensioners
  • Political Parties
  • Politics
  • Prices
  • Readers News Service
  • RELIGION
  • Religious Intolarence
  • RUSSIA
  • Science
  • Social Inclusion
  • Sports
  • STATES NEWS
  • Telangana
  • Telugu
  • UK
  • Uncategorized
  • USA
  • WAR
  • Women
  • Women

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • vedika
    • Join 234 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • vedika
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d bloggers like this: