The Left Turns as Multiple Paradigmatic Crises

Abstract

The left turns represent a ‘second incorporation crisis’ for Latin American countries. The discontent emerging from the effects of market reforms implemented in the context of weak states and highly unequal societies has fuelled this crisis, along with citizens’ widespread alienation with traditional parties and political elites. The left turns also yield three interrelated paradigmatic crises: one relates to political and economic praxis in the region, another concerns academic interpretations of the political economy of democracy and development for Latin America, and yet another concerns policy-making prescriptions. The failure to predict the left turn epitomises conventional wisdom's shortsightedness, which is also present in the now dominant interpretations on the current governing lefts in the region. A normative predilection for market economies and liberal democracy embedded in the theoretical and methodological toolbox of dominant approaches causes this myopia. The paper justifies this diagnostic and derives implications for future research.

Notes

The authors are grateful to Ariel Armony, Maxwell A Cameron, Rossana Castiglioni, Eric Hershberg, Sergio Toro and participants at both ‘Left Turns’ conferences for their comments on earlier drafts. The errors that remain are solely our responsibility. Research for this paper has been funded by FONDECYT project 1060760 and 1060749, of which Juan Pablo Luna is the Principal Researcher.

1 For a similar argument, see K Roberts, ‘The mobilisation of opposition to economic liberalisation’, Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 2008, pp 327–349.

2 See, for example, J Castañeda, ‘Latin America's left turn’, Foreign Affairs, 85 (3), 2006, pp 28–43; H Schamis, ‘Populism, socialism, and democratic institutions’, Journal of Democracy, 17, 2006, pp 19–34; and K Roberts, ‘Conceptual and historical perspectives’, in C Arnson & J Perales (eds), The ‘New Left’and Democratic Governance in Latin America, Washington, DC: Latin American Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2007, pp 10–14.

3 S Mainwaring, AM Bejarano & E Pizarro, The Crisis of Democratic Representation in the Andes, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006.

4 N Lechner, ‘The transformation of politics’, in F Agüero & J Stark (eds), Fault Lines of Democracy in Post-transition Latin America, Miami: North–South Center Press, 1998, pp 21–40; P Oxhorn, ‘Is the century of corporatism over? Neoliberalism and the rise of neopluralism’, in P Oxhorn & G Ducantenzeiler (eds), What Kind of Democracy? What Kind of Market? Latin America in the Age of Neoliberalism, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998; VE Tokman & G O'Donnell (eds), Poverty and Inequality in Latin America: Issues and New Challenges, Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1998; K Roberts, Deepening Democracy? The Modern Left and Social Movements in Chile and Peru, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998; Roberts, ‘Social inequalities without class cleavages in Latin America's neoliberal era’, Studies in Comparative Development, 36 (4), 2002, pp 3–33; MJ Kurtz, ‘The dilemmas of democracy in the open economy: lessons from Latin America’, World Politics, 56 (2), 2004, pp 262–302; and P Posner, ‘Local democracy and the transformation of popular participation in Chile’, Latin American Politics and Society, 46 (3), 2004, pp 55–81.

5 S Mainwaring, ‘Transitions to democracy and democratic consolidation: theoretical and comparative issues’, in S Mainwaring, G O'Donnell & JS Valenzuela (eds), Issues in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective, Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1992, pp 294–341; J Williamson, ‘What Washington means by policy reform’, in Williamson (ed), Latin American Adjustment: How Much Has Happened?, Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 1990, pp 7–20; JM Payne, D Zovatt & MM Díaz, Democracies in Development: Politics and Reform in Latin America, Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), 2007; and IADB, The Politics of Policies: Economic and Social Progress in Latin America, Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank, 2006.

6 See, for example, F Colburn, Latin America at the End of Politics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002.

7 See, for example, Castañeda, ‘Latin America's left turn’; and Schamis, ‘Populism, socialism, and democratic institutions’.

8 While structural and critical academic currents might not share these normative predilections, they had been less able to structure a unified counter-current against the increasingly influential neo-institutional mainstream.

9 T Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1962, p 168; and P Hall, ‘Policy paradigm, social learning and the state: the case of economic policy in Britain’, Comparative Politics, 25 (3), 1993, pp 275–296.

10 See also Roberts, ‘The mobilisation of opposition to economic liberalisation’.

11 Hillel Soifer & Mathias von Hau, ‘Unpacking the strength of the state: the utility of state infrastructural power’, Studies in Comparative International Development, 43 (3–4), 2008, pp 219–230.

12 Georg Lukacs, History & Class Consciousness, Berlin: Merlin Press, 1920.

13 Latin American populisms of the mid-twentieth century, the hydraulic societies of Asia that provided the basis for communism and authoritarian capitalism, as well as state-based economies with little room for markets and a strong orientation to equality, such as Finland in the 1950s, are some possible examples of successful incorporation arrangements.

14 In this context it might also be useful to resurrect Norbert Lechner's (1989) notion of legitimacy as the result of political projects that are able to synchronise objective (collective) timings and subjective (individual) needs. In this way, legitimacy and support for the incorporation project are more conveniently conceptualised as independent from the long-term plausibility (and normative traits) of the incorporation arrangement. Norbert Lechner, ‘El realismo politico, una cuestión de tiempo', Leviatán: Revista de hechos e ideas, 35, 1989, pp 113–130.

15 The combination of markets and liberal democracy achieved different results across Latin America. This is therefore a broad and quite possibly unwarranted generalisation in which we concur for the sake of argument.

16 Kurtz, ‘The dilemmas of democracy in the open economy’; and Roberts, ‘The mobilisation of opposition to economic liberalisation’.

17 M Blofield & JP Luna, ‘The social bases of polarisation: public opinion toward redistribution in Latin America’, paper presented at the American Political Science Association (APSA) Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, 2008.

18 MA Seligson, ‘The rise of populism and the left in Latin America’, Journal of Democracy, 18 (3), 2007, pp 81–95.

19 Ibid. The analytical leverage of this evidence is limited by the lack of data on country- and context-specific meanings of left–right self-placements.

20 A Moreno, Political Cleavages: Issues, Parties, and The Consolidation of Democracy, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999.

21 LAPOP, ‘Auditoría de la democracia—Informe Bolivia: 2006’, Barómetro de las Américas, at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/, accessed 8 November 2008.

22 See Mainwaring et al, The Crisis of Democratic Representation in the Andes; and J Morgan, ‘Partisanship during the collapse of Venezuela 's party system’, Latin American Research Review, 42 (1), 2007, pp 78–98.

23 See DL Van Cott, From Movements to Parties in Latin America: The Evolution of Ethnic Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005; and D Yashar, Contesting Citizenship in Latin America: The Rise of Indigenous Movements and the Postliberal Challenge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

24 J Rochlin, ‘Latin America's left turn and the new strategic landscape: the case of Bolivia’, Third World Quarterly, 28 (7), 2007, pp 1327–1342.

25 Morgan, ‘Partisanship during the collapse of Venezuela 's party system’.

26 Roberts, ‘Social inequalities without class cleavages in Latin America's neoliberal era’.

27 Mainwaring et al, The Crisis of Democratic Representation in the Andes; and O Sanchez, ‘Transformation and decay: the de-institutionalisation of party systems in South America’, Third World Quarterly, 29 (2), 2008, pp 315–337.

28 Cameron (this issue); and C Lomnitz, ‘Latin America's rebellion: will the new left set a new agenda?’, Boston Review, September/October, 2006, p 11.

29 See also K Weyland, ‘Politics and policies of Latin America's two lefts: the role of party systems vs resource bonanzas’, paper presented at the APSA annual meeting, Chicago, IL, 30 August 2007; and P Navia, ‘The successful Chilean left: neo-liberal and socialist’, in J Castañeda & MA Morales (eds), Leftovers: Tales of the Two Latin American Lefts, New York: Routledge, 2008.

30 See, for example, Castañeda, ‘Latin America's left turn’; and Schamis, ‘Populism, socialism, and democratic institutions’; and Navia, ‘The successful Chilean left’.

31 S Mainwaring & T Scully (eds), Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1995; and A Valenzuela, ‘Origenes y transformaciones del sistema de partidos en Chile’, Estudios Públicos, 58, 1995, pp 5–80.

32 Payne et al, Democracies in Development, pp 153–156.

33 The nature of ideological alignments described above would even call into question the labelling of these turns as either left or right.

34 See CEP survey, June 2008. Regular survey conducted by the Centro de Estudios Públicos. For more information see http://www.cepchile.cl/dms/lang_1/doc_4140.html, accessed 25 November 2008. The survey has national coverage and was taken between 7–26 June 2008, in Chilean households through face to face interviews. Sample size = 1,505 respondents.

35 A Joignant & P Navia, ‘De la política de individuos a los hombres del partido: socialización, competencia política y penetración electoral de la UDI (1989–2001)’, Estudios Públicos, 89, 2003, pp 129–171.

36 Previous research suggests that ‘booms’ (such as the present one that has helped to stabilise the shift to the left) are unlikely to breed significant policy shifts because they induce either ‘conservatism’ or negligent policy making. K Weyland, The Politics of Market Reform in Fragile Democracies: Argentina, Brazil, Perú and Venezuela, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002, p 5; and T Karl, The Paradox of Plenty: Oil Booms and Petro-States, Berkely, CA: University of California Press, 1997. Ironically, policy shifts might be more feasible in countries undergoing modest economic expansion that moderates distributive conflicts while not totally masking development bottlenecks.

37 See, for example, B Moore, The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1966; SM Lipset & S Rokkan, ‘Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments: an introduction’, in Lipset & Rokkan (eds), Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives, New York: Free Press, 1967, pp 1–64; and D Rueschemeyer, E Huber & J Stephens, Capitalism, Development and Democracy, Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1992.

38 See, for example, D Collier & R Collier, Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991; Rueschemeyer et al, Capitalism, Development and Democracy; and F Filgueira, Welfare and Democracy in Latin America: The Development, Crises, and Aftermath of Universal, Dual, and Exclusionary Social States, UNRISD Project on Social Policy and Democratisation, 2005.

39 After 1958 Venezuela consolidated a similar system, but primarily lubricated by oil rents, instead of ISI. Colombia also had a similar party system, but lacked significant ISI efforts.

40 A Valenzuela, Political Brokers in Chile: Local Government in a Centralised Polity, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1977; and T Scully, Rethinking the Center: Cleavages, Critical Junctures, and Party Evolution in Chile, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992.

41 By the punto fijo regime we refer to the institutions of the pacted two-party democracy dominated by AD and COPEI that had governed Venezuela since 1958.

42 T Petkoff, A Watershed Moment in Venezuela, Inter-American Dialogue, July 2008, at http://www.thedialogue.org, accessed 10 November 2008.

43 ‘Populism’, a category we have purposely avoided, introduces further normative and descriptive distortions (see Cameron this issue).

44 This characterisation is based on a series of interviews with 12 Venezuelan academics conducted in Caracas, July 2008.

45 S Handlin, ‘Reinventing class mobilisation in South America, 1998–2007’, paper presented at the APSA annual meeting, Boston, MA, 2008.

46 D Hansen & K Hawkins, ‘Dependent civil society: the “círculos Bolivarianos” in Venezuela’, Latin American Research Review, 41 (1), 2006, pp 102–132.

47 Karl, The Paradox of Plenty.

48 J Luna, ‘Democracia, Gobierno y Partidos: Introducción a LAPOP Chile 2008’, Revista de Ciencia Política, 28 (3), 2008, 115–141.

49 Filgueira, Welfare and Democracy in Latin America.

50 R Kaztman, ‘Convergencias y divergencias: exploración sobre los efectos de las nuevas modalidades de crecimiento sobre la estructura social de cuatro áreas metropolitanas en América Latina’, in R Katzman & G Wormald (eds), Trabajo y Ciudadanía: Los Cambiantes Rostros de la Integración y Exclusión Social en Cuatro Áreas Metropolitanas de América Latina, Montevideo, 2002, pp 23–60.

51 J Pribble, ‘Protecting the poor: welfare politics in Latin America's free market era’, PhD dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2008.

52 S Mainwaring, ‘Transitions to democracy and democratic consolidation: theoretical and comparative issues’, in Mainwaring et al, Issues in Democratic Consolidation, pp 294, 309, 312.

53 H Heclo, Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974; and Hall, ‘Policy paradigm, social learning and the state’.

54 We thank Maxwell Cameron for providing very useful comments and suggestion in discussing this topic.

55 See, for example, Castañeda, ‘Latin America's left turn’; Forrest D Colburn, Latin America at the End of Politics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002; Schamis, ‘Populism, socialism, and democratic institutions’; and Weyland, ‘Politics and policies of Latin America's two lefts’.

56 G O'Donnell, ‘Illusions about consolidation’, Journal of Democracy, 7 (2), 1996, pp 34–51; Agüero & Stark, Fault Lines of Democracy in Post-Transition Latin America; F Hagopian, ‘Democracy and political representation in Latin America in the 1990s: pause, reorganisation, or decline?’, in Agüero & Stark, Fault Lines of Democracy in Post-Transitional Latin America, pp 99–143; E Huber & J Stephens, ‘The bourgeoisie and democracy: historical and contemporary perspectives’, Social Research, 66 (3), 1999, pp 759–788; KM Robert, ‘The mobilisation of opposition to economic liberalisation’, Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 2008, pp 327–349; Roberts, ‘Social inequalities without class cleavages in Latin America's neoliberal era’; Kurtz, ‘The dilemmas of democracy in the open economy; and K Weyland, ‘The growing sustainability of Brazil's low-quality democracy’, in F Hagopian & S Mainwaring (eds), The Third Wave of Democratisation in Latin America: Advances and Setbacks, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

57 See, for example, Payne et al, Democracies in Development; and IADB, The Politics of Policies.

58 For examples that contravene this general portrait, see Roberts, ‘Social inequalities without class cleavages in Latin America's neoliberal era’; and Kurtz, ‘The dilemmas of democracy in the open economy’.

59 However, if created by a global recession, like that of 1929, and if neo-Keynesian remedies are sought elsewhere, the end of the commodity boom can also create room for relative autarchy and differentiation between countries.

60 Previous literature on the left turns points to additional sources of divergence. For instance, some have emphasised the party-system's effect on the political incorporation model, pointing out the moderating effect that institutionalised party systems exert on leftist ideological imprints. In turn, greater party-system crises have been more frequently observed in the context of failed states, high levels of social inequality and the systematic exclusion of significant sectors of the population. Mainwaring et al, The Crisis of Democratic Representation in the Andes. Finally, different endowments of raw materials also yield different degrees of leverage in the management of the economic system, creating both political-system and social-structure spill-overs. More obviously, during ‘boom’ times, countries exporting more valuable commodities could seek to ameliorate social disadvantage without resorting to redistributive policies. Commodity endowments also seem to have a selective affinity with leadership styles, as Weyland, ‘Politics and policies of Latin America's two lefts’, and Schamis, ‘Populism, socialism, and democratic institutions’, argue in their treatments of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. More systematic analysis of cases exploiting other commodities that yield distinct forward and backward linkages (not only in the economic arena, but also in the sociopolitical realm) are needed, as well as a full-blown theory that explores other implications (and interactions) of a given commodity specialisation or, stated more broadly, of particular ways of integrating into the global economy.

61 Guillermo O' Donnell, ‘On the State, Democratization and some Conceptual Problems: A Latin American View with Glances at some Postcommunist countries', World Development, 21 (8), 1993, pp 1355–1369; Guillermo O'Donnell, ‘Polyarchies and the (Un)Rule of Law in Latin America' in J Méndez, G. O'Donnell & P Pinheiro (eds), The Rule of Law and the Underprivileged in Latin America, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999, pp 303–337.